Is The Mainstream Media Telling You What Is Important and What Isn't?

Liberals have a big problem; they have no foot to stand on when it comes to facts and reason. All they have is emotion. Emotion is what they rely on to further their “cause”. When conservatives bring facts and reason into the picture it poses a big threat to the liberal agenda. This is why they need to shape the narrative. They do this by telling you, the voter, what is important and what isn’t.

Last week Breitbart.com released a video of President Barack Obama in his college days. This video showed the President saying “open up your hearts and minds to the words of Professor Derrick Bell” while introducing then hugging radical “Critical Race Theorist” Derrick Bell. This was a video that was hid by the mainstream media (MSM) during the 2008 presidential campaign, as Professor Charles Ogletree admits in the video released by Breitbart.com.

 After the release of this much anticipated video Breitbart.com’s editor-in-chief Joel Pollak appeared on Soledad O’Brien’s Starting Point on CNN (an interview was as typical as it gets) to explain the video and its importance. From the start of this interview we can hear quips like “over-advertising again” and “is that it, is that the “bombshell”?”-  alluding that the released video is nothing of importance. Soledad O’Brien spends almost the entire interview TRYING to discredit the importance of this video. Not to mention that when she isn’t doing that she’s getting her facts wrong about critical race theory, like the basic definition of it (watch interview).

As an example of liberals not liking what doesn’t fit their narrative, on twitter I pointed out a few of Ms. Obrien’s shortcomings in the interview with Joel Pollak about Professor Bell and critical race theory and I was blocked without hesitation. No response, no questions, I just got blocked. I guess Ms. Obrien didn’t like what I had to say. This is the perfect example to show how liberals think. While conservatives have no problem accepting and encouraging new voices to the debate liberals do. Liberals want to silence all opposing voices. Why you ask, because they have nothing to stand on. They rely on these tactics of silencing their opponents instead of debating the matter at hand. Just look at what Media Matters For America tried to do to Glenn Beck; going after his advertisers to try to get him kicked off the air, to silence his voice.

This is what the liberal MSM does. Any piece of news that might prove troubling to their liberal candidates or their liberal organizations is hidden or squashed and if or when it comes to the surface they downplay it. Look no further than the Monica Lewinsky story Drudge broke while Newsweek sat on it. The MSM is filtering the news they provide to their viewers. They are telling you what is important and what isn’t. Any news that doesn’t fit their narrative is squashed. Then when it comes up, just like this Derrick Bell video came up, they downplay it. “It’s not that important!” “You (the viewer) didn’t need to know about it.” Sound familiar?

The MSM is anything but objective. For a long time now they have been deciding for their viewers what news is important and what news isn’t. That isn’t the media’s job. The media’s job is to provide the news and provide it objectively. The media should be reporting their findings while letting their viewers decide whether it is important or not. This is why New Media like Breitbart.com, The Daily Caller, and Drudge Report have been so popular. People are waking up to the fact that their news was being filtered for them by the MSM.

It is important to understand what the liberal mainstream media does to silence the voices of their opponents and this is why it is important that they are vetted. If the mainstream media is allowed to continue filtering the news they provide their viewers they will continue to control the narrative. They must not be allowed to tell the people what news is important and what news is not. This is why it is important for citizen journalists and true objective journalists to vet the media!

--Trent Anson

TSA

The Unions That Are Destroying Our Country

Republicans are trying to save this country- pulling it out of the depths of recession while liberals are kicking and screaming to continue their job crushing, debt accelerating, anit-American ways that are destroying this country. These liberals are using their public sector unions, and the Democrats those unions have put in office with taxpayer money to milk taxpayers dry… you know, the people that are actually working for their money?

Liberals seem to view government as the “company” providing jobs to those who couldn’t get a job in the private sector due to their skills, attitude or sense of entitlement. Then they get paid more to produce less. Sounds like your typical liberal thought process.

There is no room for public sector workers to unionize. There is a big difference between a private sector union and a public sector union. Even FDR and former AFL-CIO president agreed with this point. FDR said, “…collective bargaining cannot be transplanted into the public sector” while former AFL-CIO president, George Meany, says, “Unions are not appropriate for civil servants.”

Liberals don’t seem to understand that there exists a difference between the two different kinds of unions, public and private. Ever since this latest fiasco in Wisconsin liberals have been trying to knock conservative pundits like Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck for siding with Governor Scott Walker on the issue of public sector unions. Liberals say these guys don’t know what they are talking about; they belong to unions themselves. Hey, smart guys- those are private sector unions they belong to. Even Ronald Reagan, the father of the modern conservative movement, belonged to a union…. that’s a private sector union.

There are many reasons there is no room for public sector unions; but all those reasons originate from one fundamental business practice, “negotiations”. Government unions don’t have hostile management on the other side of the bargaining table like private sector unions do. The government “bosses” are part of those same unions themselves and they are on the same side of that same negotiating table. That means the taxpayers don’t even have a seat at the table, making it so the workers get whatever they want because they have no one they are negotiating against. So, management and the workers are bargaining against no one for their better wages and benefits.

Due to liberals and these unions getting their way for so long public sector workers are making ridiculous amounts of money and benefits without having to produce.

In the private sector workers are expected to produce a certain amount to make their share of the company’s profits, their wages. If they produce more there is an opportunity to make more, if they produce less they lose their job. This isn’t the case in the public sector. There is no incentive for the public sector worker to produce more or even what is expected. They will get their wages, with automatic pay increases, no matter what their output. Just look at the teachers of New York getting paid to sit around to do nothing because they are unfit to be in a classroom. Due offenses ranging from insubordination and incompetence all the way to sexual misconduct. The taxpayers are footing the bill at the tune of $65 million a year for these teachers to sit around and play Scrabble.

On top of that, due to the public sector unions “negotiations”, if you want to call them that, even if these civil service workers don’t produce what is expected it is nearly impossible to fire them. Then, when/if cuts are needed and people need to be let go the decision of who to lay-off is made solely by seniority, not merit.
What makes this all even worse is the federal worker makes substantially more than his counterpart in the private sector. In 2009, the average public sector worker made $123,049 in salary and benefits while the average public sector worker made $61,051. Then, when just wages are considered both the hourly and salary employee of the federal government makes 57% more than the private sector worker.

Liberals, like John Berry of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), love to say that this is not comparing apples-to-apples because the federal worker is on average more skilled and/or schooled than the private sector worker. Well, the Heritage Foundation did two studies that accounted for skill, education and even experience (apples-to-apples) and the federal employee still made 22% more in wages than the private sector worker. Twenty-two percent is a lot when the private sector worker probably produces around double what his private sector counterpart produces.

Private sector workers, in 2010, quit their jobs at a rate of 1.6% while public sector workers quit at a rate of 0.2%. All this being said it very apparent why public sector workers don’t quit their jobs. They make amazing wages, have great benefits, can’t be fired and don’t have to produce anything, and they don’t…. why would anybody quit that job?

All of this waste is costing the taxpayers a fortune. If the wages and benefits of federal employees were reformed to market rates it would save the taxpayers around $50 billion a year at the federal level alone. This doesn’t mean that Congress should uniformly reduce the rates. What they should do is expand outsourcing to the public sector and replace the current system with a new performance based pay system. Congress should also bring the federal benefits in line with market rates.

Of course these liberal filled unions don’t like this because they will actually be forced to work for once. They also would get passed up by the guy that is actually working and producing what he was hired to produce. Seniority would no long be they safety net it is today.

Not only have unions been telling Democrats they put in office, with taxpayer money, what to do but those Democrats have been promising the public sector unions more money, more benefits and more job security. If those Democrats, that are elected with the dues the union members pay (whether they want to or not), don’t support the union in every aspect they are told they will be removed from office.

Elected officials have no offsetting concern when negotiating with public unions, at least Democrats don’t. The more taxpayer money these officials get the unions- the more the unions will contribute to their campaigns for reelection.

After years of this same routine, finally the battered taxpayers have some people fighting for them at that negotiating table. Governors like Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels and Scott Walker have been reforming the systems in their states to work the way things are supposed to.

For example, Governor Scott Walker cut through the pleasantries and announced what the state really was, BROKE! Instead of letting the state’s credit card continue to go past its spending limit, he proposed a solution. Part of that solution, which didn’t include raising taxes like the Democrats have done for years, was to curtail the collective-bargaining right of state employees- restoring the voter and taxpayer control over the system. This has been called an assault by many, including the president. The problem is this isn’t an assault and it is the only way for Wisconsin and other states alike to have a responsible, fiscally sound government.

This caused unions to go ballistic, bitching and moaning, launching protests at the state capital of Madison- All just because they were asked to contribute to their pensions and healthcare, still around 30-40% less than the average private sector worker does. The protests were supposed to help the unions gain public support. Of course, during the protests, the unions fail to inform the public, in their chants, that they have continuously confiscated the rights of their members, or how their demands will bankrupt the state.

It really is too bad for the unions because Mitch Daniels did this exact same think in Indiana and it saved the members $1000/yr. It also made it so the members who didn’t what to pay their dues, which automatically go to the Democratic Party, didn’t have to. So for these union members to say that they won’t be able to live on these new wages and without collective bargaining is absurd.

Then the unions say that are “for the people”, they aren’t “for the people”, they are “for the Democrats.” Time and time again these same unions have proved that they are more interested in their political agendas and the union big wigs than their actual rank and file members. There have been so many instances where the unions have decided to allow their members to be laid off instead of taking a cut in either wages and/or contribute more to their benefits.

One can only come to the conclusion that all this is normal when dealing with liberals. It’s like they find the worst way to do something and will stop at nothing to keep doing it that way. It doesn’t matter what the consequences are or who it hurts…. it’s the liberal way, right?

Net Neutrality

 

Once again Barack Obama and his administration are after more power with unchecked executive orders while completely ignoring the wishes of the American people. It is obvious that the liberals in this country didn’t understand the message the American people sent this government back in November. You know… that clear cut message of LESS GOVERNMENT?!?!?!?

This time Obama is after control of the internet with “Net Neutrality”. Back in December of 2010 the head honchos over at the FCC held a vote to implement the new rules of Net Neutrality. They did this completely disregarding the decision DC Appeals Court, eight months earlier, telling them they couldn’t do it because they didn’t have the authority to regulate the internet that way.

But, to no surprise at all, the vote passed anyway, showing the progressives in government today have no respect for separation of power. The vote was split right down party lines, 3-2. The three Democrats that voted for it were Mignon Clyburn, Michael Copps and Chairman Julius Genachowski. The Republicans that voted against it were Robert McDowell and Meredith Baker.

Well what is Net Neutrality?.... Net Neutrality is a set of regulations that would prohibit Internet Service Providers from discriminating against data and content while making it illegal to transfer certain websites data faster than other sites data. On the surface it looks like a really good plan but think about it for a second. What has made the internet so great and so prosperous? That’s right, the fact that government hasn’t been involved in it in any way, shape or form.

The reason the internet has flourished the way it has in the past 10-15 years is because government has been kept out of it.

The liberals love to play the “fair” card. Well, this makes everything fair. The liberal blogger in his underwear, in his parent’s basement, would get the same download speed as FOX News would get under the Net Neutrality regulations. The problem with that is it shouldn’t be fair. FOX News, paying hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in internet service bills should get a priority over the kid in his room watching porn. That’s just the way it is.

This is also what business is, offering a product that people want for money. If someone is willing to pay more for a faster internet connection, the service providers should be able to offer that in their internet packages if they want. If a consumer doesn’t like what a service provider is doing they can always switch providers. If a certain service provider blocks a particular site and the consumer doesn’t like that, just change providers.

What Net Neutrality changes is, if the government decides to block a certain site or certain content you can’t switch governments. There is nowhere else to go because every service provider is providing the same thing. Where this gets really dangerous is, what if Barack Obama decides to block his opponent’s campaign site one month before the election? What will stop him from doing it? By the time it gets settled in court the election is already over. The damage is already done.

The fact is 80% of Americans have a choice between at least two different service providers for their internet needs. What this means is, if one service provider is doing something the people in the area don’t like, the other provider is going to make sure it is doing the opposite. It’s called competition, that’s what business is. This also means that there is a lot of room for growth in the service provider market.

The reason some of the big companies like Netflix are supporting the Net Neutrality regulations is because it makes it harder for newcomers to enter the market. The more regulations there are in an industry the harder it is for a new company to start up. Look at the automotive industry…. Why do you think there have been no new car companies created in the past 20-30 years? It is because there are so many regulations in the industry that it is nearly impossible for a new company to start up.

This applies to the internet industries the same way. These big companies that have already established themselves and already have their foot in the door have nothing to worry about. Then, the more internet regulations that come around the safer they become. The regulations force these businesses to provide a certain product a certain way. So, when the newcomer comes into the market he can’t offer anything new or different because the regulations limit what he can do.

The reason some of these companies are objecting to these new regulations is because Net Neutrality will limit their potential to create new business opportunities and to produce more revenue. There is a lot of money to be made out there on the internet and it is packed full of potential. The problem is when government introduces regulations like this into the market it puts a huge dent in the amount money that can be made and the amount that can be achieved through innovation.

Now, on top of all this, Barack Obama wants an off switch he can use in times of “crisis” to turn off the internet when he sees fit. What possible crisis could arise to where it would be necessary to turn off the internet? The answer is none. It would just be another display of power Obama wants to possess.

Would it be a crisis if he was down 30 points in the polls going into November 2^nd?... An “accidental” slip of the finger turning the internet off here and there till his numbers go up? Just a thought.

The internet was turned off in Egypt when the country broke out into complete chaos and Obama demanded it be turned back on… yet he wants to be able to do it himself in this country? Ya, that makes a whole lot of sense. The simple fact is it’s all about power and nothing else.

Another horrible idea the president has added to his internet regulation is to give all internet users in America an Internet ID. Now why else would they want to do this other than to just spy on people and see what everybody is doing? It is just a nonstop power grab with this president and his administration? That’s all they are after, is power.

There is some good news about Net Neutrality that has developed in the past few weeks though. The Republicans in the House seem to have their heads on straight. They are making sure that the Democrats can’t implement these internet regulations and are stopping the power grab.

First, House Republicans made sure when they passed this last continuing resolution a few weeks ago, to fund the government through mid-march, they told the FCC it was not allowed to use any of the money they were given, for operations, to enact any parts of Net Neutrality. This is just a temporary measure taken until they can defund the whole thing and pass a law to make sure this never happens again.

Second, Congressional Republican leaders are starting to focus on the Net Neutrality argument again. For a while there, it seemed as if people had forgotten all about it, but its back. John Boehner himself even posted a blog giving 11 reasons why a government takeover of the internet is a bad thing.

Net Neutrality is a great example of job crushing, innovation killing regulations implemented by power hungry liberals in Washington DC. These power grabs need to be stopped. If America continues to walk down this path with blinders on this recession will soon become the new norm. The internet is one of the last government-free industries out there. And look at it, there is a new self-made millionaire created every day because of it.

We all know the liberals hate it when they hear someone has done well for themselves and made a lot of money, but who cares. Let them live in their miserable little bubble dreaming of that completely socialist society where everybody is the same. Remember Ayn Rand’s book Anthem? Just don’t let them make it a reality. The internet is an amazing resource with endless potential. As soon as the government gets involved, that is all gonna go right down the drain. The reason the internet is so great today is because the government isn’t involved. Let’s keep it that way!

Pass the word along about why Net Neutrality needs to be stopped. Next time you’re at a dinner party bring it up and tell your friends why these regulations are killing our country. It is time to just stop sitting there thinking everything will work out for the best. These liberals have become dangerous and need to be stopped. We can’t do this from our living rooms. Get out there, get hungry! Make a difference!

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.7

That Damn Document

A few weeks ago, John Boehner (R-OH), the new Speaker of the House, mentioned there was going to be a historic reading of the US constitution on the House floor. According to the House Historian Office, it had never been done before. So, the Constitution made its first appearance in the 112th Congress, 221 years after the first official Congress.

After the liberals got wind of what Boehner had planned they were up in arms about the idea. Naturally, the left mocked it. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) called the reading of our founding document “Republican propaganda” and “total nonsense”. If that is how he truly feels, why did he become a congressman? Its only the same exact document he swore ‘to support and defend’.

By no surprise, The New York Times called it “a presumptuous and a self-righteous act”. But some Democrats are due some credit having taking part in reading some of the constitution themselves.

It would be easy to see how this could be considered gimmicky or for show but the way it has provoked the left to a near violent reaction shows how needed this reading of the constitution really is. The anger and hate coming from the left is astounding. Why are they so upset about this? Could it be because they have tried everything humanly possible to get around this document to shove their legislation down the publics throat? Maybe?... I think soooo.

Of course liberals can’t do anything without pulling out the race card. That is why they had Jesse Jackson Jr. talk on the House floor about how emotional the reading of the Constitution would be to African-Americans and other minorities. He tried emphasizing the struggle that minorities went through to get the rights they have today and it might be too emotional for some members of the Congressional Black Caucus to sit and listen to. Instead, Jackson wants the unamended version read to highlight the original sin of slavery. Too bad it does no such thing. He just doesn’t want the amended version read because it reiterates that we abolished slavery long ago and reminds everyone how far this nation has come over the last 200+ years, in regards to our race relations.

Watching the hate and the rhetoric coming from the left, one would think the Democrats were being water-boarded. They are acting as if listening to the Constitution being read is punishment. And because they lost the last election they are being forced to sit and listen to the document being read, that same document that keeps getting in their way, the Constitution, that pesky document that limits the power of the government, limits the role of government and its size.

The Republicans are also implementing a new House rule that makes anyone introducing a new bill prove how the bill is constitutional and where the constitution grants the congress the power to enact that law. This is a great idea. This makes these lawmakers prove to one another, Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, that the bill they want to enact as law is constitutional.

This one really pissed the liberals off. Not only do they have to sit and listen to that damn document being read, but they have to prove how the legislation they are introducing is constitutional? OMG…. that’s just horrible isn’t it (note the sarcasm, I know how easily you liberals get confused)?

Congressman Barney Franks (D-MA) called it, “an air kiss Republicans are blowing to the Tea Party” and went on to add, “Anything we’re doing that is unconstitutional will be thrown out in court” (I don’t know how he does it but Barney Franks sometimes sounds dumber than he looks). Basically what Barney wants to do is pass as many questionably constitutional laws as possible without the public knowing. If that weren’t the case, why else would he have such a problem with this new rule and why is he mocking it? If you are a lawmaker it should be easy to prove how your legislation is constitutional, it shouldn’t be difficult. The only reason it would be difficult is if it wasn’t constitutional.

Congressman Henry Waxman said, “When I went to law school they said the law’s what a judge says it is. Whether it is constitutional or not is going to be whether the Supreme Court says it is.” So what Waxman is now saying is, he wants to pass the legislation he wants and doesn’t care if it is constitutional or not. He just hopes if it ever goes to court it finds its way into a liberal judges courtroom.

It is unbelievable that elected officials like Rep. Franks and Rep. Waxman would argue that they need not worry about the constitutionality of legislation they are trying to pass. By doing so they are completely disregarding their oath they took for the office they hold, “to support and defend the constitution of the United States”. Fortunately for the citizens of America, our new Speaker of the House, John Boehner, understands the oath he took and his constitutional role as a legislature, unlike many liberals in office hoping to “sneak one by” the people they were elected by.

What it comes down to is, only liberals would be upset with something as basic as a reading of the United States Constitution on the floor of the United States House of Representatives and having to prove how their legislation is constitutional. If everything they have been doing these past couple years is constitutional, like they say it is, they shouldn’t have a problem with any of this. But the fact that all this has provoked such a violent and hateful reaction begs the question, why are they so upset? Its because these liberal lawmakers know they have been crossing the line lately and are upset that they are not going to be able to continue down the path of big government.

Interest Groups (info)

 

Interest groups…. well first off, interest groups are political organizations comprised of Americans that have shared attitudes that seek government benefits or government relief. This covers three different issues:

1) a “political organization” is an association that makes claims on others behalf in society by attempting to influence government and law, 2) they are “comprised of Americans” that voluntarily join these organizations even though they are very well funded and very large because it gives them a voice and 3) they “seek government benefits”, these benefits are something of value given to citizens by the government at the expense of other citizens. In other words, some citizens receive things they value at the cost of some or all other citizens.

Currently there are over 40,000 interest groups in Washington D.C. These groups blanket virtually every interest, profession, cause and passion found in America. It is estimated that 57% of Americans belong to at least one interest group, 20% belong to four or more and 70% of these groups are of a business related interest. Some examples of these groups are the AARP, the NFIB, the NRA, the Sierra club and so on.

The government benefits these groups receive can be any form of benefit the government can provide. The most common type of benefit is the benefit of material items such as a real or tangible item of value such as money or welfare. There are also other kinds of benefits like regulatory benefits. Regulatory benefits are acts of favoritism in the laws the government creates in regards to business practices; these regulations help established businesses because they make it more difficult for newcomers to an industry because they create barriers to the entry of the industry. Then there are purposive benefits, these benefits are also called moral legislation; they are acts of favoritism in the law in regards to personal morality and values. One thing these groups must do though is look at the cost-benefit/ratio, they need to make sure they are getting their money’s worth out of there investment (whether it be money or time they invested).

Once these interest groups get what they were after it is very difficult to undo what they have created or enacted. The reason for this is these interests form a very strong relationship with the congress that enacts the programs or laws and the bureaucracies that run the programs. This close relationship protects the programs and the relationship is termed “the iron triangle”. It is called the iron triangle due to the fact that it is very hard to get through the “iron” guard these three create. On one side of the triangle you have the congress that guards the program because they want to make the interest groups happy that give congress donations to their campaigns. On the other side you have the interest group that protects the triangle because they have fought hard to get this program they wanted. And on the other side sits the bureaucrats that protect the program because it employs them. These three make it very hard to attack the program and this is why when a government program is created it is generally very difficult to dismantle the program.

There has been a very sharp increase in numbers of interest groups in the last 70 years or so. The number of interest groups exploded during the 20^th century, especially after Roosevelt’s “New Deal”. This rapid growth cannot be tied to the growth of population. The population of the United States in 1850 was 23 million and in 2010 the population was 305 million which is an increase of 14 times more the 1850 number. Also, the growth of these groups cannot be tied to economic growth. The average individual wealth of an American in 1850 was $1,888.00 (in constant dollars) and in 2008 the average wealth was $38,262.00 which is an increase of 21 times the 1850 number.

So, what is it then? What links this sharp increase of interest groups to the United States? Well, there are three primary reasons for the growth of interest groups in America. One of the reasons is the growth of the federal budget. The federal budget has grown over time, it has not just grown with inflation, and it has actually grown in the amount of money it takes in. In 1940, the federal budget was just over $10 billion and in 2010 it was near $3.6 trillion (an incredible and inconceivable amount of money for any individual). That $3.6 trillion is approximately 25% of the national wealth, so it’s a good chunk of change. This in turn promoted the growth of interest groups that try to influence to way those tax-dollars are spent or redistributed by the government.

Next, the number of agencies has grown over time too. The number of federal agencies has grown from 9 in 1890, 145 in 1940 to over 1300 in 2010. These government agencies are sometimes referred to as “alphabet soup” because they usually referred to by their acronyms. For example, some names are NATO, the EPA, the FBI, the CIA, the EPA and so on. There are so many today it would take hundreds or thousands of pages to name all of them. These two affect each other because the growth in the number of these agencies increases the number of interest groups because these interests groups want to influence the way these agencies enforce the laws written by congress. No, business interest can afford to let the federal laws be enforced without being involved in that process, especially when those laws are specific to that interest’s industry.

And now, probably the most popular reason or the most memorable reason for the growth of interest groups in America is because of “Tricky Dick” or Richard Nixon and the Watergate scandal. During the Nixon administration we had the Watergate scandal where it was said that president Richard Nixon was receiving “donations” in the form of briefcases filled with cash money. It later came out that Nixon paid the people that broke into the DNC in the Watergate building with those “donations” he was getting from constituents. In turn congress enacted the Campaign Finance Act in 1974 to regulate money in federal campaigns. The reason for the growth of interest groups is because when people get together and form groups they can make contributions that individual can’t. With an individual there is a limit to how much they can donate when it comes to political campaigns. Individual can only donate $2400 to an individual candidate and $45,600 total to all candidates, while they can only contribute $30,400 to the political parties and a total of $69,000 to all. That is a total of $115,500. When people get together in these interest groups they form what are called PACs (PACs can donate much more than individuals can at $5,000 per a candidate with no maximum and $15,000 to the parties with no maximum). This in turn influences people to join PACs especially people that make a lot of money because they are able to donate much more to the causes they support.

The existence of these interest groups has always posed a problem in the democratic theory- most observers have claimed that interest groups are “enormously destructive” to the democratic process. James Madison highlights in Federalist #10 the methods by which the constitution resolves the problem of interest groups, which he defines as;

“A number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”

There have been a few ideas about how to ensure that the influence of the interest groups do not corrupt the democratic process. In Federalist #10, Madison notes that there are two basic approaches that a political system may adopt in order to combat the destructive influence of interest groups. The groups themselves can be directly controlled or the groups can be indirectly controlled by addressing their negative effects. A way these groups can be directly controlled can be accomplished by two methods. One, the government could have an outright ban on interest groups, which is the most straightforward method of control. Madison is dismissive of this approach saying, “It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it is worse than the disease”, meaning this approach is worse than the effects of the groups themselves. This is why the founders elected to not employ this approach as it will destroy liberty.

The other approach Madison thought of was an approach that would create a unity of interests. This method directly regulates interest groups by compelling citizens to join “official”, government-run groups to advocate their interests. Short of outright bans on political interest groups, this method permits advocacy but tightly regulates the institutions. Madison is equally dismissive of this approach is “impractical” while the first approach was “unwise”. The founders side with Madison on this approach also saying this approach simply doesn’t work.

The approach of indirectly controlling interest groups also has flaws with its two ideas of control, according to Madison. Controlling the effects of a minority interest (a faction that represents less than 50% of citizens) is unnecessary because any elected official that would support the “sinister views” of a minority will simply be voted out. While controlling the effects of a majorities interest (a faction that represents 50% or more of citizens) the elected official cannot be defeated. But Madison dismisses this because it is less than probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other individuals; there are just too many groups and ideas within the United States democracy.

So, what the founding fathers did is not try to control these groups but attempted to insulate or make the political system immune to most corrupting and undermining effects. Madison says, “It is impracticable and unwise to try to deal with the interest groups themselves – just as it would be to attempt to control the climate outside one’s house”. The founders, instead of control, constructed a system where Americans would compete with one another and check each other in effort to win influence with elected officials. This is an example of political “pluralism”- a system where a diverse and large number of groups of citizens exist and compete for political power, and with none forming a permanent majority. So, in essence without control these groups are abundant and of all forms. Since they all compete for political power they all balance each other out and no one ever truly gets a permanent majority.

Taxes Taxes Taxes…

Here we sit, twenty some odd days until the greatest tax hike Americans have ever seen. How long has our federal government known about these expiring tax cuts? Only for nine years… the Bush era tax cuts have been in effect since 2001 and are set to expire December 31 at midnight. Not only on the lower and middle class tax brackets but the wealthy as well (the top 2%).
On top of all this America is in the midst of the worst recession since the great depression and is looking at the highest unemployment since the Carter administration, at 9.8%.
So, here we are, days before December 31 and what is congress doing about this? Debating. That’s right, they are DEBATING, debating whether or not to raise the taxes on their suffering people.
What is the argument?… Who do we raise taxes on since we can’t control our federal spending.
Republicans seem to somewhat have their heads on their shoulders though. Republicans are demanding that the Bush era tax cuts be extended for all Americans indefinitely. While Democrats stick to their “class warfare” ideals saying, the rich are rich enough and we want their money because we could spend it much better than they could, as if they are entitled to it. The Democrats want extend the tax cuts for the lower and middle classes only, people under the top 2% tax bracket.
It really is to bad, for the Democrats, that the Republicans have the upper hand in this argument since all the tax brackets are looped together, and they are all expiring at the same time. So, without the cooperation of the Republicans the tax cuts will expire and the Democrats will have no one to blame but themselves for not compromising. Technically the Democrats are able to pass bills but they will not be able to pass a cloture vote in the senate (they are not filibuster proof).
The Democrats put on a little show for the American people this week. They tried to pass bills in both the house and senate, bills extending the tax cuts for only those making under $200k as an individual and families making under $250k. With an extra bill  in the senate that would extend the tax cuts for everyone making under $1 million.
Speaker designate Boehner called this political show exactly what it was “chicken crap”. While senate minority leader McConnell calls them, “show votes” for political reasons.
Although, there is a small ray of light on this dark stormy day within the Democratic party. In the house 20 Democrats voted against this “show vote” bill and in the senate 4 Democratic senators along with 1 independent, good old Joe Lieberman, voted against them. That being said, there may be some hope that some of these guys got the message the American people sent them last month.
For once now, Republicans are sticking to their guns…. finally. They are not letting the Democrats get away with this “class warfare” crap. In a recession of this magnitude everyone is struggling rich or poor. They may be struggling in different ways but, everyone is struggling. The class warfare argument only exists because people let it exist in their minds. Some democrats say Republicans are just protecting the rich, millionaires and billionaires. The fact is we all help each other out. The wealthier Americans and entrepreneurs provide the jobs for the people that aren’t as well off, while, the middle and lower classes provide the labor that is needed to run these businesses, big and small.
All anybody has heard from the Democrats is, we are in favor of extending the tax cuts for all Americans except the top 2% of Americans. The problem is they can’t explain why. Arguments have been brought up that the wealthy are not hiring people and America’s deficit and debt is growing. Well, to bad the deficit and debt have nothing to do with taxes, only spending gets you a deficit and debt. And, for the jobs, well do they really want to punish the wealthy, the ones that provide the jobs to the middle class, for the mistakes of the federal government that led America into this recession? If that is the case the Democrats do not care for the middle class like they say they do. That is only the response of someone who doesn’t like the wealthy simply because they are wealthy. On top of all that, raising taxes on that top 2% would ruin any chance that business owners, debating on hiring someone, would hire that person. Which in turn will worsen the state of the economy and devastate the job market, all because the Democrats want to punish the wealthy when they should be punishing themselves for the mess the US is in.
Must we make the entire country suffer because the Democrats don’t like the wealthy?
Now,  the congress has a decision to make, what compromise will they come to? The Republicans want the Bush era tax cuts extended for all indefinitely. The Democrats want the tax cuts extended for Americans below the 2% tax bracket. There have been some ideas out there that show some promise. One of those ideas is to extend the tax cuts for all for a few more years, temporarily, until America is clear of this mess of an economy or until it passes us by.
President Obama did say he will veto any bill that comes to him, that extends the tax cuts for the top 2%, that does not have an extension of unemployment benefits in it. Even though this will add another bill to the long list of bills we currently have that are not currently funded.
Notice Obama proves he has a set when he is battling the Republicans on taxes but misplaces them when he goes into battle with al Qaeda, the Taliban, Iran, North Korea… just a thought.
Anyway, currently, seasoned lawmakers of both parties along with Treasury secretary Timothy Geithner are discussing what is to be done with these Bush era tax cuts. While the parties point fingers back and forth at one another the simple fact remains, no body is going to get everything they want along with nothing they don’t want. There will have to be a compromise somewhere on this issue.
With Republicans actually holding their ground for the first time in the party’s history, the rest of America stands by and watches to find out if the Democrats will ignore their political hunger and extend all these tax cuts. Or, will they stick to their partisan views and prove once and for all they have more hate for the wealthy than they have love for their precious middle class? Some Democrats have even said themselves they would rather see the tax cuts expire for all than see the wealthy keep their tax breaks.
This idea of “class warfare” is a joke. It’s an argument used by a few trying to drive Americans apart and turn them against each other so they can see their power grow. Rich or poor, right or left, conservative or liberal,… whatever you call yourself, we are all Americans and we all need one another whether we like it or not. Now is not the time to be raising taxes on anyone. We need to recognize the fact that we are all struggling right now. But, if we stick together and pull through this horrid mess, we can become the great nation we were before this mess. Lets put aside all these petty differences and refer to one another as simply Americans.


-TSA…. Trent

The Dollar Bill and Barack Obama

First, lets go back to high school for a second. The roman empire fell for many reasons, probably too many to list in the piece. But, there are a few reasons that great empire fell that seem particularly relevant today. First, there was a severe decline in moral and ethical values among the politicians; two, their overconfidence and over expansion abroad and last but not least was the fiscal irresponsibility by the central government. Does any of that sound familiar?

I just thought I would put that in the back of your heads while you read the rest of this.

The United States spending is out of control. It is something we need to stop immediately. Our country cannot support this kind of negligence.

As of this week our national deficit, for the year, has passed the trillion dollar mark. Our national debt is nearly $14 trillion. All this and our liberal friends keep on spending like there is no bottom to this hole. I can tell you one thing, there is a bottom and if we ever get there it is going to be ugly, very ugly.

Our republican friends in the house and senate are doing everything they can to put a stop to this spending (having wild cards like Brown, Collins and Snowe aren't helping either).

The dems will come out with a plan to do something. The pubs say great, where are you going to get the money for this, are you going to borrow it from the stimulus plan? Guess what the answer to that is? That's right, you guessed it... No, we'll just barrow it, our nation debt is only $14 trillion. Luckily we have just enough votes in the senate to filibuster this madness, sometimes.

On top of all this two of our most populated states are bankrupt.

All this and we get the cherry on top, Barack Obama. That's right, our nations go to guy in a recession, thanks assholes. Lets start at the beginning with him, the campaign. You guys remember that? The whole 'if you elect me president I will cut the national deficit in half'. I haven't seen even the slightest attempt to cut the deficit $1, have any of you?

Then he is elected president. The first thing he does is pass the stimulus. I know a lot of people were on the wall of if it should have been done or not but I think we can put it down as a bad idea. So, the stimulus was passed and Obama and his leading economic advisor Christina Romer, who needs to be fired by the way, promise the American people unemployment wouldn't pass 8%. Where is unemployment now? Oh yeah, that's right 9.5%. That a difference of 5.3 million jobs!!! I'd say they got it wrong.

After the stimulus we have a long, long, long list of just "ingenious" ideas of what to do with money we don't have. From giving the Palestinians $400 million, for absolutely no reason, to something "small" like recovery.org- $84 billion. The list is way too long to start listing everything and all of you already know.

Now we are back to present time and Obama has done it again. He walked up to his teleprompter with his head held high and his chest puffed out and he pats himself on the back for creating green-private sector jobs.

These green jobs he is so proud of cost the American people $2 billion. You say, wow it must be a lot of jobs, right? Guess again. It's a measly 5100 jobs. That might sound like a lot but if you break it down it comes to around $400,000 a job, 10 times what the average American makes. And, that is $400,000 to just create the job. Something is wrong here.

Even for Obama that is sad. If it cost that much money to create jobs it shows failure of the government to aid the private sector.

If that wasn't enough he comes back and does it again. Obama hid $795 million in a 2,000+ page bill to create 5,000 jobs, that's $160,000/job for creation.

So with $2,750,000,000 (that's a lot of zeros) Barack Obama created 10,100 jobs. If that money was given to the private sector and divided up amongst companies it could have created nearly 70,000 jobs at the average American wage.

At these spending rates soon we will be paying more in interest on what we owe than we can produce. It's called bankruptcy.

Now that we have looked into how Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi (P Funk) and Harry Reid are spending our money. It makes you think, how can people be this dumb. But what is even worse is they think they are doing it right. Also, I'm sure most of you can agree with me that Obama must have a hard-on for these tax increases coming in January.

These are the reason we need to vote these people out of office in November and in 2012. The spending is out of control. Going to the polls and forcing these people out of a job is one more thing we can do to help in "shutting the liberal up". Everybody go out and vote!!!

The Key Word Is: ILLEGAL In The Term Illegal Immigration

Well, this new Illegal Immigration law Arizona signed back in April, SB1070, sure has brought us back to the topic, and that's saying it lightly. It's more like- brought us back to the topic at warp speed. During the whole health care fiasco people tended to forget about the issue and then BOOM, a nuclear explosion at the speed of a pen. After Gov. Jan Brewer signed the bill the illegal immigration issue is all anyone can talk about.

Before I get into the liberal bashing I'm going to tell you why we need this law and other laws like it. How many of you have been to the southwest of the United States? Those of you that haven't, ask someone who has. Ask these people to tell you how bad it really is. These illegal immigrants are running, walking, crawling and driving across the Mexico-U.S. boarder in record numbers. They are coming anyway they can. I have actually been driving down to Mexico for a quick vacation and seen people running through the desert with gallons of water in their hand and on their backs.

Before, ten/fifteen years ago, it was just a problem. Now it is out of control. We have these Drug cartels (who are pretty much running Mexico, ya great job Presidente Caldarone) sending drug mules across the boarders with AK47s and MAC 10s, telling them to shoot anybody they come across. And they do! They kill ranchers, people on vacation, border patrol agents, cops... literally anyone who they run into. If that is not bad enough some of the illegal immigrants aren't even making it across, they are dying from heat exhaustion before they even get to a safe place. And these coyotes (human smuggler/traffickers) just leave them out there to rot in the desert.

You ask me, well how do you stop this? Well I'll tell you how, its easy... BUILD A FENCE!!!!! and send an appropriate number of border patrol agents and national guard members down to the boarder. I'm not talking about desk jockeys, I'm talking about guys with guns and bad ass equipment.

I've heard these jackass liberals answer the question about the boarder fence too many times. And they always do it so sarcastically, it make me want to punch them in the face. Its the whole thing, "well if we put a 10' fence up you are gonna see a whole lot of 11' ladders sold in Mexico, ha ha ha ha". Well, first off a boarder fence isn't a simple 10' chain link fence jerkoff. It is a 12'-20' two layer steel fence reinforced with concrete with a camera on top of the north fence. So guess what? If someone with a ladder comes by and jumps the first fence, you see this with the camera on the second fence and you send the boarder patrol. Then the liberal will say, "what makes you think they will get there in time"? Well genius, this is where those extra bodies come in handy. If you have enough people we can be on top of the problem. And guess what boarder patrol and national guardsmen are government jobs, so, you should like that Mr. Liberal.

Well, since the federal government won't do this Mrs. Brewer decided to pass SB1070. After that we had every left wing nut job screaming it was prejudice. We had the president telling us that if we took our kids out for ice cream we were going to be harassed and have to show our papers or id. Then we had El Presidente Caldarone walk into our capital and denounce one of the states in the union. And what did these crazies do?... they applauded him. If it were me I would have walked out on him. What would Thomas Jefferson say to that? I can tell you he would be appalled.

This is the part I love... "Mr. Holder, Ms. Napolitano, MR. PRESIDENT"

"Yes"

"Well have you read the bill?"

Crickets... "No".

WELL IF YOU HAD YOU WOULD KNOW IT MIRRORS A FEDERAL LAW THAT HAS BEEN ON THE BOOKS FOR OVER 50 YEARS!!!

So, after all the kicking a screaming Eric Holder knows he can't go out looking like an idiot so he had to sue Arizona to prove he was right. The only problem is he couldn't find any thing remotely prejudice about the law. Any apology? Any sorry we judged you we were wrong? No. Instead he decides to sue Arizona saying the law pre-empted by federal law.

Yet again Eric Holder is making an idiot of himself. There is nothing in the constitution or on the federal books saying a state can not create their own immigration laws... naturalization yes, but not immigration. Result- Eric Holder will lose this lawsuit.

Now, not only does Arizona have the federal government suing them, they also have the pleasure of dealing with every liberal city from San Fransisco to New York saying they are going to boycott Arizona. These cities also decide they will go a step further and call them selves "sanctuary cities". In other words, all you illegal immigrants don't go to Arizona they are a bunch of bigots, come here, we don't care. We are going to ignore federal law, breaking it, and invite you to our city.

Do you notice I have been saying ILLEGAL immigration? What do these people not understand about that word. It is against the law. It is against the law to come across our boarders without permission. This liberal scum need to get it though their heads it is ILLEGAL. "Oh, well we might offend someone". WHO CARES??? They are from there we are from here. If they want to let them seal up their boarder and tell us to stay out. I would be more than happy to have to get a visa to go to Mexico. I might even like it more than I do now. I would tell me the Mexican government has at least some control over their country.

I could go on and on about this for some time but I won't. What I'm trying to say is, tell these liberals to shove it and vote them out in November. We need to get more people in office like Jon Kyl, people that are going to build the fence and take care of this major problem we have brewing down at the, yes, Mexican boarder. I haven't seen a sign in Phoenix that says "Welcome to little Canada" have you? Your vote in November can be one more thing that helps in "shutting the liberal up".

Until next time-

TSA

The Tea Party--- Racist???

Everywhere I turn today liberals are playing the race card, calling the Tea Party Racist. Its been in columns, blogs, interview, on both TV and radio and more. Even Michelle Obama joined in yesterday in calling the Tea Party a racist organization (that is actually what started this whole fiasco). The problem is, IT ISN'T TRUE!!! There is not an ounce of evidence that supports this thinking.

Now am I saying that there aren't racist in Tea Party movement... no. But that in no way shape or form means that the Tea Party movement is a racist organization.

In every one of these interviews that a liberal, or someone from the NAACP, is calling the Tea Party racist, if the interview-er is any good, they are putting the accuser into a corner and forcing them to prove their statements... and guess what... they can't do it. You know why? There is no evidence to support it.

You know, during the '08 election it wasn't Tea Party members in paramilitary dress wielding batons yelling racial slurs. It wasn't the Tea Party that dropped a race crimes case because the plaintiffs were white and the defendants were black. What, a white person can't be a victim of a race crimes??? Only blacks can be victims now?

I'll tell you what, I have an assignment for any of you half brained liberals out there that are claiming the Tea Party is a racist organization... post a comment to this blog explaining it with REAL evidence how it is a racist movement.

How long are the liberals going to play this card for? It is getting old. Everywhere you go today you hear the saying, oh we can't do that that's racist. The Tea Party, Arizona's ILLEGAL immigration bill, SB1070, anyone who apposed or apposes Obama or any of the Obama administration's beliefs and so on. When will it stop? My guess is it won't. It won't stop until someone out there forces these people (if you can call a liberal that) to prove these outrageous accusations. Someone needs to publicly stand up to these people and be strong enough to withstand the storm. If the next Republican presidential candidate publicly apposes this current administration's ideas guaranteed they will be called a racist. I say WHEN this happens you make these liberals prove it. Don't hide from them, stand up to them and say, you are calling me a racist? PROVE IT! What have I done or said that is racist? Is disagreeing with a black man now a racist act? If so where have I been?

We can't let these people get away with this anymore, they have gotten away with this too long. Disagreeing with someone of the opposite race is not a racist act. And calling someone a racist because of that to me, is racist in itself. If we can put the shoe on the other foot we can change things.

What we need to take away from all this is, we need to stop running from these people when they try to play the race card. We need to stand up to them and say prove it. Stand there and tell me what I have done or said that is racist. Stand up to this liberal scum and shove it back down their throat. If we can do this we will be one step closer to "shutting the liberal up".

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.7

The New "Transparent Obama Administration"

Has anyone else noticed that certain people will say something on a news outlet that makes you say, Oh my god really? They the next day little Robert Gibbs waddles out the press room at the White House and says no, no one in the administration or the prez said the. Then a few days later they will make a very hush hush announcement that the person who made the statement was in fact telling the truth... it just wasn't the appropriate time to say it.


For example, this whole thing with the guy from NASA... look in a few more days an announcement will be made that NASA is in fact doing work in the Middle East. It’s a matter of time.

Oh ya and can't forget this one, Jon Kyl... Jon Kyl came back from the White House a few weeks ago saying the prez isn't going to support closing the boarder up because in turn he thinks repubs will not support comprehensive immigration reform. Then here comes Mr. Gibbs again waddling up to the podium... the prez never said anything like that.

Notice Kyl stands by what he said and has yet to retract it. I’ve fallowed Kyl's career for a while now and I can’t for the like of me ever remember him lying about anything... My question is, how long will it be until someone else in the Obama Administration slips and let that one go and when they do it’ll be on page 25 unlike the lie they told calling Kyl a liar when it will turn out he was telling the truth.

Has anyone else notice this??? Or is it just me? --- So transparent administration... isn't that one of the things that Obummer was adamant about during his campaign for prez.

Also what happened to all the news coverage of these bribes for candidates not to run in primaries??? Where did that all go???

I might just be venting but this is the slipperiest administration I've ever seen.



.