"The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right that Heaven itself has ordained" - President and General George Washington

"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try Liberty; for Liberty is an acknowledgement of faith in God and His works" - Frederic Bastiat

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free" - President Ronald Reagan

"If your beliefs are worth dying for then your life is worth living" - Guy Average

Wednesday, December 29, 2010

iowahawk: So You Lost Your Election

iowahawk: So You Lost Your Election

I took a beating during the Lame-Duck Congress, so I'm in good company with my fellow Americans and the Constitution itself.  I needed something to smile about, and Iowahawk came roaring to the rescue, possibly in his Coupe of Justice.

So You Lost Your Election

A outplacement transition guide to life beyond Washington
for former members and associates of Congress

Step 5: Preparing Your Resume
An effective job resume should be no more than two pages, with sections devoted to your education, employment history, and references. There are hundreds of online resources available to help you. But remember, under no circumstances should you list anything to do with your time in Washington.

FAQs

I removed my Congressional experience from my resume. How do I explain the 28-year gap?

Claim you were in prison.

Read the whole post.  I KNOW that you need a chuckle too.

Monday, December 27, 2010

Russians Living In The USA Recognize The Rush To Marxism


There are other countries besides the USA that have gone down the Primrose Path to Marxism, and Russia is one of those countries. While there are no Russians left alive who can remember the insurrections of 1917, the February Revolution and the October Revolution and the political and doctrinal underpinnings thereof, there are indeed many Russians who can remember what it was like to live in the Union Of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) under what we in America term as "Communism" or "Marxism". 

Some Russians who fall into the category of "been there and done that" when it comes to Marxism currently are part of the Staten Island community in the New York City metro area, and they recognize that where the USA is heading is where Russia has been already, and they don't want to go there. The Russians are apparently aligning with the Republican Party here in the US. If We The People can somehow put enough pressure on the GOP to abandon the RINO principles (which look too much like Democrats for my taste) and go to true Conservatism then the Russians' affiliation with the GOP will be a constructive one in the long term for them and for all of us as well.  Drawing on their experience and heeding their warning is a great place to start. 

From Tom Wrobleski's article on SILive.com: 

Businessman Arkadiy Fridman said that the newly formed Citizens Magazine Business Club, a confederation of more than 50 Russian-owned businesses here and in Brooklyn, has aligned itself with the Molinari Republican Club (MRC) in an effort to increase the Russian community's political and economic clout. "We decided we had to support this club," said Fridman, a former Soviet Army officer who came to the United States in 1992. "They are very close to our political and business vision." Fridman said that the Democrats "are going in an absolutely different direction," focusing on "income redistribution" and rich-versus-poor "class war." 

"It's too socialistic," said Fridman, head of the non-profit Staten Island Community Center and president of Citizens Magazine, a public affairs publication. "It's very painful for us to see." The Big Brother approach reminds Fridman too much of what he left behind in the former Soviet Union. "It's the same rule like it was there," said Fridman, who estimates there are around 55,000 Russian immigrants here.

While the Russians are able to spot what is going on without being led into a state of denial by the Lapdog Media, Democrats are counting on what amounts to the same support from The Media as the Ministry of Propaganda in the USSR gave to the government there back in the day. While this seems to be fooling lots and lots of Americans, the Russians have seen and heard the Government Spin before and are not as easily taken in. 

The Democrat response to the concerns of the Russians noted in Wrobleski's article

State Sen. Diane Savino (D-North Shore/Brooklyn) said she understands the Russian aversion to anything that looks like big government, but thinks the criticism of the Democratic Party is off-base. "You can't ignore the fact that the Russian population here came of age during the Soviet era," said Ms. Savino, who counts many Russians among her Brooklyn constituents. "They have different thoughts on what communism and socialism mean. They are a little more sensitive to it. But, that being said," she added, "you can't compare the policies of the Democratic Party with communism. It's absurd."

The comparison of Democrats in the USA with communism may be absurd to you, Senator Savino, but the Russians who have lived under communism can spot the similarity in the direction that the USA is currently heading.  Even as a casual student of history, I can clearly see it as well.  Like the Russians noted above, I don't want to go there either. 

Saturday, December 25, 2010

Christmas 2010

Isaiah 9:6 (New International Version, ©2010)


6 For to us a child is born,
   to us a son is given,
   and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
   Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
   Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Friday, December 24, 2010

George Washington Worked On Christmas In 1776

Recently, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) made a threat to keep the Lame-Duck Congress in session through Christmas.  Not exactly working on Christmas Day maybe, but staying in session both before and after Christmas so a plethora of Unconstitutional "laws' could be hustled through a sham legislative process in order to give Barack H. Obama and the other Leftists who want a world without borders a big fat Christmas tree with lots and lots of gifts underneath.  The end result of Senator Reid and his counterpart in the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi (D-California), using the "representative" Congress to make a narrow-minded all-out attack on the foundational legal underpinnings of the United States will take years to undo and will cost sweat and blood from generations yet unborn to pay for.  While they and their minions toil away in dry and comfortable modern-day Washington D.C. writing spider-web style laws that will trap and consume the Liberty of all Americans who are not of the ruling class for many years to come, I am reminded of Christmas in 1776 when General George Washington and a small group of true patriotic Americans risked the shedding of their own blood in order to obtain the same Liberty for future generations that Pelosi, Reid, Obama, and all others of their Marxist ilk seek to remove in 2010 and beyond.  I am thus going to re-post from 2009 about a Christmas which George Washington worked in service to his country:

While Americans in the Year of Our Lord 2010 enjoy the Christmas holiday in their warm homes, snuggled around a glowing hearth, partaking of festive cheer, let us drift back to another band of Americans past who, foregoing such luxuries--though to be sure they longed for them--, chose instead to endure hardship as soldiers, and to prosecute an assault on Trenton, New Jersey on--of all nights--Christmas night, 1776. 

The American cause throughout the War of Independence seemed perpetually on the brink of defeat. The odds and obstacles stacked against this fledlging outbreak of liberty appeared to preclude its victory, much less its survival for any length of time. It was but a flickering flame about to be snuffed out not long after it had been lit. Such was the case in the winter of 1776. It was only a few months since independence had been declared, and the fire of liberty was but a smoldering ember nearly extinguished, but for one man....

The General had led his rag-tag band of soldiers on a long retreat across New Jersey after the fall of Fort Lee and Fort Washington. Now only the great Delaware River stood between what was left of the dwindling American forces and the British enemy in hot pursuit along with their hired companies of Hessian mercenaries. And soon it would freeze over, and their doom would be sealed. At the turn of the year most of the soldiers' enlistments would expire, and the prevailing mood was that this fight was all but over. Washington knew that something had to be done; a bold stroke was needed--a daring stroke, a desperate stroke. Some of his officers shared his sentiments, but it was Washington's singular resolve that saw the plan through in the face of great difficulty. They would cross back over the Delaware and attempt to take Trenton.

The sole source of Washington's confidence in such a move came from God. On December 14, while pondering a venture of some sort, he wrote that they might "under the smiles of Providence, effect an important stroke." Why not just concede to the mightier force? In the face of such difficulties, why not sue for peace? Life under British rule was not so intolerable after all, was it? Morale was low. This rabble of an army was without needed supplies, and the onset of winter was well upon them. Even the enemy knew of their dire circumstances. One British officer observed that during their retreat across the countryside "many of the Rebels who were killed in the late affairs, were without shoes or stockings, and several were observed to have only linen drawers on, with a rifle or hunting shirt, without any proper shirt or waistcoat. They are also in great want of blankets.... in less than a month they must suffer extremely." One would think at Christmas time these soldiers would desire a little warmth, a little comfort, and a little peace. After all, is not Christmas the time for "Peace on earth, good will toward men?"


But this General had a river to cross!

What kind of a man was Washington, and what kind of men would follow him on such a mission, enduring such privation and suffering. George Washington, at the core of this hero of a man, was a humble and devout Christian, who exhorted his troops to put away vice and practice the Christian virtues. He admonished, "To the distinguished character of a Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of a Christian." And what of the men who fought for American independence:

We regard our civil and religious principles to be the sweetest and essential part of our lives, without which the remainder is scarcely worth preserving. (Declaration of the townspeople of Chatham, Massachusetts)

If an army should be sent to reduce us to slavery, we will put our lives in our hands and cry to the Judge of all the earth.... Behold--how they come to cast us out of this possession, which Thou hast given us to inherit. Help us, Lord, our God, for we rest on Thee, and in Thy name we go against this multitude. (Boston Gazette)

Death is more eligible than slavery. A free-born people are not required by the religion of Jesus Christ to submit to tyranny, but may make use of such power as God has given them to recover and support their laws and liberties.... [We] implore the Ruler above the skies that He would make bare His arm in defense of His church and people, and let Israel go. (Declaration of the men of Marlborough, Massachusetts)

These men served the true God. To them Christmas meant "Christ the Savior is born." They acknowledged that "Christ is born of Mary," paying homage to the lowly Child born in a humble stable beneath a serene and starry sky. But they also recognized the stark, lurking reality of Evil, that just as that great antichrist Herod slew the children in order to snuff out the life of the Babe and to crush the life and liberty that He would bring to the world, so also these Americans faced their own tyrant, their own antichrist. And what was their response? The Provincial Congress of Massachusetts Bay, John Hancock presiding, declared, "Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual.... Continue steadfast, and with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us."

They crossed the raging river that night, in the cold driving snow and hail. When one of his generals sought to discourage the attack because their muskets were wet, Washington replied, "Tell General Sullivan to use the bayonet. I am resolved to take Trenton." About 8 a.m. they finally reached the enemy post, and engaged the Hessian troops, which were completely surprised. After about an hour of fierce fighting they surrendered to the American forces. This victory infused new life into the American cause, and was one of a string of pivotal and essential turnabouts during the war without which the history of America would have taken a vastly different course. Summing up the taking of Trenton, Sir George Trevelyan observed, "This was a long and severe ordeal, and yet it may be doubted whether so small a number of men ever employed so short a space of time with greater or more lasting results upon the history of the world."

The Americans themselves acknowledged the hand of God in the whole drama. Henry Knox, one of Washington's officers credited Divine intervention, recording, "Providence seemed to have smiled upon every part of this enterprise." Some of the instances of Providential aid are the following:

>The availability of the Durham boats and the presence of John Glover and his Marbleheaders, expert oarsmen who ferried Washington and his army not once, not twice, but three times across the Delaware.


>The inclement weather conditions, which provided cover for the offensive, decreasing visibility so as to conceal their movements, and diminishing the expectation of any attack in the minds of their enemies.


>A strange early attack and the delay of the Americans made the attack a complete surprise. The Hessian commander actually had intelligence of a possible attack, so that there was a detail put on alert. But somewhat early on Christmas night a mysterious band of ruffians emerged from the woods, exchanged one volley with the Hessian guards, and turned tail and ran back into the woods. The Hessian commander mistakenly considered this the pathetic attempt of the Americans at an attack of which he was warned. After this, he permitted his men to stand down and join the Christmas festivities. When the actual Colonial forces arrived in the morning, a sound sleep had fallen on them all. No one knows to this day who the early assailants were.


>The American troops suffered no casualties in the attack, except for two men who succumbed to the elements during the long march through the night from the River bank up to Trenton.


>The Americans acquired provisions, supplies, powder, clothing and blankets from their capture of Trenton, all which they desperately needed for survival.

>The uncanny but consistent delays on the part of the British Generals in pressing their advantage and pursuing the American Army, allowed Washington to escape once again, quickly abandoning Trenton and crossing the Delaware back into Pennsylvania just in advance of British reinforcements.

Washington himself, in this and in every episode of the war, would acknowledge God's handiwork in favoring the American cause: "The hand of Providence has been so conspicuous in all this that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked that has not gratitude to acknowledge his obligations." Indeed our forefathers were thankful, though they had many more hardships to endure; yet they would see many more “instances of a superintending Providence in [their] favor,” as Benjamin Franklin would recall years later.

This Christmas may we "cross the river" with our General, and enter that arena of conflict which every courageous and free man must endure. May we return to the God of our fathers who declared they would have "No king but king Jesus!" And with the signers of the Declaration (as Samuel Adams exclaimed at its adoption) might we profess that "We have this day restored the Sovereign, to Whom alone men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven and ... from the rising to the setting sun, may His Kingdom come." Then shall we earnestly sing of the birth of the Savior of Mankind,
"Joy to the world, the Lord is come; let earth receive her King.
Let every heart prepare Him room, and heaven and nature sing."

"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become the children of God, to those who believe in His name." (John 1:12)

Mary, Did You Know?





Obama Claus Is Coming To Town

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

Afghan Mohammed-Like Sexuality Concerns U.S. And British Forces

Afghan sex practices concern U.S., British forces | Washington Examiner

Youth Conversing with Suitors
Illustration from Jami, "Seven Thrones"
Persia, 1556



















Apparently there is some observation of homosexuality and pedophilia among the citizens of Afghanistan which has caused some concern  among US and British forces:

The report described unease by U.S. Marines and British soldiers who felt they were being propositioned, or who were outraged by apparent acts of pedophilia by Afghan soldiers and police. It documented one case in which 12 of 20 Pashtun interpreters working with one U.S. Army unit had contracted gonorrhea from homosexual encounters.

"I know Marines and soldiers who have refused to work with Afghan military or police," said one U.S. military official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "It's not about homosexuality as much as it is about the young boys. Some of them like to show pictures on their cell phone -- that should be illegal. Some of the Afghans have their own young boys they use for sexual purposes and we can't do anything about it."

The founder of Islam set the standard with his wife Ayesha (from FaithFreedom):

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3310:
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.

[Some Muslims claim that it was Abu Bakr who approached Muhammad asking him to marry his daughter. This is of course not true and here is the proof]:

Sahih Bukhari 7.18
Narrated 'Ursa:
The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for 'Aisha's hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said "But I am your brother." The Prophet said, "You are my brother in Allah's religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry."


This is the part of the post where the blogger is supposed to commentThe most eloquent thing I can think of to say is that this is sick stuff.   NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) can open an Afghan Club (AMBLA?).  It seems as though they might have already gotten word at NAMBLA of the situation in Afghanistan, because the picture at the top of this post, entitled "Youth Conversing with Suitors" from Jami, "Seven Thrones" Persia (Iran), 1556, is at the top of NAMBLA's website.



If A Stopped Clock Can Be Right Twice A Day Then Why Can't Lindsey Graham (R- South Carolina) Be Right Once In A While?

Graham: GOP to blame for 'capitulation ... of dramatic proportions' in lame-duck - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room













Let me be clear up front, of the two Senators from South Carolina, Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) is the Conservative (with a capital "C") and Lindsey Graham is the RINO.  Having said that, Senator Graham hit the nail on the head when he said that Harry Reid (D-Nevada) "has eaten our lunch" in the 2010 Lame Duck Senate.    Senator Graham is quoted in Michael O'Brien's post in The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) lashed out at fellow Republicans Tuesday for a "capitulation ... of dramatic proportions" to Democrats and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in the lame-duck Congress.

"When it's all going to be said and done, Harry Reid has eaten our lunch," Graham said on Fox News radio. "This has been a capitulation in two weeks of dramatic proportions of policies that wouldn't have passed in the new Congress."

"I can understand the Democrats being afraid of the new Republicans; I can't understand Republicans being afraid of the new Republicans," Graham lamented on WTMA radio. "They're not opportunities to take everything you couldn't do for two years and jam it. It's literally what they're doing, across the board. And after a while, I stop blaming them, and I blame us."

Senator Graham, I admit that there have been times where I did not agree with your point of view.  I even labeled you a RINO in this post, and you'll have to make a long-term swing toward Conservatism for me to eat crow on that one.  Having said all of that, though, you blasted this one out of the park, and I agree totally with you.

Have you been carpooling with Jim DeMint or something?  

The DREAM Act Workaround? Obama Announces U.S. Support For U.N. ‘Rights of Indigenous Peoples’ Declaration

Breitbart.tv » Obama Announces U.S. Support For U.N. ‘Rights of Indigenous Peoples’ Declaration



Mexicans and other South and Central Americans are considered Indigenous People Groups (just ask La Raza if you don't believe me), and I'm sure they can find  a US judge or three who will officially declare that to be so.  

Is this a backdoor DREAM Act substitute?  Could be.  All the Current President is interested in is getting enough votes in 2012 to stay in office and continue his dismantling of the Constitutional Republic of The United States.  This could give him something to campaign on in place of the DREAM Act to help with his 2012 campaign.  

The only question I have is will it take a second term for him to completely destroy the USA?  At the rate he is going it might or might not.  The GOP has shown a willingness to be weak and complaint and to compromise easily, and I believe that if Barack H. Obama is reelected in 2012 that even GOP control of both houses of Congress won't slow him down.  The GOP is too willing to compromise in order to appeal to the demographic that the pollsters tell them that they need to appeal to.  

Monday, December 20, 2010

December 21st 2010 Will Be Remembered As The Day That Free Speech Died

 

This is the "call it as we see it" standard, the same thing that Obamacare gives to the HHS Secretary, except that at least Obamacare was voted on in Congress.  


This is the FCC going outside of its legal bailiwick in order to impose restriction, in effect any restriction that it wants, on the freedom of speech that the Internet affords.  


We may have elected a representation change in the 2010 elections, but the FCC will snatch the authority to impose a restriction on the flow of information just before the new Congress is seated.


In other words, the ability of We The People to keep Congress accountable will be severely restricted if the FCC wants it to be. No outline of actual FCC operational guidelines will be put in writing. What it amounts to is that anything the FCC thinks is unfair will be stopped. Period.


Liberty, Freedom, Self-government, all of these things are contingent on Free Speech being unrestricted and uncensored by the government. There have been creeping restrictions on free speech since the 1950s in the USA, vastly accelerated upon the passage of Hate Crime laws that define a "Hate Crime" in extremely subjective terms, even relying on what the accused is thinking - yes, really.  


Now, free speech on the mass media of the Internet is about to be defined and regulated by an unelected, unaccountable, and anonymous government bureaucracy. The potential for abuse and oppression is limitless.  


March 21st 2010 was the day that Obamacare passed in Congress; I have labeled that date as the Day The Constitution Died. Now, nine months later, December 21st 2010 is the Day That Free Speech Died.  


I may not be able to blog in the future. That could end tomorrow or it could take longer. One thing is for sure, Freedom of Speech is not a given but rather a special right that can be taken away. A gap in the armor of The Constitution was breached in March of 2010, and now the Republic is leaking it's foundational lifeblood rapidly. May God grant us mercy.

Now That DADT is Gone Affirmative Action Should Be Next

Now That DADT is Gone Affirmative Action Should Be Next: Rick Moore at HolyCoast  

Rick Moore over at Holy Coast makes a good point, albeit one with his tongue firmly planted in his cheek. (Given the subject matter, I have to qualify that as no pun intended).  

I heard Sen. Joe Lieberman talk about his joy at the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the policy that kept homosexuals from serving in the military. He stated, and I paraphrase, that this is what America should be about - not who you are but how well you do your job.

Agreed.

So let's dump Affirmative Action. Affirmative Action is about who you are and not how you do your job.

I'm thinking that Rick must have been reading some epic tome from Saul Alinsky that directs the reader to hold the opposition to their own high standards. How does the old saying go? "Like fighting fire with fire". 

This argument of Rick's is logically sound, has practical merit to a great degree, and would save time and money because with Affirmative Action, many jobs take two or three people to get done whereas only one person who is actually qualified for the job could do it. 

Of course, Senator Lieberman's comments notwithstanding, we know that the repeal of DADT is not about "not who you are but how well you do your job" but instead is more about promoting an agenda that seeks to weaken the families of our country and the societal mores and morals that have been foundational for centuries. 

So I'm sure that Affirmative Action won't be repealed on the coattails of the repeal of DADT, no matter how logical a case could be made for such a "Progressive" move of "Change".

Sunday, December 19, 2010

Barack H. Obama Delivers For The Homosexual Lobby: Repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell Will Result In Homosexual Marriage Being Legalized In The Entire US

Newsvine



Some supporters of the repeal traveled to Washington to witness the vote, including Sue Fulton, a former Army captain and company commander who is spokeswoman for Knights Out, a group of 92 gay and lesbian West Point graduates who are out and no longer serving

Driving back home to North Plainfield, N.J., the 51-year-old Fortune 500 executive told The Associated Press that she thinks the repeal will have an effect on the civil rights of gays in America.

"As more people realize that gay and lesbian citizens are risking their lives to defend this country, perhaps they'll be more willing to acknowledge gays and lesbians as full citizens in other ways," she said.

Warren Arbury of Savannah, Ga., served in the Army for seven years, including three combat tours, before being kicked out two years ago under "don't ask, don't tell." But he said he planned to re-enlist once the policy is officially abolished.

"As soon as they give me the go, I'm going to march into the recruiter's office," he said. "And I want retroactive pay and rank."

Arbury said a fight for other social changes - such as allowing gays to marry and easing obstacles they face in adopting and raising children - still lies ahead, however.

"I think it's one step in a very long process of becoming an equal rights citizen," he said. "Even though this is really huge, I look at it as a chink in a very, very long chain."


The effects of this will be negative as far as US National Security is concerned and at the same time will be positive for the homosexual supporters of Barack H. Obama whose agenda  The Current President has vowed to advance; both of these results are in line with the goals of The Obama Administration as demonstrated since Obama took office.  

The homosexual lobby knows the significance of the change with the repeal of DADT and which dominoes are now lined up to fall, and they will not fail to act on this opportunity.  Will Republicans coming in after the Wave Election of 2010 have the courage to stop the massive Change that this will surely portend before it happens, or will they cave in to a lobby that represents approximately 1% of the total US population, but controls a hugely disproportionate amount of money and influence?  

Based on history, my guess is that the money and influence will win out when it comes to getting the attention of politicians.  Nevertheless, We The People will not go away quietly; if God is willing we will replace the politicians with statesmen in time to restore our Republic.  


Keep your friends close and your enemies closer,

Guy Average


Saturday, December 18, 2010

Lapdog Media Plays "Timing The Issues"

Useful Idiots: Timing the Issues - Big Journalism

A Christmas Card From The President To the Taliban and Al-Qaeda

Oh, they know already.  Letting politicians of any stripe run what the military should be running is a prescription for defeat and disgrace. 

Friday, December 17, 2010

Mr. President, Didn't You Promise To Post New Bills On The Internet And Wait Five Days Before Signing Any New Bill?

Breitbart.tv » Flashback: Obama Promised 5-Day, Public Review of Bills Before Signing; Signs Tax Bill Within Hours of House Vote



Yeah, I remember that too.  

That promise was made way back when Barack H. Obama wanted to seem like his buzzwords "Hope" and "Change" were going to mean, among other things, the most open and transparent Administration in history.  What happened to that? 


The President hasn't done that Five Day Online Posting thing with any legislation, has he?  I missed it if he has. 



 

Thursday, December 16, 2010

Lawrence Reed from Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) on Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano: Is the US Turning Marxist?

Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano: Guest Larry Reed from Foundation for Economic Education



Lawrence Reed from the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)in a brief interview with Judge Napolitano.  

Larry Reed is the President of FEE.  FEE’s mission is to offer the most consistent case for the “first principles” of freedom: the sanctity of private property, individual liberty, the rule of law, the free market, and the moral superiority of individual choice and responsibility over coercion. 

Check out the video and then check out the FEE websiteIn addition, take a look at The Freeman, FEE's "Ideas On Liberty" forum.

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Katie Couric and Condeleeza Rice Discuss Factual History Versus Revisionist History

H/T Attack Machine



Katie usually uses a teleprompter when she is on TV, but here she had notes that she held in her hand.   In contrast, Ms. Rice, does this without notes and without a teleprompter, but of course she knows from whence she speaks.

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Until Judges Are Accountable Directly To The Voters The USA Will Not Have True Representative Self-Government

When anyone regards the Supreme Court of The United States in 2010, the first thing that is taken into account is which Justices are on The Left, which Justices are Conservative, and then sometimes there is an Independent who is considered a "swing-vote".  

When the Supreme Court was founded, it was simply there to make judicial decisions that reflected the application of Constitutional Law to whatever cases that they ruled on.  


It was not to find new meaning in The Constitution.  It was not to take a side which reflected one political leaning in the USA or another.  In fact, the judicial appointments were made to be, in effect, for the life of the Justice because the position of Judge was an honorable position in an era where personal honor was taught, valued, and highly esteemed.  We are no longer in such an era, however.


Now, we know which Justices are Strict Constructionists whose Conservative views would seek to follow the original intention of the Supreme Court in applying The Constitution as it was written.  We also know which Justices believe that The Constitution is a living document that can and should be changed to meet the whims of a fickle society, one which no longer values personal honor and indeed often mocks such a virtue.  


I submit that until and unless we make The Supreme Court, and ALL other judicial positions, to be elected positions or accountable to voters in a retention vote that we will not have a government that is representative of We The People and therefore not anything at all like the Founders intended.  As long as these folks take political positions on one side or the other, or even in the middle, then they should be accountable directly to the voters.  We have too much partisan judicial water under the bridge to live in the fantasy that judges are not political, and to make them lifetime appointments is in effect to establish a non-representative government in the USA.  


We have seen in the case of California Proposition 8 and Oklahoma State Question 755 that judges are ready, willing, and able to make, or in those cases repeal, laws that are reflective of the will of the people, those people who are supposed to be self-governed. 

If we have reached the point that legal neutrality is gone from the judicial bench, and if we have reached the point that these same jurists when, apparently, devoid of the personal honor that their Oath of Office would demand of them, have deigned themselves as the creators of law as well as the organ of repeal, then we have reached the point that our system of self-government demands that these judges, all of them, become accountable to the voters.  If this does not happen then all future elections will represent nothing except an opiate for the masses who can delude themselves that they are part of representative self-government while the actual government of the USA rests with a Judicial Oligarchy which has no accountability to the citizens.  

Judges would still be appointed and confirmed as they are in the current Constitutionally-prescribed way.  A simple RETENTION VOTE would do the job for accountability.  Some states already have this.  It could, and in my opinion should, be done for US judges at all levels, all the way up to and including the SCOTUS

For the SCOTUS it should be one "electoral vote" per state (awarded on a simple majority of the popular vote within that state) and a majority of "state votes" in the case of each Justice would be required for retention. Voting should be done every two years for retention, in the same year that US House of Representatives elections are held (the judges are making law nowadays, just like the Representatives). 

For Federal District and Circuit judges it should be a majority of the popular vote of the districts where they serve.  Voting every two years for retention.

For state and local judges there should be the state option of direct election or retention election.  Voting every two years for retention.

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer,


Guy Average

Monday, December 13, 2010

Gasoline Prices Skyrocket in 2010 - Media That Used To Blame Bush For Gasoline Prices Now Refuses To Blame Obama

Pain At The Pump, Where’s The Media? - Big Journalism






















During the 2008 Presidential campaign, I saw bumper stickers that listed what the price of gasoline was when George W. Bush entered office ( about 1.40 per gallon ) compared to the price in 2008, with the implication being that George W. Bush was in collusion with the Oil Industry to make sure that gasoline prices would rise at the pump and give windfall profits to the petroleum barons. Of course, the solution that these bumper-sticker pundits offered was to vote for Hope and Change.

Now, barely two years later, we have had a ban imposed by Barack H. Obama that does not allow oil drilling and exploration on the East Coast or in the Gulf of Mexico.  Predictably, prices are rising at the pump for gasoline.  

When the prices of gasoline rose under Bush, the media trumpeted this far and wide.  Now, when Obama sets up the perfect situation for decreased supply in the face of increased demand (which of course will result in increased prices), the media is focused on anything but the price of gasoline at the pump.

Americans who have to drive cannot ignore this situation so glibly as the Media does, because it stares them in the face at the pump and on the shelves as they buy food, clothing, and the other staples of life whose prices are affected by transportation costs. 

Ron Futrell write about this at Big Journalism:  

Oh, the activists in the old media commit sins of omission and sins of commission, sometimes both in the same story.

Take those pesky gas prices that have now skyrocketed to more than $3.00 a gallon. For months the media had just omitted the story altogether like they hadn’t even noticed, while during the Bush administration they couldn’t stop doing stories on “Pain At The Pump” and they worked overtime to point the nozzle directly at the White House.



Here are a couple of examples; there are many others.

This story from 2006 on MSNBC blasts Bush for doing little to stop the rising gas prices.

This story from 2008 talks about how Bush and Evil Big Oil were conspiring against us all to raise prices and how Dear Leader Obama was going to come in and save us all from high gas prices and our dependence on foreign oil.

Whoops.

When Obama entered the White House gas prices averaged $1.81 per gallon. Evil Bush/Oil must’ve done something to make those prices fall – but there’s no time in the 10 hours a day that local TV stations do in their newscasts to mention this little fact. 

Just for the record, in June 2008 Obama said that he had no problem with higher gas prices, just that they had to rise with a “gradual adjustment.”

Welcome to Obama’s America and the gradual adjustment of gas prices. Things seem to be right on schedule for this president and the activist old media acts sits there and wonders why all of this is happening. Poor Obama having to have to deal with this, I’m sure he’s working hard to help the average American family. I heard him say so in his last speech.

Fill ‘er up!

Just like Democrats all the way back to Franklin D. Roosevelt publicly and self-righteously proclaimed while removing self-government, Barack H. Obama is "working hard to help the average American family".  

A large and powerful federal government is the enemy of individual liberty and prosperity.  Remember that when you fill up your tank; for good measure, figure up how much federal plus state taxes add to the cost of each gallon as well as the Obama policies that will drive up the cost of each gallon further. 

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer, 

Guy Average

Friday, December 10, 2010

The "Tax Deal" Is Going To Cost The Taxpayers More Than "The Stimulus"... In More Ways Than One

The Swindle Of The Year: Charles Krauthammer - Washington Post

That's correct, Representative Boehner.  The President has some cards up his sleeve. 






















Charles Krauthammer, writing in the Washington Post, exposes the "Tax Deal" A.K.A. The Obama-McConnell Tax Compromise, as being the "Swindle Of The Year", which is a strong statement in a year that brought us Obamacare.  Krauthammer writes:

Barack Obama won the great tax-cut showdown of 2010 - and House Democrats don't have a clue that he did. In the deal struck this week, the president negotiated the biggest stimulus in American history, larger than his $814 billion 2009 stimulus package. It will pump a trillion borrowed Chinese dollars into the U.S. economy over the next two years - which just happen to be the two years of the run-up to the next presidential election.

If Obama had asked for a second stimulus directly, he would have been laughed out of town. Stimulus I was so reviled that the Democrats banished the word from their lexicon throughout the 2010 campaign. And yet, despite a very weak post-election hand, Obama got the Republicans to offer to increase spending and cut taxes by $990 billion over two years. Two-thirds of that is above and beyond extension of the Bush tax cuts but includes such urgent national necessities as windmill subsidies. 

Obama is no fool. While getting Republicans to boost his own reelection chances, he gets them to make a mockery of their newfound, second-chance, post-Bush, Tea-Party, this-time-we're-serious persona of debt-averse fiscal responsibility. 
[ NOTE: see "Pledge To America(pdf)"-video HERE ]

One of the great ironies of this whole thing is that Democrats are against the Tax Deal, while Republicans, in violation of their "Pledge To America", are in favor of it.  

How does this Tax Deal violate the Pledge To America"?  In at least five ways which are listed below (page numbers in parenthesis are from the text of Pledge To America):

“Permanently Stop All Job-Killing Tax Hikes” (p. 16)

“Act immediately to Reduce Spending” (p. 21) 

“Cut Government Spending to Pre-Stimulus, Pre-Bailout Levels” (p. 21) 

“Read the Bill” (p. 33)

“Advance Legislative Issues One at a Time” (p. 33)


I'm in favor of keeping the current tax rates and not having a "Death Tax".  If this "Tax Deal" makes its way into law, then it will cost the taxpayers dearly in order to keep the Bush Tax Rates, and a 35% Estate Tax will be added over the current Estate Tax Rate of 0% (yes, zero estate tax currently).  Additionally, there is further spending attached in the Tax Deal that is not necessary to keep the Bush Tax Rates in place but instead represents The President taking advantage of another "Crisis". 

In effect, this "Tax Deal" will result in a second Stimulus Bill that costs more than the first one.  The net benefits will be to further damage the economy on both a national and individual level.  

Keep the Bush Tax Rates, period.  The rest of the Tax Deal is a weak compromise, and represents an action that just last September the Republicans vowed that they would not take part in. 


Keep Your Friends Close And Your Enemies Closer.

Guy Average

The "Tax Deal" Looks Like It Is A "Pass It And We'll Find Out What's In It" Kind Of Thing...It Is Most Deserving Of A "NO" Vote!

Kill 'the Deal' - Hugh Hewitt - Townhall Conservative

Back in March of 2010 when Obamacare was rammed through, we had House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) tell us that "we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it":

Now, in December of 2010 we're still not sure of what all is in Obamacare, but we do know for sure that there is a lot of Unconstitutional Government Control built into and woven throughout Obamacare.  The November 2010 elections were an attempt at hitting the reset button on Obamacare.  In some cases the 2010 Midterm Election was a hopeful response to the Republican "Pledge To America" as well.

Now, we have a "Tax Deal" that has been agreed upon behind closed doors by Barack H. Obama and Republican Leaders like John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) that looks and smells like one of those "pass it so we can find out what's in it" kind of bills.

Hugh Hewitt points out some objections to this approach in an article on Townhall

The arguments against “the deal” are many and profound. In no particular order, the most pressing objections are: 

"The deal" was forged in secret, without consultation with the scores of new representatives and senators who campaigned on a much different agenda much less with their supporters and contributors who worked for two years and gave vast sums of money so that a new start could be made, one built on transparency and principle. 

"The deal" like Obamacare, isn't reduced to writing even now, when Senator Reid says a vote could be held on Saturday. Like Obamacare, we are being told we will have to pass the bill to find out what is in it. 

"The deal" revives the death tax, an immoral “vampire tax” that sucks the blood from the dead, ruins family businesses and double taxes savings that were accumulated over a lifetime.

"The deal" spends billions and billions of dollars that the country does not have in order to prevent a tax hike that the country voted against. In essence the GOP bribed the president to follow the will of the people.

The points above are salient enough to support Mr. Hewitt's objection to The Deal, but he goes on to point out that The Deal violates the "Pledge To America" that the GOP leaders made before the 2010 elections, and he itemizes the points that it violates: 

On September 23, all of the House GOP leadership agreed to the “Pledge to America .” A photo op was arranged at the Tart Lumber store in Sterling, Virginia, and the senior leaders of the would-be majority, with their shirt sleeves rolled up, took the pledge and asked America for the majority back. There are at least five provisions of the Pledge that are breached by “the deal.” In September the House GOP promised to: 

“Permanently Stop All Job-Killing Tax Hikes” (p. 16)

“Act immediately to Reduce Spending” (p. 21) 

“Cut Government Spending to Pre-Stimulus, Pre-Bailout Levels” (p. 21) 

“Read the Bill” (p. 33)

“Advance Legislative Issues One at a Time” (p. 33) 

“The deal’s” assault on “The Pledge” will make the latter a joke, and instantly impacts the credibility of all future efforts to propose agendas to the electorate. 

(Read Hugh Hewitt's entire post HERE)

I decided over a year ago to never trust any politician of any party, but instead maintain the stance of "trust but verify", and as long as the Internet is not co-opted by the Federal Communications Commission in order to squelch Freedom of Speech, it may be possible to keep our elected officials accountable, at least to some degree.  This is looking like one of those times where the stench rising from the Swamp By The Potomac has wafted into the Alternative Media, and thank God for that.  

The TEA Party Patriots website advises that in order to make your voice heard about "The Deal", you should make the following five phone calls:

1. Your own Congressman - click for the phone number

2.
The two Senators from your state - click for the phone numbers

3. Speaker Elect Boehner - 202-225-6205, fax: 202-225-0704


4. Senator McConnell - 202-224-2541, fax: 202-224-2249



I've not only got a phone but a fax machine and a computer, so I'm going to make use of all three of those methods and let them know how I feel.  My prayer is that you will do the same.

Keep Your Friends Close And Your Enemies Closer

Guy Average  

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

Close Enough For Government Work: If Quantitative Easing (QE2) Causes Inflation Then Why Is The Consumer Price Index Inflation Rate So Low?




















The Federal Reserve is doing "Quantitative Easing" which is a process whereby The Fed credits its own account with money it has created ex nihilo and then uses that money to purchase bonds from itself, essentially.   It is also known as "monetization of the debt".  You can think of it as the government printing money to provide a way for it to pay its own bills.  If you want a visual, here is Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke in an artist's rendering of the process:
















One thing that happens when the supply of a currency is increased is that each unit of currency is worth less in proportion to the amount of the currency that is available for circulation.  This is called "inflation", and when inflation of a currency happens then it will buy less per unit of currency, and so in effect the currency is "devalued" which means simply that it has less buying power than it had previously.

So if a government has to print more money because it needs that money to pay its bills, then the rate of inflation should increase based on the law of supply and demand.  

Under the Consumer Price Index in the United States (CPI), the official inflation rate does NOT  include the cost of fuel or food.  I know that you're thinking that food and fuel are things that everybody uses so why would these not be used to figure out what the inflation rate is?  I suspect that it is because the official inflation rate is much lower if the price of food and fuel is not included.  Does that make sense to you? 

For example, as of the writing of this post, the most recent stats for the CPI are from October 2010.  For October 2010 the increase in the CPI was 0.2 percent and for the 12 months preceding October 2010 the increase in the CPI was 1.2%.   I know, the cost of fuel has gone up more than that and so has the cost of food, and yeah you have to eat every day and you have to put fuel in your automobile to get to and from work so you can buy food and pay for housing and so on, but the government says that we don't need to take into account the cost of food and fuel.  That must mean that the cost of food and fuel has increased an amount that is not significant based on the overall numbers, right?  Well, the gasoline price index has risen 9.5% over that same 12 month period, and food has risen 1.4%.   I imagine that if the price increase of those two items was taken into account for the CPI, given the relative quantity of both that we have to consume just to survive every day, then it would bring that pesky CPI Inflation rate up there quite a bit higher.  That wouldn't be news to you, however, because you are out there checking the prices on the pump and at the grocery and watching them go up steadily.

So as the Fed prints about $1 TRILLION more dollars (give or take a few Billions) under Quantitative Easing and all of that extra money gets out into circulation, things are going to cost more just because of how many more dollars are in circulation.  

Will the inflation rate that the government tells you we have reflect your real life costs?  Well, that really depends on if you have to buy gasoline and/or eat food; as long as you can cut those expenditures out of your budget, then the increase in your cost of living should be exactly the same as the increase in the CPI that the government reports...or at least close enough for government work.

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Patriotic Millionaires For Fiscal Strength Can Contribute All The Extra Money They Want



A group calling itself Patriotic Millionaires For Fiscal Strength recently wrote a letter to President Obama urging him to "stand firm against those who would put politics ahead of their country", and asking The President to allow tax cuts to expire at the end of 2010 for those who have an annual income of $1,000,000.00 or more. 

Here is a brief excerpt from their short letter to The President:
We have done very well over the last several years. Now, during our nation’s moment of need, we are eager to do our fair share. We don’t need more tax cuts, and we understand that cutting our taxes will increase the deficit and the debt burden carried by other taxpayers. The country needs to meet its financial obligations in a just and responsible way.

Letting tax cuts for incomes over $1,000,000 expire, is an important step in that direction.

As it turns out, they could have been giving extra money to the US Treasury all along while under the Bush Tax Cut Rates, and could continue to do so as the Bush Tax Cut Rates are extended. At the same time others who have an income over $1,000,000.00 per year who would prefer to expand their businesses (and create jobs as a byproduct of that expansion) with the margin from the lower Bush Tax Cut Rates instead of giving extra money to Uncle Sam could continue to do that as well.  The reason?  The United States Treasury allows voluntary contributions to be made toward the reduction of the debt.  It is called "TreasuryDirect" and you can see the website by clicking HERE.


 Here's to you, Millionaires For Fiscal Strength.  Since you have collectively stated that you are standing firm against those who would put politics ahead of their country, then we can all thank you for the voluntary contributions that we know you will be making to TreasuryDirect

As for those of us who do not fall into the millionaire category, we prefer a continuation of the current tax rate based on the Bush Tax Cuts, and in addition to that: