Independent Candidate Drops out of MI-9th Race, Endorses Rocky- Congressman Peters Calls All Independents 'Fringe'?

It is my pleasure to announce that the Independent candidate for Michigan Congress in the 9th District, Bob Gray, has just withdrawn from the race and endorsed the Republican nominee, Rocky Raczkowski! This follows the recent similar announcement from Libertarian candidate Adam Goodman who also withdrew from the race and endorsed Rocky.

After hearing the news, Gary Peters considered releasing yet another statement saying: “The news that Bob Gray has also joined the Rocky campaign comes as no surprise. The Rocky Campaign is the Noah’s ark of fringe candidates and ideas." There you have it- if you are not a liberal Democrat who embraces nationalizing our healthcare system or giving the government the power to cap and tax our energy and manufacturing system, then you are part of the 'fringe' that Peters laughs at. If you believe that government debt is a problem and that just throwing money at wild projects is not a wise solution to unemployment, then you are the 'fringe' to ignore to Peters. It just proves how out of touch Peters is and how much he in reality dislikes moderates, libertarians, independents, Republicans, or anyone else who isn't a far left liberal. If you are anything but a far-left liberal, you should know that Peters thinks you are the 'fringe'- but Rocky thinks that you are a good American whose values and beliefs should be respected. I hope you vote accordingly.

Libertarian Candidate Drops out of MI-9th Race and Endorses GOP Candidiate Rocky- Dem Congressman Peters Calls All Libertarians 'Fringe'

Third parties play an important role in our political system- the suck votes away from the major party candidate who is closest to that third party and help the major party candidate who is the most opposed to the third party win. In 1992, Reform Party supporters helped elect Clinton, in 2000 Green Party supporters helped elect Bush, and in 2008 Libertarian supporters helped elect Al Franken (see my posts Libertarians Screwed Themselves By Not Voting or Voting Libertarian or Libertarians Screwed Themselves Again by Not-Voting or Voting Libertarian). It is a two party system here in the United States, and those of you who vote for third parties out of principle are voting to hurt the major party candidate who is closest to your principles.

Recognizing this fact, and recognizing that one of the candidates is much closer to libertarian views than the other, it is my pleasure to announce that the Libertarian candidate for Michigan Congress in the 9th District, Adam Goodman, has just withdrawn from the race and endorsed the Republican nominee, Rocky Raczkowski!

In 2006 the Libertarian candidate (Adam Goodman) for the 9th District Michigan Congressional seat won 3,698 votes, or 1% of the votes cast that year, and in 2008 the Libertarian candidate (Adam Goodman) won 4,937, or 1.4% of the votes cast that year (source). It is my guess that 30% of the libertarian voters have already voted absentee and another 30% won't realize that their candidate has endorsed Rocky, but even still, this decision should send Rocky an additional 1,700 votes! The race right now is rumored to be very tight, and this might just make the difference!

After hearing the news, Gary Peters spokesman Dan Farough released a statement a short time later that said (source):  “The news that Adam Goodman has joined the Rocky campaign comes as no surprise. The Rocky Campaign is the Noah’s ark of fringe candidates and ideas." There you have it- if you are not a liberal Democrat who embraces nationalizing our healthcare system or  giving the government the power to cap and tax our energy and manufacturing system, then you are part of the 'fringe' that Peters laughs at. If you believe that government debt is a problem and that just throwing money at wild projects is not a wise solution to unemployment, then you are the 'fringe' to Peters. It just proves how out of touch Peters is and how much he in reality dislikes moderates, libertarians, independents, Republicans, or anyone else who isn't a far left liberal. If you are anything but a far-left liberal, you should know that Peters thinks you are the 'fringe'- but Rocky thinks that you are a good American whose values and beliefs should be respected, and I hope you vote accordingly.

Oh, if you haven't seen the latest advertisement from Rocky yet, it's great- go to http://www.rockyworksforus.com/ to help him get it on the TV everywhere.

Don't Overthink It- the Data is Pretty Clear

Today while listening to various liberal talk radio stations, I heard the same thing over and over again- it isn't the Democrats fault that everything is going wrong in our nation, they just need more time. If only they were given another decade with total control over every aspect our nation, things would continue to get worse and worse, but after that, we could look forward to unicorns and rainbows and heaven on earth.

Here is the data. Based on this, what do you see that would cause you to continue to vote for Democrats and their policies?

Come on- what is the data telling you? What truth is staring you straight in the face? When you put in place liberal policies, what is the result? If this is the result after 4 years of Democratic control of Congress and 2 years of the Presidency, what do you think will happen if you continue to leave them in control?

Don't overthink this one.

Obama Takes Break from TV and Golf to Do Interveiws with Pajama Bloggers

From the Huntington Post, via Gatewaypundit, we get a glimpse into exactly how the President of the United States spends his time running the executive branch of our nation:

President Barack Obama has gone on a veritable media blitz as the election has approached, speaking to reporters in off-record settings, doing sit-down interviews with traditional (National Journal) and alternative (Rolling Stone) publications, and appearing on radio programs with varying audiences (Al Sharpton and Michael Smerconish’s shows just this week). The reach extends deep into the entrails of the new media world as well. On Wednesday, the president conducted what appears to be the first ever in-person sit-down with political bloggers, hosting a group of five in the White House.

A lot of blogs are focusing on the fact that the bloggers that the President of the United States met with happen to be some of the most liberal bloggers on the net and advocate views ranging from fascism to communism, but that's not really what I want to point out- I want to point out that while our economy continues to suffer, while the war continues against terrorism, while poverty continues to grow, and while Iran goes about building a nuclear bomb to wipe out Israel, our President has decided that the best way to spend his time, talents, and energy is taking a break from making appearances on TV shows and playing golf to instead do interviews, radio programs, and hold meetings with pajama bloggers.

Did you vote for this clown? Did anyone you know vote for him? Are you serious about even thinking about possibly voting for him again?

US Increasingly Corrupt According to Study- Obama Says This Election is About That Agenda

The United States has dropped out of the "top 20" in a global league table of least corrupt nations, tarnished by financial scandals and the influence of money in politics, Transparency International said on Tuesday. In response, US President Barack Obama (Democrat) said "My name may not be on the ballot (for the midterm elections on Nov 2), but our agenda for moving forward is."
Obama's agenda for moving forward, which increasing includes questionable lending practices in the subprime crisis, various campaign funding schemes, and rows over political funding, have all rattled public faith about prevailing ethics in America and contributed to the increasing corruption in the US political system, to a level not seen since. "I also think anybody who is concerned about the direction of the country has to understand that this election is just as important as 2008," Obama explained.

Obama is right- this election is about the direction our nation is headed and his agenda- an agenda that favors corruption, crony capitalism, lawless takeovers, taxpayer money flowing to politically connected companies and groups, and increasing state control over larger and larger segments of the economy. Before you go to the polls, before your family members go to the polls, remind them of what they are voting for this election- America is increasingly rated as less free, less prosperous, more corrupt, and it has all been going on under Democratic control of Congress and the Presidency.

Transparency International pointed out that in many states, notably Democratic-run New York and Illinois, iinfluence apparently could be bought and sold, and that was not good. Also it was noted that in the United States, because the Democrats control the Congress, there appears to be almost no oversight of the sprawling and active and unrestricted executive branch, and this also increased the corruption of our political system.

"Essentially, in 2008, we won the ability to start making change, and that's what we've done over the last two years," Obama said. He's right- and it now is up to you to vote whether or not you like these changes by voting for Congress this election.

The Hill and Reuters helped contribute to this post. I could only find Transparency International's report from 2007 to buy (Global Corruption Report 2007: Corruption in Judicial Systems (Transparency International Global Corruption Reports)- it'd be interesting to buy that though and compare it to the one from 2010, after Democrats gained control of Congress and the White House.

One Week Left Before Real Change

Whether you realize it or not, there is only one week left- 7 days- until the midterm election. This election in Michigan is about several things- getting rid of our liberal Democrat Governor, keeping Republican control of the offices in charge of elections and law, putting in place the right conservative people at the local level, and letting President Obama know that we reject his agenda by rejecting Democratic candidates at the national level. At the least, you need to make sure that you vote Republican for Congress or Senate this year, but if you want to become more involved, you should volunteer to help out by making some phone calls or go door to door or donate some money. If your race for Senator or Congress isn't competitive, then you can always feel free to help out or donate to the race for Congress here in Michigan's 9th District.

Here in the 9th District of Michigan, the Republican candidate Andrew 'Rocky' Raczkowski is in a dogfight with the incumbent Democrat Congressman Gary 'Pelosi' Peters. Peters won the historically-Republican district in 2008 by riding the coattails of Old Hope'n'Change, and now is pretending he is a fiscal conservative Republican by running commercial after commercial bragging about how he supports the opposite of everything that he voted for the last two years in Congress. Peters doesn't mention his party and doesn't mention his votes on the issues, and like most Democrats around the country, he is dumping massive amounts of special interest money into unbased and false personal attacks of Rocky. This race is an important race- Erick Erickson at Redstate put together a list of the top 99 GOP hopefuls this election, and the race for MI-9 was rated as #76 (he says it 'leans Dem', but that means nothing if on election day the GOP and independents and moderates all vote for Rocky).

MLive.com reports that both candidates recently appeared separately on WJR-AM 760:

Peters attempted to frame himself as a job-facilitator, touting recent his work on the Small Business Act, which is designed to spur local lending, and the Advanced Vehicle Technology Act passed last year.

Raczkowski replied "I've never so much rhetoric before in my entire life," referencing Peters' controversial votes on health care reform and cap-and-trade legislation.  "...I haven't seen anything come out of his office that helps Michigan or focuses on Michigan or actually really works on the issues that we have to do. He's been a rubber stamp for this administration, and I'm not a rubber stamp for any administration. I'm a rubber stamp for Michigan and for Oakland County families."

Peters is attempting to frame the situation, and Rocky is attempting to get voters to vote based on Peters record. Here is how dagblog analyzes the situation:

MI-9: First-term incumbent Gary Peters (D), a nine point winner in 2008, seeks to defend this depressed suburban district against the almost unfunded challenge of Rocky Raczkowski, who was nicked in the primary by charges that he committed fraud in connection with his business. Rocky led in one poll, and trailed in another, by EPIC-MRA, which seems to have a major house lean. This is a jump ball, but I really don't like relying on the EPIC-MRA poll. Jump ball, but I take the GOPer.

The only reason why this race is close is because Rocky is running his campaign by raising money from real people and isn't getting bought off by special interests like Peters. If you contribute to his campaign at http://www.rockyworksforus.com/ you can help him win!

Every Tea Party Candidate Supports Privatizing Popular and Successful Social Security Program!

That's right- according to Democratic candidates and strategists and pundits and blogs, every tea party candidate supports privatizing popular and successful Social Security program, or at least this is the word-for-word line that Democratic candidates and strategists and pundits and blogs are parroting. By similar logic, every Democratic Candidate Supports Nationalizing Popular and Successful Car Companies! Oh wait...

So you're saying that just because one person or a couple people who is affiliated with something says something or characterizes something in a certain way we can't blanket stereotype everyone from that group? Yes, it is true that some Tea Party candidates believe in privatizing Social Security, although since there is no real official 'tea party' that would be hard to be clear on, plus there is no national 'tea party' platform, so it would be hard to prove that a candidate who isn't labeled 'tea party' supports a platform that isn't written down anywhere. So I guess saying 'every tea party candidate supports' is as accurate as saying 'every Democractic candidate supports.' But the rest of the statement is true, right?

So you're saying that exaggerating the position of a group isn't something that we should do? Some candidates support modernizing and changing and hoping and unicorning a program like Social Security by allowing people choices and control, but this isn't the same things as 'privatizing' the program, any more than Obama and the Democrats swooping in and seizing a large private company in violation to the bankruptcy laws of our nation is the same as nationalizing a company. Overstating positions and exaggerating a candidates position is the kind of sleight-of-hand and trickery that real candidates, blogs, and pundits shouldn't rely on. Although in retrospect, I guess I'm still confused how what Obama and the Democrats did to GM was not illegally nationalizing a company so that political elites could divide up its assets and distribute them to political supporters. Regardless, GM and Social Security were both successful and popular, right?

Does successful and popular mean a giant pyramid scheme that benefits a particular group in society? Oh sure, old people and those nearing retirement age really like social security, but young people and those far from retirement age don't (and if they do they are morons). It won't be there for them when they retire, at least not in its current form, so the deal that is being made now- pay a fair percentage of your income to the government to hold on to it for you so that when you retire you can retire with a comfortable source of income- is a raw deal. Young people will pay their entire lives into a system that will pay them greatly reduced benefits when they retire, but old people who are getting the sweet deal now certainly like it, that's for sure. Oh, and as far as being successful- I've got a business opportunity for you, you just sell this thing to seven people, and if they sell it to seven people, then you'll make lots of money... social security is successful just like Democrats are successful, in that it exists and is sucking the system dry before it collapses.

Huh, weird, when you actually listen to what liberals and Democrats say and throw it through some logic and analysis, their best arguments are pretty lame.

Call Me "Senator": Zucker's Spoof

Via The Hill:

David Zucker, the director of the 1980 comedy classic "Airplane!" who has worked on myriad films including the "Naked Gun" and "Scary Movie" franchises, directed the "Call Me Senator" spot for Right Change, a 527 and 501(c)4 organization "committed to supporting policies and candidates dedicated to fiscal responsibility and a strong national security for the United States, while upholding the principles of freedom, competitiveness and entrepreneurial spirit of the American people."

The spot goofs on Boxer's testy exchange with Brig. Gen. Michael Walsh at a June 2009 hearing of the Committee on Environment and Public Works. "You know, do me a favor," Boxer told the officer, who was using military protocol to address those higher on the chain of command by "sir" or "ma'am." "Could say 'senator' instead of 'ma'am?'"

"Yes, ma'am," Walsh responded. "It's just a thing, I worked so hard to get that title, so I'd appreciate it, yes, thank you," Boxer continued. "Yes, senator," he responded.

Pretty funny stuff. Here it is:

Memeorandum is all over this story!

How the New Media are Transforming the Political Landscape

Yesterday The Mackinac Center hosted a panel discussion with John Fund, Frank Beckmann, Kathy Hoekstra, Ken Braun and Henry Payne on the topic of The Alternatives: “How New Media are Transforming the Political Landscape”.  You can watch it yourself by going to the Mackinac Center website, and I encourage you to do so, because each of their prepared remarks were very insightful as to how blogs, talk radio, and Fox are changing the way that the media affects the political system. I'm not going to repeat their remarks, but I would like to elaborate on and comment on some of the things that they said during their discussion.

As I tell my students, the media plays several important roles in the political process in our country, and one of the most important roles that it plays is to be the gatekeeper of the news. This means that there is news, information, analysis, and events occurring, but it is The Media that controls what is allowed through the gate into people's homes. In the past, traditional media controlled that gate and as such could pick and choose what it wanted people to hear, and frequently traditional media would pick and choose based not on the importance of the news event or the quality of analysis, but rather on the bias and prejudices of the gatekeeper. The new media, such as blogs, Fox, and talk radio, have broken down those gates and widened them, so now the public has considerably greater access to the news in our nation, and that means will be more able to stay in touch with events, read different points of view or analysis, and get direct access to the sources that the old traditional media used to have a monopoly on.

Frank Beckmann pointed out the impact that the changing of the gatekeeper role will have on our nation when he talked about how today, because of the new media and the ease of access to it, political power is now returning back to the people and allowing the citizens of our nation incredible access to information. This access to information and analysis has been a contributing factor in the Tea Party movement, where citizens are accessing and reading proposed legislation and discussing it and analyzing it and then attempting to communicate their opinions about that legislation to their Congressman. In the past that information and analysis was controlled and biased and not fully accessible and Congressman could pass a bill without reading it and never be called out by a citizen, but that was the past, and the new media is changing that landscape.

Another interesting tidbit that I heard from John Fund was about the important role and power that citizen journalists are playing in today's political system. In the past, you had to spend long years going through liberal Ivy League schools and learning both the trade and the slant before you could become a journalist, but with the advance of flip-phones, blogs, youtube, and the internet, anyone can be a journalist. Even a public school teacher like me has the potential to break important stories and bring the news to do you, reporting on events (like this one) that the traditional media ignores or doesn't know about. The power of information has flowed to us, the citizens, and it is up to us to seize it.

My blog is the new media, and I believe that it is within my power to change the political landscape for the better. All I need is readers, and that is where you come in. If you haven't already linked to my blog from yours, please do so. If you haven't made my blog one of your favorites or bookmarks, please do so. You don't have to read my blog every day (mom, I'm talking to you), but you should read it at least once a week, otherwise you are ceding back to the old media the gatekeeper and watchdog and information resource roles that the new media like me have struggled so hard to grasp. Let's change our habits and change the direction of our nation by changing the ways that we access the news and information and analysis of the world- let's all jump on the new media bandwagon.

John Fund is the author of Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy and How the Obama Administration Threatens to Undermine Our Elections.

UPDATE: By the way, congratulations to fellow bloggers theblogprof and Michigan Taxes Too Much, both of whom were mentioned by name for the contributions they have made in changing the political landscape recently. We've got quite a powerful little group of bloggers here in Michigan, and we're lucky to have them!

UPDATE II: Thank you Grand Rants for your linking to this story! My only compliant is that you characterized me as " the great unwashed, those bloggers in their jammies who continue to kick against the pricks", and I do wash every now and then and the jammies have a flap in the back.

UPDATE III: Thank you to Liberty Junky for linking to this story too! This is a great site- if you haven't checked it out already, please do so.

UPDATE III: Thank you to Political Realities for linking to this story! Continue to do a great job in finding the news, publishing the news, framing the news, and opening wide the gates of the news!

I Don't Have a Freaken Clue who Charles and David Koch Are- And Yet I'm a Tea Partier

George Moonbeam, writing in the Guardian, attempts to propagate the kind of nonsense that you will hear a lot of after the biggest Tea Party ever next Tuesday- that the Tea Party movement is an 'astroturf' movement by the super rich which is attempting to give more power to evil corporations.

Moonbeam begins his editorial, which I found on RealClearPolitics and was also linked to on Memeorandum, by stating that the Tea Party Movement is "mostly composed of passionate, well-meaning people who think they are fighting elite power, unaware that they have been organised by the very interests they believe they are confronting." You hear that Tea Partiers- Mr. Moonbean thinks that  you are idiots who have been duped by evil right wing corporations into fighting for the very things you disagree with. He goes on to detail how Charles and David Koch are some guys who are organizing the entire tea party movement.

When will these liberal elitists get it- the Tea Party movement is local and powerful and not astroturf!

VFW Endorsement of Peters Causes VFW Members to Dissolve VFW PAC!

The Veterans of Foreign Wars recently decided to endorse Gary Peters, who is well-known for being hostile to America, veterans, and the military, supporting policies that hurts the voting rights of active members of the military and supporting the rights of protesters to shout obscenities at fallen hero's during their funerals. In spite of his hostility to veterans, the VFW endorsed him because the VFW leadership ignored what its members wanted and decided to support a liberal Democrat, regardless of his views. Gary Peters is still touting that endorsement. But because the VFW endorsed people it shouldn't have, its members revolted and protested, and in the face of widespread opposition, the VFW decided to dissolve its PAC and instead endorse no one this election.

So, partly because of its endorsement of Democrat Gary Peters in the race for Congress in Michigan's 9th District, the VFW was forced to dissolve its PAC and revoke its endorsement of candidates. That should tell you something about how bad of a candidate Gary Peters is and about how offensive it was to veterans in the VFW that he was given its endorsement- they were so upset with the endorsement that they decided to completely dissolve their PAC rather than stand for the endorsement of people like Gary Peters.

According to the letter that the VFW Commander-in-Chief sent out, "the recent endorsement decisions (of Gary Peters and others) have, in fact, harmed the VFW’s reputation and future ability to fulfill our mission."

That's Gary Peters for you- destroying the VFW's reputation and hurting its ability to fulfill its mission.

$42K Per Questionable Job 'Saved'- That's the Record in Michigan on Stimulus

Buried in the story Stimulus projects under fire I saw this gem:

But supporters counter that the stimulus funds have had a major impact. Out of $7.6 billion awarded, Michigan has received $3 billion for projects that have led to 70,000 jobs, according to the Michigan Economic Recovery Office.

Let's do some quick math- 3,000,000,000/70,000. It equals $42,857.

So you work hard and produce a certain good or perform some sort of service. For your labor and effort skill, the government comes along and taxes you, and the more labor or effort or skill you put in, the more then government taxes you. That tax money is collected by a government agency, housed in a nice office building staffed by government agents paid a salary higher to one they would be paid if they worked in the private sector. These agents take that tax money and put it into an account. Elected officials (nice offices, nice salaries, lifetime benefits) then vote to take that money (plus money from your children and grandchildren, borrowed on interest from China) and spend it building roads or bridges or conducting studies or science or something. That money now goes to a government agency (nice offices, high salaries) which debates what to do with all that money. After much deliberation, they decide to spend it on such things as a professor  getting $145,000 to take students to Africa or a University of Michigan scientist getting $500,000 for a study on people's impact on the environment in Nepal. Then these bureaucrats put the money into accounts for each of these products.

By this point, the money has been cycled through many government agents and agencies, each one taking a cut of the money, and in reality very little of that money makes it to the 'shovel-ready' project. That explains why it costs $42K for the government to create a single job in Michigan, a job that performs actions that are questionable at best.

Any Congressman that voted in favor of the stimulus bill should be thrown out of office for their role in the mismanagement and wastefulness of public funds, and you can find this data at http://nationalrepublicantrust.com/PelosiIndex/Table_complete.php and see where your Congressman voted on key legislation. For their stupidity, lack of knowledge, and failure to lead our nation they deserve to be removed from their jobs. Spending $42K in taxpayer money to save a single job is not an efficient use of government money.

For those who are interested in learning more, check out Guide to the Stimulus: The Definitive Desk Reference to the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act 2009.

Daily Update on Obama's Television Appearances

President Barack Obama will appear on an upcoming episode of "Mythbusters" a television show that uses science to determine the truth.

Officials say the president's appearance, which was recently taped during the heart of the Great Recession, is part of a White House push to promote math and science education.

This follows the President of the United State's recent appearances on; The View, where he promoted women's rights; George Lopez Show, where he promoted minority comedians; and the Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien, where he helped promote interest in large foreheads and red hair.

Stay tuned for any updates on whether or not Obama will take some time off soon from golfing to make cameo appearances on Deadliest Warrior, the Big Bang Theory, Community, or Sunday Night Football- all of my current favorite shows.

Vote Ruth Johnson for Michigan Secretary of State

According to a recent Detroit News poll, the Michigan Secretary of State race is a statistical dead heat moving into the last three weeks of campaigning, with the Republican candidate Ruth Johnson leading the Democratic candidate Joslyn Benson 52.9 to 46.7. This is too close to the margin of error for my liking, so I want to remind all of you why it is important for you to pay attention this election and vote for Ruth Johnson for Secretary of State of Michigan.

In Recommendation on the GOP Candidate for Secretary of State I wrote:

Unlike in years past when the Secretary of State race really didn't matter that much, this year it does. The main reason for this is because of billionaire George Sorus and his attempt to corrupt our democracy by corrupting the very nature of elections in our county. As I wrote earlier in Soros Creates Project to Install Secretaries of State Across the Nation in Attempt to Control Vote Counting Forever:

George Soros has created a "527" group called the Secretary of State Project, which can accept unlimited undisclosed money, and will use that money to run attack ads and hit pieces on Republican and moderate Democrats in an attempt to install left-wing Democrats as secretaries of state across the nation. Once Soros has put in place left-wing Democrats as secretaries of state all across the nation, they will be the ones counting the votes, deciding who is a registered voter and who isn't, and supervising the election process.

Joseph Stalin once remarked, "The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything." George Soros is setting it up so that across the nation, left-wing Democrats will decide everything for our nation.

SoS Project is also endorsing Jocelyn Benson, candidate for secretary of state in Michigan, whom it lauds as an "[e]lection law scholar and community organizer." Benson is a candidate ACORN would love.

Now that you understand why important it is to win the Secretary of State position this year, let's immediately narrow down our list of possible candidates. Of course I hope that no one in their right mind considers voting for Democrat Jocelyn Benson- she is a left-wing liberal professor and lawyer who wants to let illegal aliens and Democrats from out of state vote, doesn't really like the 'one-person, one-vote' rule, wants to put an electronic chip in your license card so that she can track you at all times, wants to have Democrats count the votes and certify the votes in any election, and thinks that ACORN should run the entire Secretary of State office.

Also we probably can eliminate Green Party nominee John Anthony La Pietra, who is an attorney and likely a watermelon, Libertarian Scotty Boman, who is a community college instructor and will only suck votes away from real conservative candidates, and Tea Party candidate Kyle Franklin, who likely lives in California and is a registered Democrat who got on the ballot through forged signatures (see my post Fake Tea Party Group Exposed as Democrat Plot!).

Ruth Johnson has a Master's Degree, was on the Oakland County Board of Commissioners from 1989-1998, was a State Representatives from 1999-2002, and since 2003 has served as the Oakland County Clerk. She's an able and nice clerk, but I remain bothered by her inability to run away with her last elections. Also, she seems to be approaching the SoS position more as a legislator and less as an administrator. She's a good clerk and her experience running elections and ballots is a good plus.

Although Johnson was not my first pick in the primary, you would have to be a crazy liberal to want anyone else to win that seat in the upcoming general election. If Benson were to win, you could expect the rule of law to crumble in our state and for her to use that office to corrupt the voting process. Make sure you vote for Ruth Johnson for Michigan Secretary of State this election.

Direct Democracy: Is it Better than our Representative Democracy?

The Swiss recently celebrated the digging of a $10 billion, 35.4-mile (57-kilometer) tube will connect Europe's high-speed rail network to various valleys and low lying areas of Switzerland, without having to use trucks to go over the Alps. This is a mighty accomplishment, but what was intriguing about it was the way that it was done- Swiss voters approved the tunnel's construction in a series of referendums almost 20 years ago, where despite some criticism at the cost — almost $1,300 for every citizen — the proposal passed by a wide margin.

"Today proves how sustainable, strong and efficient our direct democracy is," Swiss Transport Minister Moritz Leuenberger told miners, VIPs and reporters amid the raucous underground celebrating as the huge drill broke through the last stretch of rock deep in the Swiss Alps.

Direct democracy is a form of democracy which sovereignty is lodged in the assembly of all citizens who choose to participate. Depending on the particular system, this assembly might pass executive motions, make laws, elect or dismiss officials, and conduct trials. Direct democracy stands in contrast to representative democracy, where sovereignty is exercised by a subset of the people, usually on the basis of election. In America, we have elements of direct democracy in the form of initiatives, referendums, and recalls, but mostly our nation relies on electing officials who then make decisions for us.

After watching the disasters of the last several decades, where more and more political power is accumulated in the national government and representatives increasingly represent larger and larger population groups, I have to wonder if our system works any more. It isn't working any more like our founding fathers designed it- direct election of senators, fixed number of Representatives, vast expansion of federal government, etc- so it shouldn't offend conservatives to question our present system. Perhaps it is the system that is broken, and a radical new fix is required?

Via wikipedia's entry on Direct Democracy:

In Switzerland, single majorities are sufficient at the town, city, and canton level, but at the national level, double majorities are required on constitutional matters. The intent of the double majorities is simply to ensure any citizen-made law's legitimacy.

Double majorities are, first, the approval by a majority of those voting, and, second, a majority of cantons in which a majority of those voting approve the ballot measure. In 1890, when the provisions for Swiss national citizen lawmaking were being debated by civil society and government, the Swiss copied the idea of double majorities from the United States Congress, in which House votes were to represent the people and Senate votes were to represent the states. According to its supporters, this "legitimacy-rich" approach to national citizen lawmaking has been very successful. Switzerland has had tandem successes both socially and economically which are matched by only a few other nations, and that the United States is not one of them.

Did you catch that? Originally, the Swiss copied our system, and have since been very happy with it, but here in America, the progressives (early liberals) changed our system and since then, our nation has been increasingly unhappy with our system and the laws it passes, both by Republicans and Democrats. Double majorities and direct democracy may be the direction that our nation should go in the future to achieve more legitimate government.

How might this look and how might this be implemented in that United States? Well, the easiest place to start would be to conduct a constitutional convention at the state level and go about testing this idea at the state level, whereby a state would invest political power in both county level government and state level government, which would both have veto power over any proposed legislation of state-wide importance. Of course state authorities would have responsibility for day-to-day management of the state, but major legislation (raising of taxes, new executive agencies, legalization of drugs, major regulation of healthcare or energy industries, building of new major transportation lines, etc) would be required to pass a double majority of both state government (which could be unicameral) and a majority of county governments (which also could be unicameral). This would increase the legitimacy of laws that were passed in a given state and ensure that citizens were engaged and supportive of any major laws passed by the state.

Our founding fathers knew that local government and limited government were important to in the creation of laws that the people supported and believed in, and yet over the years our government has become increasingly illegitimate, both with the engagement of the United States in unpopular wars and the more recent passage of unpopular legislation such as Obamacare, the stimulus bill, and budget bills. Our nation might need an example or inspiration for change, and we've learned it can't come from the election of one person and that structural changes are needed- perhaps Switzerland's direct democracy system, modified and adopted by a US state, could serve as that basis.

Suggested book to read related to this post: The Referendum: Direct Democracy in Switzerland.

UPDATE: Saw a post by John Woo called Repeal the 17th Amendment. I'm all for it, and I think this latest line of thought about providing for a double majority is fascinating. At the very least, state governments should pass a law requesting that their federal senators appear monthly in front of the state legislators and discuss what they've been up to. It might serve some positive purpose on making Senators justify their paychecks, since they have a term so long that people lose track of exactly what they do with all that time.

Typical Example of the Type of Hate Mail I Receive Daily

Joe at jgeldhof@comcast.net sent me an email recently called 'identify yourself', where he displays all the typical racist, angry, sexist, and ignorant views that are common to liberals and Democrats. For amusement, here is his email, which is the kind of typical stuff I have to read from his kind. I apologize in advance for the language:

Why don't you identify yourself. You right wing hypocrites like hiding behind the sign post and spread lies about anything liberal. It was you dumb shits that caused all of the troubles in the first place. Why don't you get your head out of Cheney and Biush's nether regions and face the truth. Your are so jealous that a black man as president did what you white supremacist couldn't do. Listen to the peopl, pass healthcare reform, banking regulations, wall street reform. These are concepts that you little brained right wingers can't underatand.  You deserve Sarah Palin and the rest of the right wing skirts that can't think standing up. Six months ago, she couldn't even spell conservative and now she is one!!!!!

This person by themself is simply a harmless, angry, sexist, racist individual. But put this person in a position of power over me or you, and he is dangerous. Make him a bureaucrat in charge of your healthcare choices, or in charge of your energy uses, or in charge of regulating your company, and he degrades the human condition and represents a threat to your life, liberty, and property. This person is the reason why our Founding Fathers wisely made government divided, conflicted, inefficient, weak, and limited- not because in hands of great people government can't do great things, but because in the hands of Joe, government could be very terrible. Thanks for pointing this out Joe.

UPDATE: For those who are curious, Joe sent me further emails... here is some of the stuff that he wrote...
He further proves my points above about how dangerous someone like him is with political power.

I'm not a right wing wack job that listens to the pictures drawn by the likes of: palin, Cheney, lieberman, bush, bush, and bush, and Rush, and hannity, and o'reilly (who got his nuts twisted by women). keep defending these buttocks and we'll see how long this country lasts.... hooray for the African American in the white house. Makes you guys look like wimps... where do you store your white sheet and hood... you're a facist... you're a communist...

He is just further proving my point that it will not be a good thing for him and his kind to have power over me and my kind (and me and my kind don't want any power over him and his kind).

Management of Genesse County Parks and Recreation Puts Democratic Management of National Government to Shame- Less Waste, More Efficient, and Better

Recessions do have a silver lining- they force businesses and families to reassess their priorities and battle to become more efficient. In times of plenty and prosperity, people begin to spend money and time and effort on luxuries and those things that they may not care too much about. Businesses waste time and materials and resources but do not notice the waste due to the profits coming in. But once profits shrink, once bad investments need to be paid for, once incomes drop, people and businesses are forced to become lean, mean, fighting machines again, and the world is a better place for it. Less materials are wasted, less manpower is idled, less products are produced for limited demand, and less skills are underutilized. Time and money, once in shorter supply, are more valued, and once more valued, are spent more on important things and less on unimportant things. No one likes a recession, and in a perfect world, we would all always live in a time of plenty when time, money, resources, effort, materials, and skills could be wasted and idled away, but in the real world, every now and then we do need to refocus and retool.

Recessions should also focus government to refocus and retool, and become leaner and more efficient at delivering the services that it provides in our society. Questions should be asked and answered as to what government is doing, what it is doing well, and what it should not be doing, and what it is not doing well. Recessions give our government a chance to refocus on what is really important and get back to doing the basics better.

For example, in Genesse County, the Parks and Recreation department there faces declining revenues, and instead of begging for more money, which isn't coming, and instead of cancelling services, which isn't what our nation needs right now, they have instead innovated, adapted, and become more efficient. They started a program called $10 Ideas. Each member of the staff was challenged to think up a single way that the department could save $10. After just 10 months, the group tallied up savings of $167,000 in fuel, office supplies, electricity, postage, uniforms and telephone charges. Genesse County Parks and Recreation is a model of what government should be doing in this recession- getting more efficient and doing more with less.

In one short year, this department has come up with more great ideas on how to do more with less than a Democratic Congress did in the four years it ran Congress. It implement practical suggestions, like putting cell phones on 'vacation mode' when seasonal staff weren't using them, turning off computers at night, having employees wear their own clothes instead of providing work clothes for them, using cheaper alternative materials to complete jobs, adding one more day to the routine lawn mowing schedule to save fuel and labor costs, discovering new ways to utilize office supplies, printers printed in black ink instead of color, and staff were encouraged to think of new ways to generate revenue from existing operations.

This is what it really means to stimulate the economy- efficiencies are gained, money and labor is saved, materials are not wasted, and all of it is done with less money. That $167,000 that the Parks and Recreation figured out how to save let it continue to do what it does while still keeping staff gainfully employed.

When challenged, Democrats in Congress have taken the easy way out over the last two years, and instead of conserving energy, money, and time, they have wastefully spent money that didn't even belong to them, borrowing money from my grandchildren to continue inefficient and wasteful practice and routines that damage our environment and our economy. Democrats during the recession have not figured out innovative ways to do more with less, and instead appear to be be doing less with more. That sort of behavior should not be rewarded, and it is my hope that this election, you will take steps to throw Democrats out of office, and then encourage the Republicans that take power to look at places like the Genesse County Parks and Recreation Department on how to do it- how to continue to provide great services and keep everyone employed while dealing with declining budgets. They have shown us the way- now all we have to do is put new management in charge of the bloated and inefficient government that the Democrats have set up, and hope that it isn't too late to save our nation.

A 21.4% Federal Spending Increase in Two Years

Two years. Budgets are negotiated between Congress and the President, and over the last two years, while the rest of our nation dropped into a recession- nay, causing our nations recession to become a depression- Congress did something that no other Congress did in the history of Congress- increased spending on discretionary non-military spending by over 20%. Anyone associated with this Congress should be kicked out on the street and never allowed to hold a position of power ever again.

These budgets were put in place by a Democratic President working with a Democratic Congress. President Obama isn't on the ballot this election, but Democrats in Congress are. I ask my Congressman, a Democrat named Gary Peters, what were you thinking about when you saw that tax receipts were declining and debt was piling up and everywhere else people were cutting back- did you think that now was the time to double-down on generous welfare payments, now was the time to ask for no accountability, now was the time to freely dole out money that you are taking from my grandchildren, that now was the time to tell people that everything was going to be taken care of by the government?

Mr. Peters, when you saw all these people on unemployment, why did you fight so hard to keep them on unemployment and keep giving them more and more money, money that our government borrows from China so that my children can pay it back with interest some day, while at the same time attacking job creators with massive increases in taxes and regulations? Mr. Peters, why do you vote in favor of cap-and-trade and Obamacare, two pieces of legislation that make it more difficult for businesses to operate and stay profitable, when you know that the legislation you support is going to make more people lose their jobs, and then you vote to keep them unemployed for as long as possible? You pretend to care about our nation, but all you do is vote to give others people money to those people who don't work, and then you pretend that you don't understand why your actions are turning our recession into a depression.

The above chart is from the Wall Street Review. Their comments on it were (in part):

Spending rolled in for the year that ended September 30 at $3.45 trillion, second only to 2009's $3.52 trillion in the record books. But don't think this means Washington was relatively less spendthrift. CBO reports that the modest overall spending decline results from three one-time events.

The costs of TARP declined by $262 billion from 2009 as banks repaid their bailout cash, payments to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were $51 billion lower (though still a $40 billion net loser for the taxpayer), and deposit insurance payments fell by $55 billion year over year. "Excluding those three programs, spending rose by about 9 percent in 2010, somewhat faster than in recent years," CBO says.

Somewhat faster. You've got to laugh, or cry, when a 9% annual increase qualifies as only "somewhat faster" than normal. What did Washington spend more money on? Well, despite two wars, defense spending rose by 4.7% to $667 billion, down from an annual average increase of 8% from 2005 to 2009.

Once again domestic accounts far and away led the increases. Medicaid rose by 8.7%, and unemployment benefits by an astonishing 34.3%—to $160 billion. The costs of jobless insurance have tripled in two years. CBO adds that if you take out the savings for deposit insurance, funding for all "other activities" of government—education, transportation, foreign aid, housing, and so on—rose by 13% in 2010.

As for the deficits, the 2010 total was $1.29 trillion, down slightly from $1.42 trillion. That's a two-year total of $2.7 trillion, or more than the entire amount during the Reagan Administration, when deficits were supposed to be ruinous. Now liberal economists tell us that deficits are the key to restoring prosperity. But all we have to show for spending nearly 25% of GDP for two years running is a growth rate of 1.7% and 9.6% unemployment.

Those slow growth numbers have contributed to the deficits by yielding paltry tax revenues. Individual income tax receipts fell again in 2010, by 1.6% to $901 billion. As recently as 2008, individual income tax revenues were $1.15 trillion. Corporate tax revenue climbed a healthy 38.6% to $192 billion, but that's still well below the $304 billion of 2008. This only underscores how much deficit reduction depends on a growth revival.

Here's the kicker: By far the biggest percentage-gain revenue winner for the taxpayer in 2010 was . . . the Federal Reserve. Thanks to the expansion of its balance sheet with riskier assets, the Fed earned $76 billion during the year, a 121% increase. The Fed's windfall is a perfect symbol of our current economic policy. The government is making money because it now controls so much capital, but it is robbing that money from the private economy in the process. It is never a good sign when your central bank is a national profit center.

Antipredator Adaptions and Camouflage of the Endangered Species Liberal Democrat Congressman

Camouflage is a method of avoidance of observation that allows an otherwise visible object to remain indiscernible from the surrounding environment through deception. Examples include a tiger's stripes, the battledress of a modern soldiers, chameleons changing colors, and Democratic Congressman pretending to be Republicans.

Cryptic coloration is the most common form of camouflage, found to some extent in the majority of species. The simplest way is for an animal to be of a color similar to its surroundings. Examples include the "earth tones" of deer, but recently discovered varieties of Democrats have been found to change from blue to red when threatened with eviction from their adopted habitat. In nature, there is a strong evolutionary pressure for animals to blend into their environment or conceal their shape; for prey animals to avoid predators and for predators to be able to sneak up on prey. Thus, when Congressman like Gary Peters pretend to be Republican during election cycles, even going so far as to replace their D markings with an R, they are doing so in order to avoid real predatory Republicans who would devour them in the election. Once elections are done though, these animals are free to revert back to their usual color and shape until the next predatory round of elections comes, when they will once again don their camouflage and pretend to be Republicans.

Some cryptic animals also simulate natural movement, e.g., of a leaf in the wind. This is called procryptic behaviour or habit, and is observable in nature when the liberal variety of the Democrat runs rapidly from their positions in order to simulate not being a liberal Democrat. Some animals, notably in aquatic environments, also take steps to camouflage the odours they create that may attract predators, such as running campaign commercials touting how fiscally conservative they are after stinking up the place previously.

Some animals have evolved disruptive colouration, whereby instead of attempting to conceal themselves, they instead conceal their body shape, confusing a predator and making identification harder. An example would be zebras, who very much stand out in the savanna when alone, but en masse, their stripes allow them to merge together in the eye of a predator into a single confusing creature. Another example would be the soon to be endangered species, the liberal democrat congressman, who when threatened attempts to morph into the much better conservative republican congressman.

Some animals alter the period in which they are awake in order to avoid predators. Generally, animals are either diurnal, active during the day, nocturnal, active during the night, or crepuscular, active during twilight, depending on food availability, and predator prevalence. Highly mobile creatures such as democratic congressman migrate to Washington DC to avoid predators during the election period in which they are most vulnerable, or avoid townhalls and other constituents so as not to be attacked.

This election season, be on the lookout for animals such as these and recognize their camouflage, chameleon, and antipredator adaptions.

Confession: I Planned on Throwing a Constitution at My Congressman Last Year

Via memeorandum I picked up on the recent story that a book was thrown at President Obama during a recent Philadelphia rally:

President Obama nearly got "booked" during a rally in Philadelphia on Sunday, after someone in the crowd threw a paperback his way. Photographers captured the tome in midair as it flew past the President while he smiled at the audience. He didn't appear to see the book, which sailed behind him. It is unclear what the book was, who threw it, or how close it actually got to the commander in chief.

Go to the link to see the video of the book sailing past.

Some people might find this to be beyond belief, but I believe it, because when I went to Congressman Gary Peters (liberal Democrat) only townhall last summer (see the post), I went there with the intent of throwing a book at him. Seriously- I brought with me a miniature copy of the United States Constitution, some tape, and a rock. I intended on taping the rock to the book so that it would have some weight when I threw it.

My goal was to literally hit my Congressman over the head with the US Constitution, to prove a point that no where in that document is the federal government given the power to order individual citizens to buy certain products. In my mind, the blow to his head by the US Constitution would wake him up mentally and spiritually and he would renounce his liberal views and pick up the Constitution and begin to follow it and vote for limited government, protection of property, liberty, and life. He would of course thank me later for opening his mind to the Constitution, which he of course had never read or ever bothered to look at previously.

When I arrived at the townhall though, I discovered that Democrat Congressman Peters had bused in hundreds of SEIU members from out of the district early that morning, and even though I arrived 2 hours early for the event, these people had been there hours longer since they had been given the day off paid to engage in political campaigning. There was no way I was getting in to see the Congressman.

Not to worry, I thought- I'll get a chance to get close to him and talk to him before he goes in to the townhall to meet with his constituents or after the townhall. I didn't anticipate that Peters would avoid his constituents by sneaking in and out of the townhall event through the back door, avoiding the hundreds of constituents who took time out of their days to show up and talk with him. He snuck in, stood on a stage away from his constituents, had questions filtered through his handlers, gave some answers that have proven to be lies, and then snuck out. There was no chance for me to throw a Constitution with him and strike some sense into him. Probably for the best, in retrospect, but at the time I was really caught up in trying to fight for life, liberty, and private property, which Obamacare threatens.

So, I understand perhaps why President Obama had a book thrown at him- from the video, you really can't tell what sort of a book it was- maybe someone, like I was going to do, tried to hit Obama over the head with the United States Constitution. Sadly, they missed.

Suggested book to read related to this post: Pocket Constitution (Text from the U.S. Bicentennial Commission Edition)

Democrat Congressman Gary Peters' Principles‏ Mean Nothing

Last year, Gary Peters published a set of principles for health care reform on his official House web site, standards by which he promised he would judge health care reform legislation when it was debated on the House floor. Rep. Peters even said that if a health care reform bill met these principles he would vote for it and, if not, he would vote against it. So how did our representative stack up against his own standards, the so-called “Peters’ Principles”?

Peters’ Principle 1: Bring down health care costs for businesses and middle-class families.

In retrospect... Obamacare increases costs for all . . .

Insurance premiums: According to an August 18 Bloomberg Report, about 63% of businesses plan to make employees pay a higher percentage of their premiums starting in 2011, and most of them expect their cost for benefits to rise by 9%.

Administrative costs: Obamacare triples the number of tax forms that every small business owner has to fill out annually by requiring even the smallest firms to prepare and submit IRS 1099 forms to every vendor with whom they do more than $600 in business.

Small business costs: Obamacare does nothing to “bend down the cost curve” that small businesses face relating to health care insurance coverage. The increased costs of health insurance will cause many firms with 50 or fewer employees not to offer coverage, drop coverage if they currently offer it, layoff workers or limit hiring.

Peters’ Principle 2: Strengthen Medicare.

In retrospect: Obamacare weakens Medicare through . . .

Reduced coverage: Medicare’s chief actuary, Richard Foster, recently reported that cutting $575 billion from Medicare to implement Obamacare will result in Medicare recipients replacing Medicaid patients at the bottom of the healthcare ladder as early as 2019—that’s when fees Medicare pays to providers will be slashed to below Medicaid rates, which are already well below market prices.

Obamacare cuts $145 billion from Medicare Advantage plans, which Medicare’s chief actuary believes will cause up to 50 percent of seniors to lose their current health care coverage.

Higher prices: Obamacare includes $107 billion in tax increases on medical device manufacturers, prescription drug companies, and health insurance providers. Medicare’s chief actuary believes all these tax increases will be passed along to consumers in the form of higher prices. Seniors will pay the vast majority of these tax increases.

Obamacare includes a $210 billion 3.8 percent tax increase on unearned income for all Americans, which will hit seniors especially hard when they sell their houses to retire to smaller ones or use their homes for rental income.

Less access to medical services: Obamacare will cut $233 billion from Medicare Part A and B payments in order to pay insurance subsidies for 32 million new people, forcing one in seven hospitals, nursing homes, home health agencies and hospices out of business, according to the Medicare trustees April 2010 report.

Peters’ Principle 3: Be deficit neutral.

In retrospect: Obamacare adds to the deficit . . .

According to several analyses of CBO data, Obamacare does not control costs, and it does not reduce deficits. Instead, it adds an all new entitlement when we have no idea how to pay for the entitlements we already have.

Smoke and mirrors and financial gimmicks were used to pass the bill, which assumes 10 years of tax increases, about $500 billion, combined with 10 years of Medicare cuts, another $500 billion, to pay for only six years of spending which has been artificially reduced through the exclusion of the so-called Medicare “doctor fix”—the cost of which will eventually be paid anyway.

Recently published estimates place the true 10-year cost of Obamacare in ten years at $2.3 trillion, resulting in a $461 billion 10-year deficit—an amount which only Beltway insiders like Gary Peters would consider “deficit neutral”.

Peters’ Principle 4: Move through a thoughtful, transparent legislative process

In retrospect: Passage was anything but transparent and involved . . .

Just a few examples of how the will of the public was thwarted include: Last minute hyper-partisan deal making behind closed doors—no Republicans, no media allowed; Woefully insufficient time for legislators, media and the public to read, analyze and comment on the bill before its signing; Political gimmickry in which the House Democrats invoked “deem and pass” rules to bypass public debate, and the Senate entertained; using “reconciliation” to achieve passage, a tactic that has never been used for such a sweeping piece of social legislation; and “Vote buying” by Pelosi and Reid who coaxed needed House and Senate votes from Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Carl Levin and others with partisan, pork-barrel tactics and promises.

What more needs to be said? Vote against Gary Peters this election and put someone in office who has principles and follows them.

GOP- Embrace the Tea Party Movement

According to Willie Brown, the former mayor of San Francisco who also was the longtime speaker of the California State Assembly:

"[The Tea Party movement] will be the face ultimately of the Republican Party — and that may translate into good success. I’m warning Democrats that you’ve got to be really careful. If the tea party really does capture the Republican operation, it will be suddenly what [President Ronald] Reagan did. He took the Republican minority and added it to the disgruntled and disenchanted Democrats, particularly with the Southern strategy, and turned that into 12 years of Republican … presidencies.”

This is one Democrat who understands that the Tea Party movement is a road of success for the GOP and our nation. The Tea Party movement embraces everything that made America great- freedom, liberty, protection of life, protection of private property, individual responsibility, entrepreneurship, etc- and opposes everything that the modern-day Democrat Party has come to stand for- increased government control over people's lives, increased government spending, increased government regulation, less protection of private property, less equality under the law, the crowding out of private initiative, etc.

Whether the GOP embraces the Tea Party movement is irrelevant- let the moderate GOPers and the Tea Party wing go head-to-head in the primary and let the voters choose who they like. But after that, any Tea Party movement winners of the primaries ARE the GOP now, and so the GOP and the Tea Party should both align and vote against the greater of the evils, the Democrats. Doing so will energize and invigorate the GOP and our nation, and lead to continued electoral successes. The Democrat got it right- let's embrace the Tea Party movement and fight back against attempts to demonize or slander it, and turn it into a force to be reckoned with in the coming elections.

What do Democrats do When Neither the Facts nor the Law is on Their Side?

Someone once told me a story about how they had a professor in law school who taught trial practice, and he would tell the same story to his students every year. The professor would say "When the facts are on your side, you hammer the facts to the jury. When the law is on your side, then you hammer the law to the jury. And if you have neither the facts nor the law on your side... that's when you put your opponent on trial."

This election, the facts are that over the last two years, a lot of stuff went on in Congress. Legislation was passed and your legislator, be in Congressman or Senator, voted on that legislation (or pulled an Obama and just voted present). Our President appointed czars and issued executive orders, and virtually no oversight or due diligence was performed by Congress, and your Congressman was either party to that or not. Our economy continued to collapse and the foundations of our nation continued to crumble, and your legislator either tried everything to reverse that or focused their attention on other issues. The facts are there, available for everyone to see and read about.

The laws of our country are written down, supremely in the form of the Constitution of the United States of America. Either your Congressman believes in that document and believes in that social contract and believes in the principles and beliefs which it enshrines, or they don't. The laws of our nation have been toiled over for many years, and after great efforts and pains laws have been created to govern ethics, bankruptcy, fraud, pay, and many other issues, and your Congressman either respects the law in our nation, or he respects the rule of men and personal power and supported or encouraged the eroding of laws in our nation and the rise in gangster government that we have witnessed.

But if the facts are not on your side, and the law is not on your side, then you are likely a Democrat, and this election you will probably stoop to just attacking your opponent, making them defend themselves from your various charges, while you are free from the facts, the law, the truth, or human decency. If you are a Democrat in this election, the name of the game is make stuff up, use the massive amounts of campaign funding that you are getting from connected political groups in society to run commercial after commercial with your made up garbage, and then once it is proven false or without merit, you move on to yet another attack of similar nature. The American people may very well be fooled by this sort of games, and you may just fool them long enough to win another term of office, and then continue your quest to destroy our great nation.

Suggested book to read related to this post: Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies: Issue by Issue Responses to the Most Common Claims of the Left from A to Z

Secret Footage from Democrat Congressman Peters Headquarters!

Over the last several months, I bravely snuck into Michigan Congressman Gary Peters office and filmed some video. The Democrat's office was littered with stacks of miniature Constitutions (Congressmen get a certain amount to give to constituents, but Peters just uses them as recycled toilet paper), with piles and piles of literature extolling the virtues of recycling and lowering consumption, and with giant statues of our Dear Leader. I shot two video's, possibly more, while I was in there, and captured Congressman Peters talking with his staff about how to avoid showing up at townhall meetings and about how to hide his votes on spending spending bills. Here are the videos:


Just kidding- these aren't of Gary Peters, although they might as well be, since he has run his campaign the same way he ran away from his constituents all summer- by running away from his stance and votes on major issues. They are from Heritage for America. Peters is a tax-raising, energy-destroying, job-killing, regulating Democrat, and yet is trying to run from that record this election. We'll throw the bum out.

Suggested book to read related to this post: Heritage Pocket Guide to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States

Congressman's Pay and Benifits

The race for Congress is getting pretty intense around the nation, and sometimes people ask me what Congressman get paid and what benefits they get. They're substantial, so I'll run them down for you.

First, Congress sets its own pay and benefits, although under the 27th Amendment, passed in 1992, any compensation increases they pass don’t go into effect until the next election (although that's not really a big barrier though, since the re-election rate for incumbents is about 90% for the House and 80% in the Senate).

Congressman earn $162,000, with annual cost-of-living increases, with leadership positions earning more more. Expenses related to job are reimbursed. They get free use of government transportation (jets, cars, etc). Free publication and distribution of government records, maps, pamphlets. Franking privilege (free postal mail to constituents back home). Fully equipped offices in DC and in home district or state. Pagers, cell phones, internet access, and other technology provided. A considerable amount of funding is available to hire staff to support them. Free unlimited long-distance telephone service. Generous tax exemptions and IRS help with tax returns. Free hospital visits, legal counsel, photography services, car washes, and potted plants. Low cost life insurance, barber and beauty shops, gym and fitness facilities, and cafeteria services are provided. Oh, they get to park in special places when they drive.

Perhaps the biggest benefits though of being a Congressman are their health care plan, where for a modest premium members enjoy the best possible health care in the world, or their pension plan, which estimates that a member who serves several years in Congress will be paid $50K a year thereafter.

Oh, and after a member retires or gets kicked out of office, they can easily get a job lobbying their former friends and colleagues and make millions that way.

Yeah, being a Congressman is a good gig.

Suggested book to read related to this post: Congressional Pay and Perks: Salaries, Pension and Retirement, Franking, Travel, and Other Benefits for U.S. Senators and Representatives

Justice Department Whistleblower Reports On Order to Ignore Voting Laws

This was passed to me by a friend... in it, you see a whistle blower who works for the Department of Justice report that officials in the DOJ appear to not be interested in enforcing certain provisions of the laws regarding voters (such as removing ineligible voters from voter roles because they are dead) and in fact may have issued an order to DOJ officials to willfully ignore the law and let ineligible voters fraudulently vote. Liberals and Democrats usually believe everything whistle blowers state and are passionate about voter fraud, so the fact that they don't care at all about this story and are trying to bury it demonstrates yet again the hypocrisy of liberals- they are only interested in power. On the other hand, I'm interested in protecting life, protecting liberty, and protecting private property rights, and am passionate about voter fraud and the truth, so I'm going to expose it. Watch the video that is embedded- it is 10 minutes, but you'll get most the info pretty quick.


Suggested book to read related to this post: America Votes!: A Guide to Modern Election Law and Voting Rights

McDonald's Strikes Inside Deal with Obama Officials; Others Not So Lucky

The Inside Deal is Democratic President Barack Obama's domestic economic program and is characterized by extensive government spending for politically connected groups within American society. Increasingly during the height of the Inside Deal, there is a link between who receives taxpayer money from the federal government and their political connections. It is called by some crony capitalism. For some politically connected groups in American society, the Inside Deal allows them to to avoid or delay certain mandates, fees, regulations, or restrictions, due purely to their political connections and status in society. During the height of the Great Recession, these deals between Democrat politicians and regulators and bureaucrats and politically favored businesses became increasingly more common.

One such deal was recently struck between McDonald's and Obama's bureaucrats. McDonald's (which has CNN on in all of its restaurants, doubling CNN's viewership) apparently is going to be able to allowed to waive certain requirements of the new health-care laws. After Micky D's threatened federal regulators saying that it would drop its health-insurance plan for nearly 30,000 restaurant workers, Obama's officials jumped to announce that they will exercise discretion this time. There was no announcements as to whether or not the thousands of other employers would be allowed to waive the requirements that will cause thousands more to lose their health insurance coverage.

This McDonald's announcement highlights the kind of healthcare law that Democrats passed into law last year- one that will cause employers to drop coverage of thousands of employees, who will then be forced to go on the government's health care plans paid for by taxpayers or lose health care coverage altogether, unless businesses are politically connected like government officials or labor unions or companies that threaten retribution, who are all allowed to waive the requirements and continue to provide service to their employees free from government interference and fees.

Obamacare is the kind of legislation that creates a society that is based on who you know, on who you donate money to, on who you have political connections with- it creates a deal between favored groups in society and the government masters who dictate policy over them. There might be some incidental good side effects, but at a fundamental level it is tyranny that degrades the human condition and lessens our protections of life, liberty, and property.

Global Climate Change is Caused by the Sun

Climate change (global warming) is caused by the sun. This may be a shock to you, but strangely enough, the same sun that causes the earth to grow warmer in the summer and colder in the winter also has long-term variations that cause long-term variations in the global temperature. Oh, I know what you are thinking "Humans are causing global warming by driving SUV's and being evil towards Mother Earth and the solution is to adopt Communism." But the truth of the matter is that humans and our actions are probably one of the smallest variables involved in 'climate change'. That doesn't mean that we can pollute as much as we want, but it does mean that most of what environmentalists say and do and believe isn't right either.

It's pretty simple once you become educated. Here is an article from Dr. Harrison “Jack” Schmitt, former US Senator from New Mexico, a geologist, and a former Apollo Astronaut (read his book Return to the Moon: Exploration, Enterprise, and Energy in the Human Settlement of Space), that was found in the The Science and Environmental Policy Project weekly newsletter:

THE CENTRAL ROLE OF THE SUN IN CLIMATE CHANGE
Policy makers at the head of government in the United States and elsewhere apparently want to believe, and to have others believe, that human use of fossil fuels accelerates global warming. They pursue this quest in order to impose ever greater and clearly unconstitutional control on the economy and personal liberty in the name of a hypothetically omnipotent government. There exists no true concern by the President or Congressional Leadership about the true effects of climate change - only a poorly concealed, ideologically driven attempt to use conjured up threats of catastrophic consequences as a lever to gain authoritarian control of society.

There has been an absolute natural increase in global surface temperature of half a degree Centigrade per 100 years (0.9 degrees Fahrenheit) over the last three and a half centuries. Observational climate data and objective interpretations of those data strongly indicate that nature, not human activity, exerts the primary influence on this current long term warming and on all global climate variations. Human influence through use of fossil fuels has been and remains minor if even detectable. Claims to the contrary only find support in highly questionable climate models that fail repeatedly against the reality of nature. What, then, stimulates historically and geologically observed, sometimes slow and sometimes radical, changes in climate?

The primary alternative hypothesis to human-caused global warming is natural climate change driven by the Sun. Unfortunately, the "human-caused global warming" or “carbon dioxide forcing” hypothesis has become embedded in the minds of otherwise strong teams of observational scientists and their publication outlets. They cannot entertain any other alternative to enhance and amplify variations in the natural heating of the Earth by the Sun - nor can they prove their own hypothesis of human-caused global warming.

As many scientists have documented, the position and orientation of the Earth in its orbit around the sun, and the Sun’s variable influence and activity, determine weather and climate. Seasons vary because of changing solar energy input in annual response to the varying orientation of Earth’s Northern and Southern Hemispheres. Indeed, the Earth’s 23-degree inclination to the rays from the Sun and its annual orbit around that star guarantee large seasonal changes away from the equator. Further, variations in solar radiation received by the Earth correlate with short-term variations in Earth’s weather, based on the slow movement of loops called "Rossby waves" in atmospheric jet streams.

Observations by astronomers over the centuries, as well as studies of tree rings,stalagmite layers, and other pre-historic and geological records, have defined an 11-year sunspot cycle superposed on a number of longer climate cycles. Much modern research documents that the sunspot cycle also correlates with variations in stratospheric winds13 and ozone production, cosmic ray flux, ionospheretroposphere interactions, and the global electrical circuit that exists between the ionosphere and the Earth's surface.

Correlations of records of seasonal changes, solar activity cycles, and local and regional rainfall oscillations all confirm that in some way radiation emanating from the Sun drives changes in weather and climate. Solar interplanetary magnetic fields, whose polarity varies every 22 years or twice the sunspot cycle, may play an additional role as their strength varies directly with increases and decreases in numbers of sunspots.

As a further natural demonstration of the importance of the Sun in determining climate variation, the well-documented solar shielding effects of atmospheric ash and aerosols from volcanic eruptions document the tie between solar irradiance and at least short-term climate swings. Particularly illustrative have been eruptions such as Huaynaputina (1600), Tambora (1815), Krakatoa (1883), and Pinatubo (1991).

More broadly, geological and planetological observations show that major perturbations in climate relate to the position and orientation of the Earth in its orbit around the Sun. For example, as Serbian mathematician Milutin Milankovic pointed out in 1941, as have many others since, initiation of the major ice ages on Earth correlate with a 23,000-year precession cycle, a 41,000-year obliquity cycle, and a 100,000-year eccentricity cycle in the position of the Earth relative to the Sun. Cyclic variations measured in oxygen isotope ratios that correlate with the growth of ice sheets and biogeochemical responses closely reflect the 23,000-year precession cycle. Also, a half-precession cycle appears to be related to the dynamics of the East African Equatorial monsoon. In addition, the 41,000-year obliquity cycle shows strongly in North American marine depositional records.

Climate cycles related to internal solar activity are superposed on long-term orbital cycles. For example, the Medieval Warm Period (800-1300) and the Little Ice Age (1400-1900) correlate, respectively, with very active and very passive periods of recorded sunspot activity. As a fairly recent example of solar influence on climate, the Little Ice Age occurred during a 500-year long sequence of three deep reductions in sunspot frequency. The coldest temperatures came during the last of these minima, a 70- year period of exceptionally few sunspots (the Maunder Minimum). The Medieval Warm Period, (when the Vikings colonized Greenland, glaciers retreated, and farmers could at least survive) also correlates to repeated multi-century long, high sunspot frequency. Since the end of the early 1900s, peak values in sunspot activity rose steadily until 1960, leveling off at higher than normal values until apparently starting to fall about 2000.

The 11-year sunspot cycle repetitions are superposed on a number of long-term cycles of past highs and lows in solar activity. For example, the Gleissberg cycle has imprecisely defined periods of 90±30 years in length. More energetic sunspot activity in the Gleissberg cycle may correlate with temporary decades of warming, such as in the 1930s and 1990s with the reverse being true in the 1810s and 1910s. Analyses of tree rings, lake levels, cave deposits, tree ring variations in cosmic ray-produced isotopes (14C and 10Be), and oxygen isotope ratios record what appear to be other long period solar cycles, specifically, 2400, 1500 years, 200, as well as the Gleissberg cycle.

Many advocates of human-caused global warming agree that solar cycles show correlations with regional climate variations; but, absent a proven amplification mechanism to enhance small solar energy (irradiance) variations, they reject nature in favor of fossil fuel burning. These reviews all document broadly accepted relationships of weather and climate with many different repetition cycles in solar activity, ranging from significant but random solar flares affecting jet stream tracks, to the 11-year sunspot cycle, to the long-term Milankovic orbital repetitions discussed above.

Specifically with respect to the last 120 years, the correlation of measured solar energy input variations with global surface temperature and sea surface temperature is very strong. The statistical correlation of solar irradiance with air temperature has been about 79%. In contrast, during the last 50 years, the correlation of measured carbon dioxide increases with global surface temperature has been only about 22%. This directly contradicts the assumption that carbon dioxide has had a large influence on climate in the last 50 years.

Since the end of the last Ice Age 10,000 years ago, the increase in total energy from the Sun has been about 0.6 watts per square meter, an increase of less than 0.05% over an average total of about 1367 watts per square meter. On shorter time scales, total variations reach about 3 watts per square meter, or 0.22% from the average. Considering the actual amount of possible atmospheric heating (30% ofincoming solar energy is reflected to space), this variation results in a third to a half a degree Centigrade(0.6 to 0.9 degree Fahrenheit) global temperature change over seven years, that is, a half solar cycle.

Various natural mechanisms for visible, infrared, and UV light reflection, adsorption, emission, and water vapor feedback determine the net solar heating effect on the Earth. Global atmospheric circulation moderates the short-term solar energy inputs, particularly upward convection of oceanic heat and water vapor in the large scale equatorial Hadley Cells that span latitudes from 30ºS to 30ºN . Ocean circulation overall moderates the long-term transfer of solar energy around the globe.

Evidence for the existence, if not the nature, of a means for amplifying solar energy-solar magnetic field interactions with Earth comes from the oceans. Determination of the total contribution of the oceans to heating of the atmosphere, using three independent observational measures of oceanic heat flux, shows that the oceans' heat contribution to be five to seven times larger than variations in total solar energy input.

Additional support that an amplification mechanism exists comes from recent observational data on variations in stratospheric water vapor concentrations over three decades. These data suggest that decreases in water vapor have contributed to amplified sea surface cooling since 2000 while increases between 1980 and 2000 accented surface warming. This relationship may correspond with stratospheric cooling and lower water retention due to lower than average solar energy input since 2000.

Climate change driven by the Sun constitutes a strongly competitive, purely scientific hypothesis to the climate modeling-political hypothesis of human-caused global warming advocated by climate modelers and their acolytes in the science, media, and political establishments. Solar influence ranges from significant but random solar flares affecting jet stream tracks, to the 11-year sunspot cycle, to the 22- year magnetic cycle, up to the long-term Milankovic orbital repetitions discussed above. The current decade or longer period of cold winters in the northern United States and Europe coincide with a relatively prolonged reduction in sunspot activity below even the norm for a minimum in the 11-year cycle.

Actual observations show that climate varies in response to natural forces and that human burning of fossil fuels has had negligible effect over the last 100 years. Lets us hope that State and national policy makers taking office in 2011 and 2013 will understand the facts about natural climate change and the fictions about human influence on change before taking enormous constitutional and economic risks - and before liberty and incomes suffer further erosion.

This is the whole article, although I have edited off the footnotes which document the research. You can believe this sort of logic, or buy into the pseudo-religion backed by computer modeling produced by the Al Gore's of the world.