Archive for the ‘Corruption in Politics’ Category


August 5, 2011

Standard & Poor has downgraded the US Federal Government to one notch below the highest rating.

What does that mean?

It means that they think we may not pay back all of our loans.

And it makes sense,  too.

Instead of holding the line by not granting any extension of the debt, the Republican Party in the house and senate allowed the debt limit to increase by $1 trillion. In exchange, they got vague promises that the overall spending of the federal government ill be cut by $1 trillion—using baseline budgeting, which means we are borrowing money we can never pay back, not in a trillion years.

Our nation is about to go the same way as all the great empires, and for the same reason. There is a large group of people that have attached themselves to the federal treasury, like a baby to the bottle, and we do not have the political will to cut them off.

Marxism is Political Violence

May 9, 2011

I don’t want to share too many details, but last week I had the opportunity to meet a mayor of a Central American town. He was in the United States seeking asylum because his wife and daughter were shot by his political opponents. Luckily, they are still alive, and seem to be recovering well. But it’s become apparent that his political opponents have created an environment where either he has to learn how to fight to protect his simple right to life and liberty, or he has to leave.

What persuasion are his political opponents? What political ideology is there where violence is not only justified, but the preferred method of obtaining your political goals?

If you listen to Marxists and liberals, they will tell you it is the conservatives who believe in violence and regularly use it to further their political goals. This is, of course, an outright lie. The Tea Party movement, the quintessential conservative movement of limited government, had not a single violent issue in its entire history. Yes, there was violence at their rallies, but they were always coming from the Tea Party opponents and directed to the Tea Party supporters. What isolated instances of violence you can find on the Tea Party side are easily attributed to self defense.

In this Central American country, Hugo Chavez is supporting a Marxist movement that believes the path to power lies over the dead body of this mayor’s family. They believe that if they can just intimidate, injure, or kill the right people, they can take control of the cities, provinces, and national government. Since Marxism relies on government force to enforce its ideals (take from those who have, give to those who don’t), it should be hardly surprising to anyone that violence is not its principle method of operation.

Frankly, I detest the Marxists at home and abroad. I believe, by virtue of their political ideology and history, that we shouldn’t feel the slightest intimidated by them. We should stand firm in defense of our homes, our families, our churches, our faith and our governments. We should take up arms and us military tactics, if need be, to protect ourselves.

I hope this mayor will feel like he can return in safety one day. Unfortunately, he will have to tell his political supporters that the way to freedom is going to be through the barrel of guns, pointed at those who threaten their lives and livelihood daily. His mission will be one of training his people to defend themselves and each other. They will have the difficult task of keeping their town free from the influence of violent Marxists.

It’s too bad that we don’t have a president today who stands against Marxism. Those people who desire free markets and freedom from oppression cannot rely on the United States, but instead find themselves fighting against some of our foreign policies, foreign policies that support Marxists and injure freedom seekers everywhere. Had we a firm president, Hugo Chavez would be completely neutralized in South and Central America. His finances would long ago dried up. There would be no Marxist resurgence in our own continent, and countries like Colombia and others who are seeking Independence and liberty would be much closer to finding it. At the same time, those poor people who are struggling to make a life for themselves and their children would be much farther along in their economic situation, because the stability of the region would encourage foreign investments and jobs.

End Federal Land Grab

May 4, 2011

The constitution is quite clear on what land the federal government is allowed to own.

Article 1, Section 8:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

Michelle Malkin reports on Alaska and Utah suing the Obama Administration because they are trying to take even more land, not with statutory authority or even review by the affected states.

The truth of the matter is, once a state becomes a state, it is no longer lawful for the federal government to own any land in that state, except for that land which the state legislature permits. Even if the federal government does own land, it can only be owned for the purpose of “Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings”. Leaving the land empty in the name of a federal park is not for the purpose of building anything.

The federal government can raise vast sums of money if it simply sold the land it shouldn’t own in the first place. This land could be sold to the states (Alaska and Utah running a surplus), which the states could then use to build parks or reserves, or to the people themselves, with the states collecting sales tax on the land sale.

When you look at a map that shows which land is owned by the federal government and which land is owned by the states or the people, it’s quite clear that the land tyranny is how the East keeps its thumbs on the western United States. By not allowing us to expand and to fill our states, they limit our economic possibility, limit our tax base, and limit our very freedom to enjoy our land the way we see fit.

One day, I’ll talk about how most of the western states should be broken up into several states, to mirror that in the East. The Puget Sound region, for instance, should be a state independence of eastern Washington. It would be in both our best interests.

1.3 Trillion Dollars Missing

May 4, 2011

hat tip: The Right Scoop

See also: Michelle Malkin

News from Communist Russia

March 28, 2011

The family of a political dissident who dared stand up to the political elite is being denied their academic recognition for their achievement. The project that one child, close to earning his PhD, has worked on, has all but been stolen. Inquiries by the public are met with silence, even feigning to hide behind the student’s privacy despite the fact that the student has authorized the university to expose his private matters. (link)

Sounds like communist Russia, right? But it’s happening here in the US, at Oregon State University.

I was challenged to listen to the other side of the story last time I wrote about this. When the other side is silent, there is nothing to listen to.

If OSU can defend itself against this blatant political retaliation, let it try. As it is, they are showing us by word why no institution except the military and courts should be supported by a single taxpayer dollar.

Why Corporations Need Unlimited Speech

January 25, 2011

There is a lot of absurd hubbub about the recent Supreme Court ruling (Citizen’s United) that says that corporations have the same rights as individuals when it comes to speech. It’s obvious where the hubbub is coming from—those who want unions to get preferred treatment over other corporations.

To understand why corporations need unlimited speech (at least as much as individuals do), I want to tell a story. Let’s suppose that I, you, and a whole lot of other people get sick of political corruption. We decide we want to not only spend a lot of our own money to discover corruption wherever it is, but spend twice as much money as the candidates to expose the corruption when they run for office.

This certainly sounds reasonable! After all, if John Q. Citizen wants to spend all his free time following up on what the politicians are doing, he should be allowed to do so. If John Q. Citizen wants to buy a huge billboard spelling out why Politician X is corrupt and doesn’t deserve to be elected, he should be allowed to do so. Without this, we cannot function as a democratic republic.

What? You think we should be allowed to tell someone when they have said enough? You want to create a system where those routing out corruption are not allowed to outspend and out-speak the guilty and corrupt? Yes, the same rights and privileges afforded to those with noble intentions is awarded to those with ignoble intentions, but who, ultimately, can judge between the noble and ignoble? That’s what elections are all about.

If you agree that any individual should have unlimited speech, then let’s talk about what corporations really are. Let’s say John Q. Citizen is doing a really good job routing out corruption, but he could do more if he had a team of people working for him. This requires capital, of course, and he comes up with the ingenious idea of asking for money. He promises that 100% of the money you give him will go to pay those who are routing out corruption and run election ads against those who are corrupt.

Should the very fact that John Q. Citizen is cooperating with others disqualify his speech, or the speech of the group? Does it matter whether they appoint someone to be their CEO, someone to be their spokesman, someone to run the books, some people to be on the board, and so on and so forth?

The shallow arguments against corporate personhood sound reasonable on their face. But what they truly represent is an argument against individual liberty. That’s why communists and leftists love to use this shallow argument—they are fundamentally opposed to individual liberty.

Organizing for Liberty

November 6, 2010

There are two ways political systems can work.

One is top-down. You pay homage to the people at the top, and they grant you certain privileges. You can build quite a system this way, and indeed, for the vast majority of people who ever lived on this earth, this was the system they lived under.

This kind of political system works best when you have a king at the top, who can do anything but whatever upsets his immediate circle of advisers. Our constitutional form of government is wholly incompatible with this system. In fact, the American people really, really don’t like it and have written laws to make it impractical. However, people are smart and know how to work around the political and legal issues, so for the most part, it’s what we get in our country.

The other kind of political system is bottom-up. It is the system where the people at the bottom grant a few special privileges and powers to the people up top. Or rather, where the people on the top entreat the people below them for their favor and ask for special dispensations and affordances.

This kind of political system is very suited to our constitutional form of government. It is what we imagine America should always be like. However, it requires that the people maintain a firm grip on the people they put in power, and are careful not to grant them too much power. It also requires the people to firmly rebuke their government when it exceeds their boundaries.

In order to make the second kind of political system work, a large number of the people must be engaged in monitoring and establishing the government. That means, it falls on regular folks to do simple things like:

  • Attend government meetings and understand what every level of government is doing.
  • Expose abuse of power when it occurs, and broadcast it far and wide so that those guilty can be held accountable at the polls.
  • Choose quality candidates who will serve the interests of the people.
  • Support those candidates with time, money, and talent so that they can compete with the candidates put forward by the top-down system.
  • Vote for those candidates and ensure their neighbors vote for him as well.
  • Run the election process so that elections are open and honest.
  • Monitor the election process, every step of the way, to ensure that elections are open and honest.
  • Serve from time to time as a candidate or in various commissions, committees, and councils, in government, civic organizations, and in the churches and charities.

If we work this system and are somewhat organized, we should be able to take a few hours a month from every interested person and direct it to those activities which will benefit the group as a whole. After all, the problem with the top-down system is that there will always be fewer people receiving bribes than people not receiving them.

The Republican and Democratic Parties offer existing organizations that can be infiltrated by the common citizen who simply wants government to work bottom-up. It is imperative that we who are interested in politics spend some of our time and energy understanding the existing organization, forming partnerships with people who think like we do about bottom-up, and work to dispose of those elements who work top-down, or rather, limit their capabilities with a good dose of oversight and directed criticism.

I propose that everyone who has anything to say about politics make it a point to spend at least a few hours doing this. Even if you disagree with me on practically everything, I know, as an American, that you want your preferred party to be responsible and accountable to you and your friends who think like you. You do not want someone acting like a king at the top ordering our government and society as they did in medieval times.

They Have Convinced Themselves

November 3, 2010

I spoke at length with a democrat poll watcher. Obviously, I was poll watching for the republicans.

It is odd to hear someone who agrees on virtually every issue but a handful decide to vote for the other party because of the virtually unimportant issues. It is even more sad when the difference of opinion is based on a false representation of my party’s position.

The democrat believes that we need fiscal everything, but we cannot legislate morality. I told him that I agreed 100%. He said that there are elements of the Republican Party that want to impose morality on the rest of the people through government. I said that we don’t want them in our party either. But somehow he was convinced that it was our party platform to use the force of government to build churches in Washington State. I don’t know where he got that idea from, because it is an outright lie.

The other part of the conversation was about the Tea Party. He was absolutely sure he knew what the Tea Party was about, and wanted to hear nothing about what the Tea Party had to say about it.

At the end of the day, his vote is going to be a deciding factor, along with a very large group of others, that keeps our state in democratic hands. That means no fiscal constraint, no conservatism whatsoever. At the same time, the democratic party is going to impose their religion on the people, and punish those who refuse to conform. Their religion is the religion of earth-worship, or the idea that man’s needs should be put secondary to the needs of mushrooms and tiny animals that don’t even have vertebrae.

He will complain about the state legislature when they bring up gun control yet again, or limiting our freedom to speak with our dollars. He is going to complain when they fail to balance the budget, and divert ever large sums of money from the taxpayer’s wallet to their unions and special interests, all in the name of “charity”, mind you.

And he will have cut himself off from the one party that is actually going to do something about it, because of a tiny minority who has no power, and who has fallen out of favor after their obnoxious behavior in 2008.

Folks, we all need open minds. We need to consider what people say, not what others say about what they will say, but what they say. If we don’t go to the source and see for ourself, we allow ourselves to be lead like cattle to the slaughterhouse. If we don’t take the time to figure out which party or which candidate really has our interests at heart, we cannot later complain that the legislature doesn’t care about the little people.

You are going to hear a LOT about what the republicans believe in the coming years. The vast majority of what you hear will not come from republican mouths. Therefore, believe not a word of it. Let the parties speak for themselves, and don’t let them define each other for you.


Why You Should Not Vote for a Democrat This Year

November 1, 2010

President Obama, speaking to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute back in September, quoted our most sacred document: the Declaration of Independence. He said:

”We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, endowed with certain inalienable rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

He dropped a phrase, probably the most important phrase, from that sacred document. It reads:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

That phrase “by their Creator”  is the linchpin in our liberty. From it, we gain our personal, individual, unalienable rights. From those, we gain the power to form government according to our desires, and have government submit to our desires.

(On a side note: note the difference between “inalienable” (Barack’s words) and “unalienable” (our Founding Father’s words.). Once you know the difference, you will never say “inalienable” regarding your rights again.)

Let me explain why “by their Creator” is critical. Even Atheists and Agnostics must acknowledge the importance of this idea, whether they believe there is a God or not.

(On another side note, if you believe science or the fundamental laws of nature are our Creator, then you must acknowledge that even that Creator grants us our unalienable rights simply by the fact of our existence.)

We can acknowledge rights as coming from several different things.

ONE, we can say that rights come from ourselves.

TWO, we can say that rights come from others.

THREE, we can say that rights come from our Creator, not ourselves and not others.

IF WE DECLARE that rights come from OURSELVES, then we must have within ourselves the right to relinquish our rights. Hence, we should be able to sell ourselves into slavery or sign a contract that terminates some of our rights. Obviously, our society doesn’t believe that anyone can sign away their rights, so our rights CANNOT come from ourselves. That’s not what’s being debated; I include this only for completeness.

IF WE DECLARE that rights come from OTHERS, then others can take away our rights. Obviously, our right to life doesn’t depend on the whim of others, nor do our rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Therefore, our rights cannot come from others or they could be taken away by others and we are never free. This is what the Democratic Party has stood for for the past 80 years, and what many republicans have stood for as well.

This is the essence of the royalist, colonialist, communist, socialist, Nazi, progressive, and liberal movements: No one person has any rights that cannot be infringed upon, and in fact, it is a good idea to infringe on those rights from time to time for the good of the people.

The end result of this thinking is death, either death by a thousand paper cuts or death by prison camps in Siberia. We do not have to look hard throughout history to see how all systems of government that build on this foundation are destined to fail in horrific ways.

IF WE DECLARE that rights come from a supernatural Being or Force that is unchangeable, then NO ONE can take away our rights. You can throw us in jail, shackle us, torture us, or do whatever you like to us, but our rights remain inseparable and unalienable from ourselves. THIS, and ONLY THIS, gives people the right to stand up and shout, “NO ONE DARE INTERFERE WITH MY SELF.” It gives people the right to overthrow kings and governments and any power from any source that seeks to infringe on those rights.

The declaration that our rights flow from our Creator is a declaration that WE ARE FREE.

Barack Obama and the Democratic Party DO NOT BELIEVE WE ARE FUNDAMENTALLY AND ETERNALLY FREE. Hence, they drop that phrase from the Declaration of Independence, leaving us to wonder where our rights come from and under what conditions they may be removed. THIS MAKES THEM TYRANTS OF THE WORST KIND, seeking to enforce a “soft” tyranny where the people simply lie down and let the government rub their belly. The people are lulled into slavery, and awake only to find themselves unable to break the bonds they have been bound with.

Vote Republican this November, at all levels of government. That friendly democrat who lives down the street and promises to do whatever it takes to make government work better does not have your interests at heart. I can’t say that all republicans do either, but at least this year they are running on the platform of LESS government, LESS taxes, LESS spending, and LESS regulation. That platform must win, because that is the platform of people who believe rights from from their Creator.

We’ll hold the republican’s feet to their fire by removing those who fail to live up to their promises in the primaries of 2012. We’ll continue to purge the Republican and Democratic Party during the primaries of every upcoming election, until every person who makes it to the general election of every election believes that our rights come from our Creator, and are unalienable.

Do You Support Communism? Vote Democrat.

October 29, 2010

This doesn’t sound surprising, but it really is. The Communist Party USA is endorsing democrats across the country as the means to their ends.

I want you to stop and think about this.

What is communism? Communism is the idea that you can create a peaceful, equal society by equalizing the wealth through government action. That is, cops show up at your door, guns drawn, and take your wealth from you to give it to the poor. Through this involuntary process, apparently we can all be rich like the wealthy fat cats on Wall Street.

The income tax in the United States is a tax that the communist party strongly supports. Why? Because it uses government force to seize wealth from the wealthy and give it to the poor.

In practice, communism works nothing like what it claims to be. Sure, the government force is there. But what inevitably happens is that the force of government is used to help the friends of the government, and punish its enemies. That is the state of affairs today. After 80 years of socialism and communism in the US, what we have is simple fraud and corruption. If you are on Obama’s side, he will move mountains to help you out. If you are not his friend, he labels you an enemy and tries to find ways to put you out of business.

We see this most vividly when Obama illegally seized the assets of GM and distributed it to the unions rather than the debtors, which by law and contract, had to be repaid first. The lawsuit is still pending action, but we all know which direction it must go, and it will not be pretty. We also see it as Obama gives 25 companies permission to break the laws he himself helped write in Obamacare. What about the rest of the millions of businesses in the US? Why can’t they break the law too?

The Chinese know communism by the mass starvation caused by Chairman Mao’s bold ambition called “The Great Leap Forward“. Countless millions lost their lives as government disrupted the economy and caused them to starve to death.

The Ukrainians remember communism in the “Holodomor“, which left millions of Ukrainians dead after the most bountiful harvest that country experienced because of government action. Russians know communism by the gulags that dotted the land, places where people were left to rot for the simple crime of disagreeing with the Communist Party. The scary thing is that if you ask a Russian who lived through communism what life was like, they will tell you it is not much different than what life is like today. You have to ask the government for permission to use your toilet or brush your teeth, let alone buy your food and grow crops or do anything remotely productive.

In Cambodia, we have the “The Killing Fields“. Here, the Cambodian government slaughtered countless people in an effort to institute communism. What they were left with was abject poverty as their middle and upper classes were eliminated and moldering heaps of flesh.

In North Korea, we have the concept of “Juche”, which, although apparently noble, is used to enslave the people to the state. In North Korea, children are tortured, families are left to starve, and people are regularly tortured for the crime of being related to someone who might not disagree with the government. We do not know the full extent of the horror of North Korea, but we hear reports of desperate cannibalism and depravity that is unknown outside of that country. The entire country suffers evil that no one can fully comprehend.

In Burma (called Myanmar by its communist government), we see soldiers dispatched to slaughter unarmed, non-violent monks because they said it may be time we need new leadership. This is the face of communism in that country: a soldier who shoots you for the crime of standing in the street.

I don’t have to list all the evils that communism brought to the world. That list would be too long for any book to contain. Needless to say, the modern communist is left to say, “I don’t agree with that kind of communism.” Or, “Well, those people were doing something, but it wasn’t communism.” Somehow, the fact that all of these horrors were unleashed in the name of Marx and other communist visionaries escapes them.

As it is said, a communist is someone who reads Marx. A conservative is someone who understands Marx. We conservatives understand what communism is all about and how it works, because we know things about basic human rights that escape the nincompoops who fill our colleges.

If you like the idea of communism, then by all means, vote for Adam Smith, Patty Murray, and all the other democrats on the ballot. The Communist Party USA endorses them and their mission. They will rejoice if the house and senate remain in democrat hands, because it is a victory for communism!

If, instead, you believe the Declaration of Independence, which boldly declares that rights come from God and people cannot be made equal through government action, but instead, government must only preserve the already-existing rights bestowed on every individual by nature and Nature’s God, then you have to vote against the CPUSA, and support anyone who doesn’t have a (D) next to their name. If you want to stop communism in the USA, then you will enforce the tenets of the Declaration and our Constitutions by electing people who actually promise to uphold the Constitution. Today, only the republicans promise any such thing.