What is the Cloward-Piven Strategy?

If you think the latest attempts at reviving the economy through the politician stimulation plan (a.k.a. the stimulus bill) and the mortgage plan make President Obama and Congress look like total doofuses, then you are looking at their activities through the wrong lens. See, you are thinking only of your own self-interest, and not of the politicians' self-interest. They know exactly what they are doing.

If you've never heard of the Cloward-Piven Strategy, it's worth reading. This is all organized chaos, and happening according to plan.

Hmm...

Looks tantalizing...doesn't it!

How to get that day off work...hmm....

Change You Can Count On Not Happening

Last week, Marie and I stopped into our local second amendment support center and picked up some new hardware. The gal assisting us happened to be the owner of the business, and spoke freely about anything and everything. (She was very helpful, too.)

She started talking about how both Bush and Obama blew it. If they really wanted to help the economy, they could have taxed guns and ammo an additional 5%, and they would be in tall cotton. I thought she had a good point there. Not that I liked it, but that it was a good point.

On the way home, Marie and I started talking about this. We came to the conclusion it would never happen. Why, you ask? That's easy: Democrats and RINO's would never, ever formally admit that the gun industry is a significant part of the consumer economy, and would never knowingly support it by depending on taxes from it. That would be like a Christian knowingly and purposely supporting the porn industry.

So, instead, Obama will increase regulations on things like foreign manufactured guns and ammo, and put wholesalers and American manufacturers in a position of not keeping up with demand. If you haven't heard yet...yes, that is the plan. That way, Obama can say he will defend the Second Amendment but still eradicate our ability to use the arms we now own.

The Propensity to Lie, Then to Increase the Lie

If you live in Ohio, you've no doubt seen or heard the annoying "get your Congressman to change their 'no' vote to a 'yes' vote on the Obama Plan" commercials. In the first place, anyone who has paid attention to politics for longer than, say, the last Presidential election cycle, knows that the ads lean far left.

For those of you who haven't followed politics that closely, let me explain. One of the sponsoring groups for those ads is Americans United for Change. If you go to their About page, then Wiki on their leader, Brad Woodhouse, you'll see very plainly that this is a progressive organization that is all about the "little people". I don't use that word to judge those less fortunate, but to give my take on how that group of people is viewed by libs, progressives and Democrats - but I repeat myself.

Spread the word that these ads, which are full of lies anyway and getting more fallacious by the day, are not for the benefit of the working class, but for the benefit of the Democrat leadership class.

Oh, and by the way, if you would be willing to help support a third party or two, many of these folks would change their stripes in a heartbeat. They will follow the money as long as they can, since they are all money whores anyway. (Sorry, had to use that word to make my point.)

Freedom is Dead

In his first public speech after the 9/11 attacks, President Bush said, “Freedom was attacked.” How right he was.

Now, a mere eight years and five months later, freedom is dead. Well, at least in the United States. The Partisan Democrats were joined by three Bipartisan Republicans to pass the largest socialist reform in America since, well, since, I don’t know. I haven’t done the compare/contrast to the New Deal to know for sure. I can say that thanks to the traitors in both parties, nationalized socialized health care is a certainty.

I hope none of your parents are past their working years and in need of an organ replacement.

I hope you don’t have kids just starting a practice in the medical profession.

I hope you don’t pay taxes now, because you’ll only pay more.

I hope you don’t home school, because that implied right will probably be taken away when the U.S. adopts the UN Rights of the Child contract.

We are who we elect. We let this happen to us because race, emotion, and “getting along” were more important than doing the right thing. We are lazy and selfish, and know better how to boss others around than to discipline ourselves.

Sounds just like our Congress and their puppet leader, The Jerk:

The only things left to do now are to lay waste to this concept of a consumer-based economy by spending no more than we absolutely need to, saving or investing the rest, letting the house of cards continue to fall until only the resourceful and self-sufficient remain, and teaching our kids about the “outdated” priniciples of civility, respect, responsibility and accountability.

Oh, and voting these idiots out of Congress in 2010 would go a long way to resolving this problem, too.

(This post is cross-posted at So Many Idiots, So Little Time.)

Then End of an Office

I think tonight's press conference pretty much makes it official. The President of the United States is no longer a leadership office held by people who swear to uphold their presidential oath. Nope. It is now the highest-ranking sales position in the United States.

To say the press conference was narcissistic is an understatement. A person who takes accountability for their responsibilities does not blame past employees for current problems. Or, if they did, they would at least hold the right people accountable. The Jerk blamed Republicans for the current financial fiasco (geez, wasn't it the Republicans who tried to call attention to the Fannie Mae and Freddit Mac problems?). Then he says only government can solve the current problems. Then he lends his credibility to certain non-news "news" agencies by calling on them as though their representatives are really reports. Way to turn "fairness" on its head.

So, President Bush realized that playing cheerleader wasn't the way to go. Now, The Jerk has decided that he needs to make everybody feel bad for the country's current economic situation. All so his party can pass the socialism-in-a-single-bill plan.

And some people STILL wonder why I voted third party in the last election. The Republican idiots are complicit. Oh, and have you heard about the Daschle brain-child in the bill? Don't get old, it will kill you.

Clowns to the left of me, and jokers to the right? No, not really. They are on a much more sinister plane than I could ever be on.

Birds of a Feather

Hey, for those of you who are loathe to support the big box political parties, be sure to stop in at Coup d'etat. I stumbled upon her (Rani's) blog when researching the term 'Revolution 2010' for my shirt line - you'll quickly see why when you look at the shirts. Be sure to drop her a comment, and let her know who sent you.

I'm Voting for Pedro

No, this isn't live blogging at the Presidential debate. The debate would have to be a living event, attended by living beings for that to happen. These two characters can't hold a candle to watching paint dry. Heck, if they are not careful, they might motivate me to login and do some work for my office tonight.

I walked away from the TV less than ten minutes into the debate. I've been listening from in front of the pc ever since. Multi-tasking is keeping me from going insane.

I could barely sit all the way through Napoleon Dynamite. But this debate makes it look like an Oscar winner.

A commenter on Michelle Malkin's site said this debate sounds like listening to Charlie Brown's parents. I had thought the exact same thing a couple minutes before reading the comment.

My comments:

• Neither of these opponents can stray beyond their company line.
• Politics without competition sucks. When you get good and have no competition, you play it safe. Both competitors are playing it safe. Which sucks.
• The effeminization of our federal government is complete.
  
• I'm voting for Pedro. At least he'll make all my dreams come true: I could ignore him, and not worry about the government doing ANYTHING to destroy my family.

Fantasy Land

In my dreams, it's still the same
Your love is strong, it still remains
In my dreams, you're still by me
Just the way it used to be
-- Dokken, In My Dreams

My dream candidate for POTUS is not Sarah Palin. It's definitely not John McCain, Barack Obama or Joe Biden. It may not even be Alan Keyes, Chuck Baldwin or Bob Barr.

So who is my dream candidate? What qualities do they possess?

Instead of putting it in terms of "qualities", let me put it in the frame of a response to a debate question:

Candidate "X", how can the American people trust you to reach across the aisle and put your differences aside?

Why, thank you for asking, Mr./Ms. Moderator, I have been hoping you would ask me that question. I think there is a lot to the question, and I will do my best to answer it within the two minute time frame.

Since 1980, Democrats have held the Senate majority for 2 years, the House majority for 6 years, and full Congressional majority for 10 years. Conversely, Republicans held the Senate for 6 years, the House for 2 years, and both for 10 years. Oddly enough, over the last 28 years, Democrats and Republicans have both held or shared control of the legislature for 18 years. You can see that both parties share in the creation of the problems over this period of time.

Now, to the question: "reaching across the aisle" is a myth that is meant to sound as though you are talking about compromise. But let's look at who is asked to "reach across the aisle". In my years of political experience, it is only the Republicans - and more specifically, conservatives - who are asked, and practically demanded, to reach across the aisle. Conversely, Democrats and liberals treat the aisle as though it's some type of invisible fence; should they cross it, there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth, and maybe even death. (smile)

So let's take off the blinders, and say what this really means: "Reaching across the aisle" is a call for conservatives to give up on their beliefs and ideals in order to write law that benefits Democrats and liberals. While Democrats continue to judge conservatives by their own values and call them on their indiscretions when they occur, Democrats are never called out on theirs, or called upon to compromise and sacrifice their beliefs and ideals for the good of the country. Shame on the Republicans for letting them get away with this! And shame on the Democrats for putting party over country!

As of today, right now, the term "reaching across the aisle" died. I will play by the same play book the Democrats do. If they want compromise, they can walk into the aisle just as easily as I can, but I will not reach across the aisle any more than they currently do.

And then, the response to a second debate question:

Candidate "X", what will you do to work with Congress and make progress on behalf of the American people?

That is another great question that I am excited to answer. On behalf of the American people, I would not work with Congress. As defined in the articles of our great Constitution, which I, on inauguration day, will promise to uphold and defend, I will work to fulfill the responsibilities of my office. My expectation would be that the 535 members of Congress would do the same. We will do no more, and no less, otherwise we would be abusing the powers and duties granted to us in the Constitution.

What does that mean? It means that it is the legislature's responsibility to create bills that they deem appropriate for the country. When I believe Congress gets it right, I will sign those bills into law. And, when I believe Congress gets it wrong, I am to veto those bills. And if Congress disagrees with my veto, then they have the ability by super majority vote to override my veto. These checks and balances were created so that the federal government doesn't become some type of super power, meant to be taken over by two political parties or special interests.

See, this isn't about how well the President and Congress work together. That plays to our desire to get along, but doesn't lead to good government. This is about performing our duties and obligations as stated in the Constitution. So I will not work with Congress, and I will not expect them to work with me. I will expect that they will do what they are required to do by the Constitution, and nothing more, and that I will do the same.

The candidate who answers those two questions in this manner will be my dream candidate. That would prove country over party, regardless of the party.

I can dream, can't I?

(And doesn't George Lynch play a wicked solo on the song at the link?)

Party in power facts taken from here.

Full Moon?

I get the impression that we will have a full moon from now until all the November election votes are counted, and maybe even longer. I've been taken in by the reporting and commentary regarding the Dem and Rep conventions and the events that followed. Not in a good way. You can read about it here.

I say they are all idiots, and we should start over. What do you think?

A Takeover

Pastors and Pastorettes,

Do you have an awesome vision for your church and the way it should work?

Is your church membership bucking your vision, you know, the one given directly to you BY GOD?

Are your members acting like Christianity started some two-thousand years ago and actually has a history behind it?

It's up to YOU to do something about it!


Okay, enough of the gibberish. I stumbled across what looks like a rational view not of what happened to Issues, Etc., but the "why".

This is an excellent article by someone who has seen this before. I think the confessional congregations ought to tell their members - even those that do not have computers - about it.

Primarily Speaking

Tomorrow is the Ohio primary. Big deal, right? It should be, but I don't view it that way. I am a constitutionalist in Republican's clothing. (I have not renounced my party affiliation yet although I should get around to that.)

I am going to take this opportunity to vote Republican AND protest the roster of remaining, unqualified candidates. You see, Marie voted absentee a couple weeks ago, so I know who is on the Republican ballot. And I can still vote for a candidate that is no longer in the race. It will be my way, as a registered Republican, of expressing my displeasure with the party.

A Question

This is not a test. It's absolutely, positively 100% open for discussion. I hope it turns into a nice, long, meandering thread, because it should.

Question: when does it become a national security interest for the federal government to prop up the economy?

I'm sorry, but "never" is not a viable response on this thread. I want to see reasons for every response.

As most (if not all) of you know, I am conservative in my political ideals. I prefer that government be left out to the fullest extent possible when it comes to the economy, and definitely when it comes to trampling our liberties. Even as a Christian - confessional Lutheran, to be precise - I don't like religion being pushed down my throat. I'm not for tweaking or skewing the Constitution, and I despise that none of the branches of federal government utilize all of the checks and balances they've been granted. I also don't like that those state-to-federal checks and balances aren't used.

That's where I start. Which leads back to the question: when does it become a national security interest for the federal government to prop up the economy?

Too Bad, So Sad

President Calderon of Mexico is upset at the anti-immigration tone in the United States. Just read what he says here.

Ironically, our pro-security President (maybe I should have put that in quotes) is working on a $1.4 BILLION stimulus/security package for Mexico, which would focus on securing Mexico's southern border.

Two plus two equals four.

Before you say this doesn't add up from the U.S. perspective, it adds up perfectly. At least, if you are Bush.

2 - Bush wants amnesty for illegal aliens coming across the Mexican border. Primarily, these aliens will be Mexicans.

+

2 - Calderon wants to secure his southern border from Central Americans. They just don't fit into the US/Canada/Mexico single-economy model.

= 4 - another step toward an American Union.

Changing the Primary System

Update: I added a survey about the political parties to the right side of my blog. Take a look at the parties' platforms, then answer the survey.


What's wrong with having a national primary?

No, I don't mean where the highest vote getter for each party gets all the delegates, then automatically gets their party's nomination. Heck no, think of all the revenue the parties would lose by not having to hold a national convention. (snicker)

No, I am talking about keeping all the state rules for delegates, but having all of the primaries on the same day. Talk about shaking things up? Then, the left-leaning RINO's in New Hampshire, and the liberals voting as independents in the open primaries in other states, wouldn't have as significant impact on my voting options.

Lookie here:

• Mitt Romney - out before Valentine's Day
• Rudy Guliani - out before February
• Fred Thompson - out before February
• Duncan Hunter - out before February
• Tom Tancredo - out before the new year

So my "choices" for my Republican vote in the March Ohio primary are:

• John McCain - who moves to the left on issues of importance to me when it's time to govern.
  
• Mike Huckabee - who attracts Christian voters, but would be labeled a Democratic nominee if you just looked at what he did in Arkansas without looking at title or faith.
• Ron Paul - libertarian/constitutionalist at heart, but with whom I disagree on matters of defense and foreign policy.

Be honest...where's the "choice"? I'm not being negative; I'm being a conservative realist. Would I choose the pro-amnesty, pro-election "reform" candidate? The tax-raising, amnesty-happy, Mexican-consulate creating "populist" candidate? Or the isolationist, we-are-the-problem, get out of everywhere NOW candidate?

I can honestly say none of them represent me to my satisfaction. Some of the eliminated candidates may have, much more than the remaining crop. And that was my thought before Romney suspended his campaign.

So, why not set up primaries so that I can at least vote for who I believe does represent me, and let the voters sort it out? Who's to say Vermont wouldn't select Paul as the 'R' candidate, while Arizona selects Hunter, and Utah selects Romney? If none of them get enough delegates, good for us! We arrange a do-over. :-)

I would also add a binding "none of the above" option for all primaries, without a do-over for the party whose winning candidate is "NOTA".

If I did that though, I would also level the opportunity to begin a campaign. We conservatives always talk about equality of opportunity, while being against equality of results. In terms of elections, we have neither, thanks to the goofy election laws.

So why not make our vote really count, instead of making only our "hold our nose" vote count?

Class Action

Can I sue the Republican Party?

That's a serious question.

The Republican Party has given up the ship. Every remotely conservative candidate is out of the race. Except for Ron Paul, of course, for whom no "thinking" conservative would ever cast a vote. Well, that's what the media AND the Republican leadership say, isn't it.

Since the Republican Party is no longer as advertised, what is the opportunity for filing a class action lawsuit against the party for false advertising? The Dems are bozos, idiots, pacifists, , but for the most part, they are as advertised. The same cannot be said for Republicans.

Since I am still a member of the Republican Party due to the one $30 donation I made fifteen years ago, and the party has left me, can I seriously consider creating a class action lawsuit against the idiots who try to tell me, "I represent you, dammit, so vote for me!"?

Inbreeding

Read this article. The points are well founded and make sense.

But that's not why I want you to read it.

After you've read and digested it, then let it settle in your brain for a little bit, I want you to tell me what's wrong with it.

Platforms

While Nero fiddles, and 90% of Rome along with it:

• The D's
• The R's

(talk about gibberish)

There are actually some leaders (10%, hopefully on the increase) who think something ought to be done about it.

• Populists
• Reformed
• Libertarians
• Independent Americans
  
• Constitutionalists

And if you don't like the way Congress runs its operation, you may want to get behind this bill.

No one forcefully constrained us into supporting only two political parties. We do it to ourselves.

A Response to GDAEman

I was going to respond to GDAEman's comment to this post in the comments section. I didn't realize I was writing another complete post!

An introduction is in order: GDAEman is a regular commenter on the Patriots and Tyrants blog co-hosted by Scott and me. (If you consider our posting on P&T to be regular.) If you looked at all three of our personal blogs, you would probably say that we shouldn't be agreeing on anything. However, we all believe there is a greater good than the two political parties we succumb to, and have some good conversations that transcend the current goo called U.S. Politics.

I also added GDAEman to my links on the right today. Welcome, GDAEman!

Here it goes.

GDAEman,

Agreed that we have gotten smarter on some principles, and made amends (pun intended). There is something to be said about "life, liberty, and property" though, that gets lost in the mix.

That which I am given, I tend to find less valuable. I'm not talking about family heirlooms or priceless treasures here, which are given to us and are extremely valuable, but primarily only to us. I am talking about commodities on the low end, and common assets that were once seen as luxuries - houses, cars, etc. - on the high end.

Those things that I earn - through profits, wages, battle, debate - I tend to defend and protect. Why do inventors protect and defend their ideas? Because of the years of toil and strain. It's pride of ownership.

What happens when pride of ownership disappears? When someone buys a house, and gets it on a zero down-pay mortgage, then cannot afford the mortgage, what did they really lose? Not the $20,000 they saved up for 5-10 years, because they didn't save it in the first place. Not the ding to their credit score, since their credit score might have been bad already. And who cares when it is socially acceptable to declare bankruptcy at the drop of a hat?

I'm not bundling everyone into the same category here in the sub-prime fiasco. My point is that it's easy to distance yourself from failure when there is nothing to defend, nothing that you owned.

We don't have to earn much nowadays to have more than people in 65-70% of the world. The monthly earnings of some entitlement recipients, which aren't taxed, rival the post-tax discretionary incomes of some low-level professionals and many blue collar workers. We look to be given more, instead of looking to work for more.

We are so far removed from the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812, where U.S. liberty was defended on American soil. This pride of ownership issue not only applies to tangible goods, but to ideals as well. Today, we take our liberties for granted, as though they were given to us as a gift, not as something for which we sacrificed lives. We don't "own" our country any more. Pride of ownership is taboo, because it makes those that don't own feel inferior. We can't have that now, can we? Instead, we must build up their self-esteem, tell them how wonderful they are, yet still not nurture them into being thoughtful, productive, progressive members of society.

What I'm saying is that we are a country of enablers. We enable politicians to take us for granted, to use us as their own pieces on their big Risk game board. I can hear it now:

"I want to be red this time."
"Okay, I'll be blue."
"Can I play, too?"
"No! There is only enough room for two of us."
"But what about all those other playing pieces?"
"Won't work. We'll both gang up on you so you can't win."

We enable businesses to take advantage of us by trying to create legal monopolies and stifling competition. We accept 'free' offers for cell phones, wireless service, and for 'click points' on websites. Or we register our buying habits with grocery stores...gas companies...airlines...credit card companies...all so we can pay a little less, or nothing at all, on our next gas purchase or big-ticket-I-still-can't-afford-it fantasy vacation (it's for the children, after all). Nothing like letting all these companies know exactly what our buying habits are. We might as well just give them the keys to the house!

We enable political action groups to tell us when to emote, while never actually delving into why they want us to emote. Why should I MoveOn, when it's just about bashing the Right? Same with Kos. Same with many right-leaning websites. Heck, lefties bash Kucinich and righties bash Paul. What's up with that? Each party now cannibalizes their own non-conformists, instead of letting the voters give them the thumbs up or thumbs down.

We enable the media to whittle down our presidential nominee list for us by volume of positive or negative coverage.

And, conversely, politicians enable us to ask for more, because they keep giving it to us. We get lazier and lazier, ask for more and more, and defend what we have less and less.

Okay, enough ranting. My point is that the Constitution may have been written by wealthy men looking to protect their assets from other wealthy men, but look what happens when we don't want to protect anything - ideals, borders, faiths, liberties. I remember seeing a graphic about the rise and fall of civilizations, I think by Benjamin Disraeli. Looking at the natural regression of civilization after we get "too much", civilization declines rather quickly. From what I recall of the representative graphic, we are almost halfway down the decline.

Geez, I didn't think I would be writing a sub-post. :-)

-----------------------------------------------------------

***I wish I could find that graphic somewhere, something about the body politic. Someone please help; even just citing a legitimate reference would be good.

Affirmative Action Presidency

Are we going to make Barak Obama the first affirmative action President?

I'm not talking about his credentials. I'm not talking about his races, considering he is multi-racial. I'm not even talking about his beliefs or political aspirations.

I'm talking about the people who claim him for their own.

Is the need to vote for "my person" going to put us in a position where qualifications and an affinity with the candidate's direction of the country don't matter?

Okay, stop laughing. I know they don't really matter to any of the candidates still seriously in the running today, or to the people that will vote for them and only them. For those folks, it's still about "us vs. them".

But, seriously...are Oprah's disciples so starved for a "black" man to be president that, should a white man with the same political beliefs and ideals run against other white men, her disciples wouldn't look twice at him, but would instead vote for one of the other candidates?

And there, you would have it. The "unqualified" white version of this man would remain unqualified. The "unqualified" mixed race version of this man would be promoted over others more qualified. That sounds like affirmative action to me.

Of course, that would mean we had qualified candidates. But that's for another post....