Why Herman Cain Would Be a Good Pick

Here are my thoughts why Herman Cain would be a good pick to run against Obama:

1. Obama couldn’t play the race card. He would have to defend his record which he doesn’t want to do. He might still play the race card but it would look lame. Obama would have to pick another personal attack.
2. Herman Cain could, being black, go on the offensive without being called a racist. I am not so sure any of the other Republican candidates would go on the offensive as hard. John McCain sure didn’t.
3. Mr. Cain is highly intelligent. He has a masters in computer science. That should be enough. Ha! Also, having a computer science degree means you are a logical thinker and can solve problems. Don’t have enough that in gov’t.
4. A friend to businesses. So are the other candidates, but they did not save any business from bankruptcy. He saved Godfather’s Pizza. Obama and FDR by the way did not have any businessmen for advisors.
5. Not a politician. Yea, he was on the Federal Reserve Bank of KC. But I am talking about being a Congressmen.
6. Newsweek said he sabotaged Hillarycare. So, what do you think he will do to Obamacare?
7. He doesn’t have a bad singing voice. (Okay, I just threw that one in.)

Does he have a chance to get the nomination? Sure, why not. A lot of pundits think he doesn’t have a chance though. Mainly that’s because of name recognition. Interestingly enough, Dick Morris isn’t counting him out yet. 

Herman Cain supports the FairTax—that I am not so sure about. First, you have to repeal the current income tax. And that isn’t going to happen so soon.

So you know, I wasn’t paid or compensated in any way by Herman Cain or anyone associated with him for this blog entry. 

The “Do-Nothing” Congress

In 1946 President Harry Truman called the Republican Congress back then the “do-nothing” Congress. This is what they did and you can decide for yourself if they deserved the nickname or not.

• The 18th Congress passed the first balanced budget since the Great Crash. [Great! Too bad this Congress can’t do the same thing. Maybe voters can make the Senate a majority Republican too?]
• They chopped taxes by nearly $5 billion (while at the same time exempting millions of low-income working-class Americans from taxation). [Yes! Always like tax cuts.]
• The Congress quashed a socialist national health-care scheme. [Now, you are talking! It looks like the Left has to always bring up socialized medicine. Then again they tend to be composed of socialists or wannabe-socialists anyway.]
• Passed the Taft-Hartley freedom-to-work act over the president’s veto. [Truman hated this act—and I bet most unions did too.]
• The Office of Price Administration was demolished. [You can kind of guess what the agency did. Sounds like a gov’t agency Obama would like. Glad the Congress scrapped this FDR program.]

“Do-nothing” really? I think they did quite a lot. The authors of A Patriot’s History of the United States said the Congress did nothing that Truman liked. Probably so. But good for them. They did some other things like creating the CIA and the Dept. of Defense but these five I particularly liked.

Declaration of Rights & Responsibilities

This snippet is from radio show host Glenn Beck’s website:
Thus, we the people do hereby declare not only our rights, but do now establish this bill of responsibilities.
1. Because I have the right to choose, I recognize that I am accountable to God and have the responsibility to keep the 10 commandments in my own life.
2. Because I have the right to worship as I choose, I have the responsibility to honor the right of others to worship as they see fit.
3. Because I have freedom of speech, I have the responsibility to defend the speech of others, even if I strongly disagree with what they’re saying.
4. Because I have the right to pursue happiness, I have the responsibility to show humility and express gratitude for all the blessings I enjoy and the rights I’ve been given.
5. Because I have the right to honest and good government I will seek out honest and just representatives when possible. If I cannot find one then I accept the responsibility to take that place.
6. Because I have the God given right to liberty, I have the personal responsibility to have the courage to defend others to be secure in their persons, lives and property.
7. Because I have the right to equal justice, I will stand for those who are wrongly accused or unjustly blamed.
8. Because I have the right to knowledge, I will be accountable for myself and my children’s education…to live our lives in such a way that insures the continuation of truth.
9. Because I have the right to pursue my dreams and keep the fruits of my labor, I have the responsibility to feed, protect and shelter my family, the less fortunate, the fatherless, the old and infirm.
10. Because I have a right to the truth, I will not bear false witness nor will not stand idly by as others do.
Unconditionally, while maintaining my responsibility to compassionately yet fiercely stand against those things that decay the natural rights of all men. And for the support of this declaration, and with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence we mutually pledge to each other our lives, fortunes and sacred honor.
There is more to the Declaration. You can read it at his website. Good stuff.

The Causes of the Great Crash of 1929

What caused the Great Crash of 1929?

1. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff had important disruptive effects. (Tariffs in general are a bad idea.)
2. Few people knew exactly what form those disruptive effects would take. (Sounds like most bills Congress passes especially if they are real complex.)
3. Unknown to anyone at the time, the Federal Reserve made the harmful effects even worse though its policy of deflation. (Has the Fed done anything right, really?)
4. President Herbert Hoover tried to prop up farm prices, creating another new federal agency with the Agriculture Marketing Act of 1929. (Yes, this Republican was a Progressive. He followed the Keynesian knee-jerk response of using big gov’t to try to solve problems.)
5. Hoover taxed [my emphasis] bank checks. (WTF?!) This accelerated the decline in the availability of money by penalizing people for writing checks.
6. The Hoover admin. created the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC). It provided $2 billion in funds for financial institutions that were teetering on the brink. Federal regulations required publications of the names of businesses and banks receiving RFC loans. This sent depositors scrambling to remove their money, weakening the banks even further.
7. Hoover then signed the largest peacetime tax increase in history. A sales tax at that. (That was basically the last nail in the coffin.)

Source: A Patriot's History of The United States.

Small Businesses and Employment

If politicians want the more people to be employed by the private-sector then they have to stop punishing (over-regulating and over-taxing) small businesses for wanting to grow bigger. It’s only natural for them to want to grow bigger (although if they don’t want to it’s not a sin.  A business owner has to know their capabilities and ambition to grow the business.). The bigger they get the more profit they will make. And if they grow naturally they will hire more people to help with the growing customer base. But once they stop becoming a small business and start becoming a medium or even big business then government pushes them for trying to be successful. I think that is twisted logic.

There is only two way to increase employment: One, let any small business grow so it can hire more employees or two, increase the number of small businesses. In other words say a politician wants a town to increase its employment to 1,000 more employees. The leaders can either let the existing businesses grow so they can hire 1,000 more people or find a way to increase the number of small businesses so they can hire 1,000 more people. Or the leaders could do both. Good luck with increasing the number of small businesses. I think it would be easier to make it so the existing businesses to grow. I am not talking about subsidizing them. To be fair you would have to subsidize every small business or you’ll be playing favorites. Also, giving them money may or may not help the business to grow anyway. It depends on the owner’s business sense and ambition and only the free market can determine that.

According to the SBA.gov website 51% of small businesses survived five or more years. The rest fail for various reasons. And government wants to make matters worse by over-regulating and taxing? Not everyone is cut out to be a business owner. It’s hard work and you have to know what you are doing.  I applaud anyone who has the drive and know-how to make a business succeed. So, increasing the number of small businesses is fine in theory but in reality I think it will be a lot harder. Besides if a politician has never ran a business how would he ever know how to increase the number of businesses? An economist doesn’t even really know. Who could predict a Thomas Edison or Graham Bell or even a Benjamin Franklin? Even if you increased the number of business courses in high school that may or may not produce a Thomas Edison if it is not within them. In the end government can only create an environment to let businesses grow and not discourage anyone from starting a business. Government can’t make a small business appear like magic like it can with gov’t agencies. You will hardly ever hear that from a politician.

One last thought. If a society wants prosperity then it has to keep the free-market alive and well.  You can do this by not denigrating businesses and the free-market to children and have them respect private property. Or else you could wind up with riots like in England. God help this country if that happens here.

Advice for Politicians

An older priest told a newer priest when living in a community to remember three things:

1. You’re not God.
2. This isn’t heaven.
3. Don’t be an ass.

Yea, that pretty much says it all. Even though this advice was meant for clergy I think it applies really well to any politician especially those who believes in big gov’t. I could not have said it better.

Source: The Jesuit Guide to (Almost) Everything: A Spirituality for Real Life (2010) by James Martin, SJ

Miscellaneous Thoughts Part 22

• It would be refreshing to hear one Congressman say (s)he would take a pay freeze until America is out of debt.  Actually I would love to hear all members of Congress say that. I can dream can’t  I?
• I don’t remember a Democrat in Congress (or anywhere else) complain about President George W. Bush’s over-spending when he was president. Now, they bring up Bush’s spending when people talk about Obama’s over-spending. That’s funny.
• In Star Trek they had a Prime Directive. But would have been so bad if Captain Kirk or anyone in his crew left the Constitution of the United States or the Bill of Rights on a developing planet?
• Lotfi Zadehs Law of Incompatibility: As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning & meaningful statements lose precision. Yea, that pretty much describes God.
• If the executive branch and Congress are both progressive politically then the country is in trouble. Then you want some fiscally responsible politicians to counter them. But if the executive branch and Congress are all fiscally responsible then no harm can be done.
• Maybe we need a right-to-work country. Just thinking out loud. (Big Labor would absolutely go nuts if anyone actually proposed that.)
• Time waits for no man. But it waits any woman, especially if they are shopping or in the bathroom.
• The love of power is also the root of all evil. Probably more evil than the love of money. Because power involves relationships with people.
• What you might never see: Flash robs ransacking book stores.
• A religion that has no doubts about anything is in my mind a cult.

Top 10 Reasons to Support Rep. Connie Mack's Penny Plan

1. It Would Cut Federal Spending By One Percent for Six Consecutive Fiscal Years.

The Penny Plan would require Congress to cut just one penny out of each dollar it spends every year for six years. These gradual cuts over the next six years will balance the federal budget.

2. It Would Cap Overall Spending at 18 Percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Starting in
Fiscal Year 2018.

Congressional spending consumes approximately 25 percent of GDP. Federal revenue from taxes over the past 40 years has averaged about 18 percent of GDP, making 18 percent a reasonable limit for spending if Congress is in fact interested in balancing the budget for the long haul.

3. It is a Very Simple Plan.

The Penny Plan is simple and straight to the point. Cutting federal spending by one percent every year for six years is clear enough for everyone to understand. Unlike many Washington schemes, it's not a complicated proposal.

4. It Would Reduce Overall Federal Spending by $7.5 trillion over the Next Ten Years.

Federal spending has risen to unprecedented levels which threatens our economic freedom. The Penny Plan would significantly cut government spending overtime and set us on the path towards fiscal responsibility.

5. It Would Balance the Federal Budget by 2019.

The current U.S. budget deficit is an unprecedented $1.6 trillion. The Penny Plan would bring the federal budget into balance this decade. 

6. It is a Modest Plan.

The Penny Plan is far from radical. These gradual cuts are more likely to gain bipartisan support rather than a big dramatic cut. With our national debt at $14.4 trillion, everyone should agree that we can cut just one percent of federal spending over the next six years.

7. The Plan Contains No Gimmicks or Budget Tricks.

The Penny Plan would cut real spending. Many other proposals only ìcutî spending from a bloated Congressional Budget Office (CBO) baseline. The CBO baseline predicts what would happen over the  next decade given current projections of taxation and spending. These plans don't actually reduce spending since these “cuts” are just reduction in the amount they had hoped to increase spending. The Penny Plan would cut from current amounts being spent and not anticipated spending off a phony baseline.

8. It Gives Congress Some Discretion on What to Cut.

The one percent spending cuts will be achieved one of two ways. The first way is that Congress and the President could work together to cut federal spending by one percent each year. This will allow them to prioritize what cuts are the most important.

9. It Will Trigger Automatic, Across-the-Board Spending Cuts If No Deal Can Be Reached.

The second way that the Penny Plan reduces spending is through an automatic, across-the-board cut. If Congress and the President are unable to reach a compromise, the bill triggers automatic, across-the-board spending cuts to guarantee that the one percent reduction is met. This plan would then force lawmakers to cut any of their sacred cows.

10. It Will End Washington's Unprecedented Spending Spree.

The Penny Plan will ensure that Washington cuts spending and balances the federal budget. We cannot afford to continue Washington's reckless spending spree. It's a good step in the right direction to get our fiscal house in order.

All talking points are from FreedomWorks.com

Top 10 Reasons to Support Lee-Walsh’s Balanced Budget Amendment

1. It Would Require the Federal Government to Balance Its Budget Every Year.

The federal budget deficit is a record high $1.6 trillion---more than 10 percent of the nation’s entire output, or Gross Domestic Product (GDP). We face such an enormous deficit because we spend too much, not because we tax too little. The Lee-Walsh Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) would force Washington to live within its means.

2. It Would Prevent Tax Hikes.

The Lee-Walsh BBA would require a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers to raise taxes, which would help prevent the prosperity-killing tax hikes that years of trillion dollar deficits, as proposed by President Obama’s budget would surely bring. The Lee-Walsh BBA would achieve a balanced budget by cutting spending instead of raising taxes.

3. It Would Make it More Difficult to Raise the Debt Ceiling.

The Lee-Walsh BBA would require a three-fifths majority vote in both chambers to raise the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling has been raised ten times in just the past decade. It’s clear that we need to make it more difficult to raise the debt ceiling. The Lee-Walsh BBA does this to ensure that Congress cannot raise the debt ceiling so carelessly.

4. It Would Limit Spending to 18 Percent of GDP.

Congressional spending currently consumes approximately 25 percent of GDP. Federal revenue from taxes over the past 40 years has averaged about 18 percent of GDP, making 18 percent a reasonable limit for spending if Congress is in fact interested in balancing the budget for the long haul.

5. It Would Reduce the Size and Scope of Government.

If we want economic growth to return and be a permanent part of American life, it is imperative that we dramatically reduce the size and scope of government. The Lee-Walsh BBA would put real restraints on the amount of money Washington can spend.

6. It Has a Good Chance of Passing.

The Lee-Walsh BBA has a very good chance of passing the Republican-controlled House. In the Senate, the BBA has unanimous support from all 47 Republicans. It's likely to gain bipartisan support in both chambers.

7. The Lee-Walsh BBA Has Teeth.

Some proposed BBAs have numerous loopholes that make it easy for Congress to override the amendment. The Lee-Walsh BBA has real teeth that would require Washington to balance its budget each year.

8. Americans Overwhelmingly Support Balanced Budget Amendments.

Balanced Budget Amendments have always been popular with the American people. By 72-20 percent, most voters favor a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution, according to a Fox News poll. 

9. It Would Prohibit Congress from Perpetual Deficit Spending.

Deficit spending is simply a hidden tax on future earnings. It is irresponsible for Washington to continue to borrow now and tax us more down the road. The Lee-Walsh BBA would help end our deficit spending and our debt culture.

10. It is a Good Start to Restoring Fiscal Sanity to Washington.

A Balanced Budget Amendment may not be a cure all. But it's a step in the right direction to rein in excessive spending. Enactment of this amendment will go a long way in ensuring Washington never gets so carried away with reckless spending again.

Who says Republicans don’t have any plans to balance the budget?  All in all a good plan especially reasons 2, 3, 5, 9, and 10. What I want to know when is the debt ceiling never raised? Or is it a meaningless term like so much phrases in politics.

These talking points are from FreedomWorks August Action Kit.

Picking Presidential Administration Appointments

When President Reagan first became president he and his staff spent a lot of time discussing appointments to key jobs in the administration. Here are his words about picking them:

As I had done in California, I told the staff I wanted them to look for the best people we could find who were willing to leave their homes and their secure positions to come to Washington and give the country a hand. When I’d approach somebody about taking a job, I’d often say, “We don’t want people who want a job in government, we want people of accomplishment who have to be persuaded to come to work here.”

Source: The Uncommon Wisdom of Ronald Reagan. A Portrait in His Words. (1996) by Bill Adler [editor]

In other words, President Reagan wanted someone who did not dream of working in government. It’s too bad we can’t get people running for Congress or even for president like this. Most want to have power not to serve. If you have a candidate that was reluctant of running but had experience and accomplishment in oh, I don’t know say the private sector (excluding trial lawyers—we have enough of those in Congress thank you) then you  would less likely end up with a career politician addicted to the power and money who think they are part of an elite ruling class.

Or you wouldn’t end up with a POTUS who has daydreams of being a dictator. In previous blogs I joked about calling him an emperor. I guess my jokes weren’t too far off the mark.

Thanks legislators, higher energy bills are on the way

From ConservativeActionAlerts.com (July 15):

Legislators in more than half the states have voted for mandatory renewable energy standards—usually called an RPS for Renewable Portfolio Standards. While the numbers vary state-by-state, an RPS generally requires that an increasing percentage of a state’s electricity come from renewable sources—primarily wind and solar—by set dates. Most of the mandates coincide with the year: 15% by 2015, 20% by 2020, etc. Most states voted in the RPS back when the economy was thriving and “green” energy sounded like a good idea—after all the wind and the sun are “free.” Voting against “renewables” was akin to not liking puppies. Elected officials from both parties have voted for their state’s RPS. But, renewable energy systems have not proven to be free, and most cannot survive without special mandates and subsidies paid for by your tax dollars.

Many different computer models were run to determine the least-cost way to meet the mandates. The results should not be surprising. The least-cost model was based on coal [my italics]—but it does not meet the mandates. The least-cost model that does meet the mandates requires the addition of wind, solar and gas-fueled power plants and shuts down some of the older, existing, fully functional, coal-fueled power plants. The model favored by advocates of “green” energy cuts out coal all together and requires the building of new gas-fueled plants for base load power and to back up the renewables. This third model is the most expensive and therefore is unlikely to be selected by the PRC. But even the mid-range plan will cost state residents more than a billion dollars—and this is just for required CO₂ penalties, not the actual power-plant capital costs. That increase will be felt in everything and disproportionately hurts the poor. Not to mention the increased costs to the cities within the state which are trying to balance their budgets while keeping the lights on. [read more]

This is exactly what happens when environmentalism turns into a religion.

I believe it was Obama that said that energy bills are going to go up in the future. Was he forecasting or was he creating the future? You judge.

You can go to the Dept. of Energy’s States with Renewable Portfolio Standards webpage to see if your state is affected by these stupid standards.

The Government-as-God Concept

If you want to understand the Left’s superiority complex--their arrogance then you have to understand how they view gov’t even themselves. First, let’s make well-known assumptions about God:

1. God is all-knowing (omniscience).
2. God is all-powerful (omnipotent).
3. God is everywhere (omnipresent).
4. God is immortal.
5. God is totally good.
6. God is perfect.
7. You should have faith and trust in God.

If you replace ‘God’ with ‘gov’t’ then you have the Left’s view of the world. Let’s flush this idea out some more.

All totalitarian regimes want to have the first three attributes—hence the word ‘total’ in the totalitarian. Socialists would like to have these attributes when they are doing central planning—like in Obamacare. If you could know or calculate the need/want of every person in a country (omniscience) you could give them (omnipotent) want they need/want.  Of course you would have to be everywhere (omnipresent) to do this. But mankind is none of the omnis so this dream of total control is just a dream.

If God is immortal and gov’t is like God then gov’t (or at least gov’t programs) should be or can be immortal. That’s what the Left believes. So, cutting gov’t programs or agencies that is not mandated in the Constitution is like harming God.  Well, just like people, gov’t is not immortal. The Roman Empire fell along with other gov’ts of the past. America could fall as well if we are not careful with our spending. The gov’t is immortal concept is why the Left justifies why the Federal Reserve can keep printing money without consequences.

The Left also believes that gov’t is totally good. Or can be made good and perfect through societal evolution or just the right kind of people (read: elites) running the country are chosen. Well, mankind will never be totally good and will never will be perfect. Ben Franklin as smart as he was tried to perfect himself. He failed. For every bad habit he got rid of two new ones appeared. So, if mankind is not totally good and perfect then neither can gov’t be either. Since man is not perfect he can be corrupted. And a man with power can increase his chances of being corrupted. The Left thinks that certain men (elites) can handle power without being corrupted. Maybe, a little power but once the power increases so does the corruption. And if the person is arrogant—triple the chances of him being corrupted. Because if he or she thinks they cannot be corrupted.

The Left wants people to have total faith and trust in gov’t. After all the gov’t knows better than you wants good for you. It is perfect, all-knowing, and good.  Just like God. Right? The Left would like people to believe that because they believe it. Most people on the far-Left thought Communism was a good idea but was implemented wrong—or wasn’t given enough time to get the quirks out. This is the same excuse given to all the gov’t programs that have failed. Just give them more money and more time. Well, money doesn’t just pop into existence and more time isn’t going to fix a system that doesn’t make any logical sense.

Taken to the final extreme if gov’t is God then all other religions can be outlawed. Because you cannot have two Gods. This happened in the Soviet Union and is still happening in China.

The Inspiration of the Declaration

Happy birthday America! Below are parts of a speech that President Calvin Coolidge gave July 5, 1926 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania:

We are obliged to conclude that the Declaration of Independence represented the movement of a people. It was not, of course, a movement from the top. Revolutions do not come from that direction. It was not without the support of many of the most respectable people in the Colonies, who were entitled to all the consideration that is given to breeding, education, and possessions. It had the support of another element of great significance and importance to which I shall later refer. But the preponderance of all those who occupied a position which took on the aspect of aristocracy did not approve of the Revolution and held toward it an attitude either of neutrality or open hostility. It was in no sense a rising of the oppressed and downtrodden. It brought no scum to the surface, for the reason that colonial society had developed no scum. The great body of the people were accustomed to privations, but they were free from depravity. If they had poverty, it was not of the hopeless kind that afflicts great cities, but the inspiring kind that marks the spirit of the pioneer. The American Revolution represented the informed and mature convictions of a great mass of independent, liberty-loving, God-fearing people who knew their rights, and possessed the courage to dare to maintain them.

as not because it was proposed to establish a new nation, but because it was proposed to establish a nation on new principles, that July 4, 1776, has come to be regarded as one of the greatest days in history. Great ideas do not burst upon the world unannounced. They are reached by a gradual development over a length of time usually proportionate to their importance. This is especially true of the principles laid down in the Declaration of Independence. Three very definite propositions were set out in its preamble regarding the nature of mankind and therefore of government. These were the doctrine that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights, and that therefore the source of the just powers of government must be derived from the consent of the governed.

It was the fact that our Declaration of Independence containing these immortal truths was the political action of a duly authorized and constituted representative public body in its sovereign capacity, supported by the force of general opinion and by the armies of Washington already in the field, which makes it the most important civil document in the world. It was not only the principles declared, but the fact that therewith a new nation was born which was to be founded upon those principles and which from that time forth in its development has actually maintained those principles, that makes this pronouncement an incomparable event in the history of government. It was an assertion that a people had arisen determined to make every necessary sacrifice for the support of these truths and by their practical application bring the War of Independence to a successful conclusion and adopt the Constitution of the United States with all that it has meant to civilization.

Placing every man on a plane where he acknowledged no superiors, where no one possessed any right to rule over him, he must inevitably choose his own rulers through a system of self-government. This was their theory of democracy. In those days such doctrines would scarcely have been permitted to flourish and spread in any other country. This was the purpose which the fathers cherished. In order that they might have freedom to express these thoughts and opportunity to put them into action, whole congregations with their pastors had migrated to the colonies. These great truths were in the air that our people breathed. Whatever else we may say of it, the Declaration of Independence was profoundly American.

We are too prone to overlook another conclusion. Governments do not make ideals, but ideals make governments. This is both historically and logically true. Of course the government can help to sustain ideals and can create institutions through which they can be the better observed, but their source by their very nature is in the people. The people have to bear their own responsibilities. There is no method by which that burden can be shifted to the government. It is not the enactment, but the observance of laws, that creates the character of a nation.

No other theory is adequate to explain or comprehend the Declaration of Independence. It is the product of the spiritual insight of the people. We live in an age of science and of abounding accumulation of material things. These did not create our Declaration. Our Declaration created them. The things of the spirit come first. Unless we cling to that, all our material prosperity, overwhelming though it may appear, will turn to a barren scepter in our grasp. If we are to maintain the great heritage which has been bequeathed to us, we must be like-minded as the fathers who created it. We must not sink into a pagan materialism. We must cultivate the reverence which they had for the things that are holy. We must follow the spiritual and moral leadership which they showed. We must keep replenished, that they may glow with a more compelling flame, the altar fires before which they worshiped.

The Left’s Version of The Pledge of Allegiance

The Pledge of course goes like this:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

The Left would like it to read:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under government, divided up among race, gender, and sexual preference with equality,  fraternity, and social/economic/environmental justice for all.

The New World Order Left like George Soros would like it to read:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United Nations, all countries under one world order divided up among race, gender, and sexual preference with equality,  fraternity, and social/economic/environmental justice for all.

Actually, according to a Wikipedia article the The Pledge did not contain the words “under God.” So, NBC advertisement was just following the original Pledge (which was deliberate in my opinion) written by socialist Francis Bellamy. Go figure. He also originally wanted the “equality” and “fraternity” parts put in. Which is by the way from the French revolution—“Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.” The only good part of that slogan is “liberty.” The rest led to a socialistic France.

Facts about Slavery in America

Here are some facts about slavery in America from The Patriot’s History of The United States. (2004) by Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen:

1. Although slavery was profitable, profits and property rights alone did not explain its perpetuation.
2. The same of free market that allowed Africans to be bought and sold at the same time exerted powerful pressures to liberate them.
3. Southerners needed the force of government to maintain and expand slavery, and without it, a combination of the market and slave revolts would have ultimately ended the institution. [my emphasis]

History of the Federal Reserve

A powerful cartel of financiers held a meeting at Jekyll Island in Brunswick, Georgia in 1910 to protect themselves from banking losses by using tax revenue instead of their own money.

Here were their challenges:

1. How to stop the growing influence of small, rival banks and to insure that control over the nation’s financial resources would remain in the hands of those present;
2. How to make the money supply more elastic in order to reverse the trend of private capital formation and to recapture the industrial loan market;
3. How to pool the meager reserves of the nation’s banks into one large reserve so that all banks will be motivated to follow the same loan-to-deposit ratios. This would protect at least some of them from currency drains and bank runs;
4. Should this lead eventually to the collapse of the whole banking system, then how to shift the losses from the owners of the banks to the taxpayers. [my emphasis]
5. How to convince Congress that the scheme was a measure to protect the public.

The cartel would operate as a central bank.

Source: The Creature from Jekyll Island. A Second Look at the Federal Reserve. 4th Edition. (2002) by G. Edward Griffin.

Panetta Says North Korea a "Growing" Danger to U.S.

From NTI.org (June 9):

CIA head Leon Panetta said North Korea's military, including its ballistic missile and nuclear enrichment activities, represent a "growing and direct threat" to the United States, Bloomberg reported on Thursday.

The statement was included in written testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee, which Panetta was addressing on Thursday as President Obama's pick to replace outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Earlier this year, Gates said he foresaw North Korea in the next five years developing a ballistic missile capable of reaching the continental United States. The Stalinist state in 2010 also revealed a uranium enrichment program, which could give it another path to producing military-usable atomic material, though Pyongyang is not known to have yet built a nuclear weapon small enough to be attached to a missile. [read more]

And Obama is worried about Khadafi? Okay, I understand he is an oppressive brutal thug to his people but as far as I know he does not have missiles pointed at us. America does not even know who the rebels are and what they stand for. Not all revolutions are good (although if you are a radical like Obama that’s what they like). Remember the French revolution? That’s worked out well. The revolutionaries wanted equality and they got socialism!  And it looks like Egypt is getting sharia law if the Muslim brotherhood takes over.

More than 80% of mosques advocate or promote violence

From WND.com (June 8):

Dozens of mosques around the United States have been identified in a new study as incubators for jihad against America, with more than 80 percent of those surveyed advocating violence.

"Of the 100 mosques surveyed, 51 percent had texts on-site rated as severely advocating violence; 30 percent had texts rated as moderately advocating violence; and 19 percent had no violent texts at all," said the  survey compiled by Mordechai Kedar and David Yerushalmi and published by the Middle East Quarterly. [read more]

Wow! That’s a lot of mosques! Over 80%? So, much for Islam being the ‘religion of peace’.

Although, this does sort of ring true from what I’ve read of Brigitte Gabriel’s book Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America. She says her friends attended mosques that preached hate and anti-American messages. She got reports from friends from different mosques around the country. She was surprised and unnerved by this knowledge.

History of Hatred Against the Jewish People

Hat tip to the Glenn Beck show for this chronology:

175-163 B.C.	Attempt to outlaw Judaism
164- 163 B.C.	Jerusalem captured
72 A.D.	Expelled from Palestine
1096	12,000 Jews killed in First Crusade
1099	Jerusalem captured, Jews killed
1215	Forced to wear yellow circle on clothes
1290	Expelled from England
1306	Expelled from France
1349 – 1360	Expelled from Hungary
1421	Expelled from Austria
1492	Expelled from Spain
1495	Expelled from Lithuania
1497	Expelled from Portugal
15th century – 1772	Banned in Russia
1543	“Concerning the Jews and Their Lies” released
1555	Forced into Italian ghettos
1648-49	10,000 killed in massacres in Ukraine
1925	“Mein Kampf” published
1933	Nazi Party comes to power in Germany
1935	Nuremburg Laws introduced
1938	7,500 businesses destroyed in Kristallnacht
1941	33,000 killed in Ukraine
1941-1945	67% European Jews are murdered

 

Man, I am not sure why the Jews are not bitter for what the world has done to them. Anyone else would have a chip on their shoulder. Add to that fact they have countries around them (like Iran and Egypt if the Muslim Brotherhood gain power) who wants to exterminate them.

If America doesn’t stand with Israel and Israel is destroyed then America is next. After all according to the militant Islamists Israel is the little Satan, we are the big Satan.

Obama solicitor general: If you don't like mandate, earn less money

From the Washington Examiner.com (June 2):

President Obama's solicitor general, defending the national health care law on Wednesday, told a federal appeals court that Americans who didn't like the individual mandate could always avoid it by choosing to earn less money.

Neal Kumar Katyal, the acting solicitor general, made the argument under questioning before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati, which was considering an appeal by the Thomas More Law Center.  The three-judge panel, which was comprised of two Republican-appointed judges and a Democratic-appointed judge, expressed more skepticism about the government's defense of the health care law than the Fourth Circuit panel that heard the Virginia-based Obamacare challenge last month in Richmond. The Fourth Circuit panel was made up entirely of Democrats, and two of the judges were appointed by Obama himself. [read more]

Wow, what arrogance! Then again that’s what the elite Left is known for.

Maybe the regime administration wants everyone to earn less income. Obama is already talking about raising taxes on the successful.