From Clown Cars to Moon Shots

The other day, a friend of mine asked me what I thought of Dr. Benjamin Carson. For those who don’t know, Dr. Carson is a retired and rather famous neurosurgeon. He recently addressed the National Prayer Breakfast where he made news for his criticism of Mr. Obama’s policies in general and specifically, for Obama Care. You can read the story here where there is a video of Dr. Carson’s speech.

I told my friend that I like Carson’s point of view. He shows he is willing to go toe-to-toe with Obama’s principles. However, at the end of the day, he’s a doctor. He knows not of the ways of politics and campaigning and it may eat him. Time will tell.

My friend then asked what I thought about him forming a third party.

I am no fan or supporter of a 3rd party system, no matter who steps up to form one. We should instead learn the lesson taught us by recent history when Ross Perot split the vote away from George H. W. Bush and allowed Bill Clinton to win. It’s a losing proposition.

Instead, we should concentrate on how to reconstitute the Republican Party which has allowed itself to be undercut and discredited by the left. The GOP has been a dismal failure on commanding the national dialog and delivering a message that can garner votes.

In addition, there is a bigger problem working against the GOP. Simply put, America has been subverted. That process has produced several generations of voters who believe they have a right to access to the treasury. From that same pool come the politicians who also believe they have that right. The GOP has a long and bumpy road ahead of it.

It was at this point I began to tell my friend about a recent article written by David A. Stockman. Stockman is a former Republican congressman from Michigan, President Ronald Reagan’s budget director from 1981 to 1985 and the author, most recently, of “The Great Deformation: The Corruption of Capitalism in America.” Mr. Stockman’s piece was very well written and also garnered some criticism from both the left and the right. The piece describes the current state of America, how we got that way and offers a remedy for our financial and political systems because these systems are indeed wrecked. Stockam’s point is that if we’re going to get anything done, it’s going to ….

… require a drastic deflation of the realm of politics and the abolition of incumbency itself, because the machinery of the state and the machinery of re-election have become conterminous. Prying them apart would entail sweeping constitutional surgery: amendments to give the president and members of Congress a single six-year term, with no re-election; providing 100 percent public financing for candidates; strictly limiting the duration of campaigns (say, to eight weeks); and prohibiting, for life, lobbying by anyone who has been on a legislative or executive payroll. It would also require overturning Citizens United and mandating that Congress pass a balanced budget, or face an automatic sequester of spending.

It would also require purging the corrosive financialization that has turned the economy into a giant casino since the 1970s. This would mean putting the great Wall Street banks out in the cold to compete as at-risk free enterprises, without access to cheap Fed loans or deposit insurance. Banks would be able to take deposits and make commercial loans, but be banned from trading, underwriting and money management in all its forms.

It would require, finally, benching the Fed’s central planners, and restoring the central bank’s original mission: to provide liquidity in times of crisis but never to buy government debt or try to micromanage the economy. Getting the Fed out of the financial markets is the only way to put free markets and genuine wealth creation back into capitalism.

As it turns out, this the the very issue that I have been rattling around in my head for awhile now, and it relates to my current vision of America as being a clown car aimlessly bouncing around in the desert, changing direction on every impact of a rock or armadillo. The issue takes the form of a few simple questions; “Where do we want America to be in 20-50 years? What should our priorities be and how do we get there when we change captains every 4-8 years? ” Remember, it took a mere 40 years to get where we are today. We should be looking for answers to these questions and if we’re going to solve the problems facing us we are going to need a national policy that takes on characteristics of a moon shot.

Have Our Chickens Finally Come Home?

 
Amazing, isn’t it? Right away, I have two thoughts.

First, people such as those presented in the video, are demonstrating an inability to process truth even when the facts are carefully laid out before them. Their minds have been corrupted to the point where that capability has been taken from them. They are no longer independent thinkers capable of engaging in critical analysis. In a sense, they are truly drones, zombies, the walking unconscious.

As a visible case for this point, in Greece, the populace run into the streets to protest and riot against austerity measures designed to pay off their astronomical level of debt. In effect, these people are protesting against the outcome of their own design, the result of generations who voted for politicians who have promised them benefits they could never afford. Their chickens have come home.

Second, Nikita Kruschev was absolutely correct when he addressed the Western Ambassadors at the Polish embassy in Moscow on November 18, 1956, where he said the following:

We will take America without firing a shot…….We will BURY YOU! We can’t expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism. “We do not have to invade the United States, we will destroy you from within.

Conclusion

I would have to say the process of subversion which has produced a population unable to process and accept truth has been very, very successful. In addition, our education system has performed superbly at keeping the voting population as dumb as a box of left-handed crayons while at the same time the media expertly performed their duties by continuing to pump pablum into the brains of American voters.

 
 

Securing our Borders to Secure our Economy

First, how crazy are you?

I doubt any sane person believes that sleeping with their home’s front and back door wide open is wise and it is certain they wouldn’t go to work the next morning leaving their garage door open. It’s not only dangerous, the thought process involved for someone to deliberately leave their home unsecured reflects an unhealthy mind. It’s certainly no way to run a home but without adequate borders, this is what we’ve been doing with our country.

A recap of our current effort to secure our home

The Secure Fence Act of 2006 was first introduced on September 13 of 2006 by Peter T. King (R-NY). The bill called for the construction of 700 miles of physical barriers along the Mexico-United States border. Additionally, the law authorizes more vehicle barriers, checkpoints, and lighting as well as authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to increase the use of advanced technology like cameras, satellites, and unmanned aerial vehicles to reinforce our infrastructure at the border.

Border barrier consisting of double chain link and barbed wire fences with light and infrared camera poles

The bill was passed by the House of Representatives with 283 voting “for” with 138 against. Days later, the Senate passed the bill with 80 voting “for” with 19 against. Most Republicans voted in support of the Fence Act while most Democrats voted against it. In October of 2006, President George W. Bush signed The Secure Fence Act of 2006 into law.

In January of 2008 the 110th Congress introduced Reinstatement of the Secure Fence Act of 2008 (H.R. 5124). This bill called for Homeland Security to construct an additional 700 miles of two layered, 14 foot high fencing along the southwest border. The bill died in committee and was never voted upon.

By April 2009 Homeland Security had erected about 613 miles of new pedestrian fencing and vehicle barriers along the southwest border from California to Texas.

In May 2010, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) unsuccessfully reintroduced for the second time his “Finish the Fence” amendment which would require Homeland Security to construct an additional 353 miles (568 km) of fencing along the US-Mexico border.

Growing State Budget Deficits

The left continues to fail to understand that if our country does not get our borders secured, state budget deficits will continue to grow, threatening our economy and our ability to recover from the recession by further burdening taxpayers with more taxes.

For information regarding state costs of illegal immigrants and state education budget short-falls, see Breaking the Piggy Bank: How Illegal Immigration is Sending Schools Into the Red.

The IRS is an Enabler of Illegal Immigrants

As for the left’s argument that illegal immigrants pay taxes, a recent audit by the Treasury Department found that $4.2 billion per year is handed out to illegal aliens from a program called the Child Tax Credit/Additional Child Tax Credit. The study found that the IRS did not require citizenship documentation for this tax credit. This study and others also pointed to widespread fraud involving other ‘refundable tax credits’ such as the ‘First Time Homebuyer Credit’ and the ‘Earned Income Tax Credit’ which is available to low income parents, as well as identity theft involving stolen Social Security numbers.

Illegal aliens use the IRS to collect additional money from the federal government, in additional to other programs they collect from including Obamacare. The IRS should not double as a welfare program and the ‘refundable tax credit’ program should be ended entirely, but it is even more absurd for the normally strict IRS to turn a blind eye to illegal aliens collecting welfare through this system.

Governor Perry’s view on a Border Fence for America

From Julia Preston, “Some Cheer Border Fence as Others Ponder the Cost”, “The New York Times”, October 18, 2011

Perry said that building a border-length fence would take “10 to 15 years and $30 billion” and would not be cost-effective.

In 2009, the Congressional Search Service reported that the Department of Homeland Security had spent roughly up to $21 million per mile to build a primary fence near San Diego. The cost had ballooned as the fence extended into hills and gullies along the line.

The same year, Customs and Border Protection estimated costs of building an additional 3.5 miles of fence near San Diego at $16 million per mile. Even this lower figure would yield a rough projection of $22.4 billion for a single fence across the 1,400 miles remaining today.

Imagine, 22.4 billion to secure America. Contrasting this against the $787 billion Stimulus bill, which analysts are saying (as predicted) hasn’t stimulated squat, we then see we could have built a border around America just over 40 times. We don’t hear much of an outrage about the wasteful failure of the so-called “stimulus” but you will always hear the left whine over 22 billion because it’s too much money to spend to protect America.

Political Views Are Reflected in Brain Structure

New scientific information show liberals are able to take conflicting information and “cope” with it better than conservatives. According to the study, liberals are likely to see threatening and conflicting sets of data as opportunities to explore.

For this reader, the study sheds some light on how liberals tend to make decisions which can lead to trouble. A current case illustrating this is represented by the nation’s astronomical debt level and the inability of liberals to recognize these fiscal conditions as a threat to our nation’s well-being. For them these conditions are viewed as an opportunity to explore further, a tack that does not lead to the correct actions required by these conditions. This is further represented by their willingness to continue to spend money which exacerbates the situation further.

On the other side, conservatives recognize the situation for what it is. It is viewed as threatening or upsetting to a desired and sound state, which is fiscal responsibility sans exploratory policies (liberal adventurism) that are dangerous to the country’s well being.

The irony here which is often repeated where liberals are involved, is that while liberals see the demise of their social programs as destructive to the country, the pursuit of such policies will actually deliver to everyone what they hope to avoid.

On the contrary, following sound fiscal policies, i.e. less spending, lowered tax rates, lowered federal debt ceilings and the reduction of entitlement programs (unsustainable access to the treasury), will actually give them what we all want, which is a healthy country whose populace are not enslaved by its government. With such an environment, everyone is in a better position to realize their own potential to succeed.

Individuals who call themselves liberal tend to have larger anterior cingulate cortexes, while those who call themselves conservative have larger amygdalas. Based on what is known about the functions of those two brain regions, the structural differences are consistent with reports showing a greater ability of liberals to cope with conflicting information and a greater ability of conservatives to recognize a threat, the researchers say.

Based upon the findings, it suggests liberals need to employ conservative thinking to save them from themselves. But it also sheds some light on why liberals are fond of viewing conservatives as unwilling to “progress” as they would want and why they generally view the Republican Party as the party of “No!”.

The other message here is that liberals cannot be reasoned with because they are inherently incapable of seeing the other side which is often pointing them to the error of their thinking.

The full story can be read here.

Some Elected Democrats are Abandoning their Party

Hard Lessons from Mid-Terms and National Census

The Democrat’s devastating mid-term defeat resulted in the Republicans gaining more than 60 seats in the House. The 2010 census shows that Americans also voted with their feet by abandoning Democrat controlled states in favor of states governed by Republicans or embracing more conservative policies.

What is clearly apparent is what drove voters in the mid-term election cycle. By and large their votes showed anti-incumbent and anti-Democrat attitudes. In addition, they were motivated further by concerns about the jobless recovery, lingering recession, a perceived lack of focus on job creation and preservation, as well as the perception of government overreaching (health care reform) and wasteful spending (bailouts, stimulus). While the Republican Party leadership was lacking in its conviction that it shared the same conservative viewpoint the abandonment of which angered so many conservative Americans, the Tea Party movement embraced these themes and when one looks at the incoming Republican freshman class, although not homogenous, it will generally be large, eager, and opposed to the size and intrusiveness of government.

The over-arching message given to the Democrats by the mid-terms and the census is that America in general is rejecting liberal policies which are being understood and judged as the reasons behind the bulk of the nation’s problems. The other message is that if you’re a Democrat seeking reelection, you had better find a way to distance yourself from the policies embraced by the Democrat Party to which you belong.

Conservatives in Democrat Clothing, Switching Ideology or Subverting their Enemy?

In the South, a number of Democrats elected to state offices have switched parties. At least 18 Democratic state legislators have jumped to the Republican Party and officials from both parties say more defections are likely in coming months.

While Democrats in other states are abandoning their party, most of the defections are occurring in Southern states. Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana and Texas have already seen cross-overs with more being anticipated.

In Georgia, where Republicans control all state offices as well as the legislature, nine Democratic legislators—eight representatives and one senator—have changed sides, strengthening solid GOP majorities. On the local level, even a black county commissioner who was once national president of the College Democrats of America has switched.

In Texas, where officials aren’t allowed to formally change parties until January, Republicans expect to pick up two state representatives and “around a dozen” county officials, judges and commissioners, state party spokesman Chris Elam said.

With the continuing shift away from the failed ideology of the left as shown by the mid-terms and census, the exodus of elected officials who abandon their party’s policies to embrace more conservative policies of their opposition creates a new set of questions regarding their loyalty to their beliefs and about their true intentions. If we can take the outcry from the left over Bush’s Patriot Act and the silence they observe about the intrusive policies of Obama’s TSA and policies which are exacerbating economic recovery it is apparent liberals generally do not like to stick to their own principles. Movements seen by their leadership only serve to enforce that view. On the other hand, perhaps the simple explanation is that defecting Democrats are beginning to recognize the failure of their policies and are abandoning their political belief system, but I really doubt that point of view.

There is yet another point of view; the population making their way out out of the rust belt’s liberal states and into the sun belt’s conservative states may represent the very voting base causing the rust belt in the first place. After all, they’ve crapped in their bed, now they’re looking for a new place to stay.

Voting with their feet – 2010 Census shows failure of Democrat Party Policies

What the 2010 Census Is Telling Us

The results of the U.S. 2010 census have been published and it shows the growth rate for the past decade was 9.7 percent, the lowest since the Great Depression. The declining U.S. growth rate since 2000 is due partly to the economic meltdown in 2008, which brought U.S. births and illegal immigration to a near standstill compared with previous years.

The 2010 census also shows the population continues to shift from Democratic-leaning Rust Belt states to Republican-leaning Sun Belt states.

Texas will gain four new House seats, and Florida will gain two. Gaining one each are Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah and Washington.

Ohio and New York will lose two House seats each. Losing one House seat are Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

The 2010 census results are used to distribute more than $400 billion in annual federal aid and will change each state’s Electoral College votes beginning in the 2012 presidential election. The population shift will affect 18 states when the 113th Congress takes office in 2013.

For the first time in its history, Democratic-leaning California will not gain a House seat after a census.

States carried by Barack Obama VS states carried by John McCain

In 2008, President Barack Obama lost in Texas and most of the other states that are gaining House seats. He carried most of the states that are losing House seats, including Ohio and New York. In all, those that voted for Barack Obama will get half a dozen less. States that voted for John McCain in 2008 will get 6 more electoral votes in 2012 .

Looking back to the previous election, the states carried by George W. Bush in 2004 gained six seats and the states carried by John Kerry lost six.

Big Gains For Texas and More Lessons About Taxes

Texas’ population grew 21 percent in the past decade, from nearly 21 million to more than 25 million. That was more rapid growth than in any states except for four much smaller ones (Nevada, Arizona, Utah and Idaho).

Texas’ diversified economy, business-friendly regulations and low taxes have attracted not only immigrants but substantial inflow from the other 49 states. As a result, the 2010 reapportionment gives Texas four additional House seats. In contrast, California gets no new House seats, for the first time since it was admitted to the Union in 1850.

There’s a similar lesson in the fact that Florida gains two seats in the reapportionment and New York loses two.

Growth tends to be stronger where taxes are lower. Seven of the nine states that do not levy an income tax grew faster than the national average. The other two, South Dakota and New Hampshire, had the fastest growth in their regions, the Midwest and New England.

Altogether, 35 percent of the nation’s total population growth occurred in these nine non-taxing states, which accounted for just 19 percent of total population at the beginning of the decade.

The Biggest Loser, Detroit Michigan – the showcase for leftist policies

The 2010 census shows Michigan was the only state to lose population during the past decade having lost .06% of its population since 2000. This report helps to explain why.

The loss means that in 2012 there will be one less lawmaker fighting for the state. It also means less money for statewide federal programs like cash assistance, education, childcare, and health care. It is without doubt that a liberal will tell you it is a time when they need the handouts the most.

Nevada gains but may lose

The state with the largest population growth was Nevada with just over 35%. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who helped author and then ram-rod the Health Care bill through congress, hails from Nevada. It will be interesting to see what the 2020 census will show for this state.

States with net gain in congressional seats:

* Texas, plus 4 (from 32 to 36)
* Florida, plus 2 (from 25 to 27)
* Arizona, plus 1 (from 8 to 9)
* Georgia, plus 1 (from 13 to 14)
* Nevada, plus 1 (from 3 to 4)
* South Carolina, plus 1 (from 6 to 7)
* Utah, plus 1 (from 3 to 4)
* Washington, plus 1 (from 9 to 10)

States with net loss in congressional seats:

* New York, minus 2 (from 29 to 27)
* Ohio, minus 2 (from 18 to 16)
* Illinois, minus 1 (from 19 to 18)
* Iowa, minus 1 (from 5 to 4)
* Louisiana, minus 1 (from 7 to 6)
* Massachusetts, minus 1 (from 10 to 9)
* Michigan, minus 1 (from 15 to 14)
* Missouri, minus 1 (from 9 to 8 )
* New Jersey, minus 1 (from 13 to 12)
* Pennsylvania, minus 1 (from 19 to 18)

Scientists Find ‘Liberal Gene’

Scientists at UCSD, Harvard have determined what I have suspected for a long, long, time. A given individual’s tendency to adopt liberal values with the accompanying mindset is based upon a genetic predisposition.

According to scientists at UC San Diego and Harvard University, ideology is affected by a dopamine receptor gene called DRD4.

The researchers determined that people “with a specific variant of the DRD4 gene were more likely to be liberal as adults.” However, the subjects were only more likely to have leanings to the left if they were also socially active during adolescence.

“It is the crucial interaction of two factors — the genetic predisposition and the environmental condition of having many friends in adolescence — that is associated with being more liberal,” according to the study.

The study was led by UCSD’s James Fowler and focused on 2,000 subjects from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health.

“These findings suggest that political affiliation is not based solely on the kind of social environment people experience,” said Fowler, who is a professor of political science and medical genetics.

The conclusion is that without this gene, a person’s tendency to adopt conservative thinking and the accompanying values are not predisposed by genetics; they are based solely upon life experiences, observation and education. By extension, a liberal’s reasons for becoming a Democrat is based less upon these reasons, driven by their genetic predisposition.

In short, liberals can’t help themselves. In addition, there is no use in trying to reason with them as their genetic makeup prohibit them from changing their minds, which is not totally their own to change.

While this study is only the latest, there have been others, some even conducted by clinical psychiatrists who describe them as having “strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded.”

Dr. Rossiter compares liberals to “spoiled, angry children,” who are rebelling against “the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave.”

You can read about Dr. Rossiter’s research and evaluation of the liberal mind here.