Third Party & Independents Archives

A Plea To The MidWest

A Sunday Washington Post article reports that the country may not be ready for a complete insurgency relative to anti-incumbency. While acknowledging that the 2010 midterm elections will have major influence over the power structure in Washington, the writer senses that America’s heartland, the Midwest, may be content with the status quo.

The writer references GOP House Representative Roy Blunt as an example for his reasoning. Blunt is the ultimate Washington insider. He came up through the ranks of K street lobbyist and his wife is a prominent lobbyist. In raising campaign finance funds he ranks among the top House members and does a superb job of ‘bringing home the bacon’ to his home state of Missouri.

With such a background one would think Blunt would be high on the list of the anti-incumbency movement. But, that’s not the case in Missouri. So far, he is running well ahead of his Republican primary opponents and is about even with his Democratic opponent, Robin Carnahan.

The writer states that it may be something else – “less apparent but more significant that contrary to the simplistic “get rid of them all” narrative that has come to define news coverage of the 2010 elections, the voters here, and in nearby states, are more willing to trust veterans of the political systems to sort out the nation’s problems.” Says one Kansas based GOP political consultant, “Blunt is everything voters there want…even if they don’t like everything he’s done.”

The writer relates that political strategists and aspiring Presidential candidates see the heartland, or ‘rust belt’ as holding great sway in their political fortunes. Five states – Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania were seen as instrumental in the Democrats’ sweep of Congress in 2006 and Obama’s win in 2008. The results of the upcoming elections there are seen as having great influence over who holds power in Washington next year and who sits in the Oval Office in 2012.

Missouri’s budget includes some $900M in federal stimulus which may not be continued next year. Blunt makes it a point to stress his prowess in diverting federal dollars to the State. The article relates that “a sense of vulnerability runs deep acroos the regions, where states are starved for cash and face ever-deeper cuts into government service.”

While I believe the Midwesterner is more politically astute than the writer gives credit I would make those status quo seekers aware that 83k jobs were created last month and it takes 125k jobs monthly to break even. The recession ended perhaps a year ago but the private sector isn’t hiring. Existing home sales dropped 30% from April, more than twice that expected. Stocks just ended their worst quarter in more than a year. Consumer confidence in May fell 20% compared with April. When government money runs out, and it will at some point pdq, what do you think the future holds in stock for us? Then please read the following article and remember it when you vote in November.


By Charlie Reese: Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them. Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don’t. House of Representatives does. You and I don’t write the tax code, Congress does. You and I don’t set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don’t control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine..((missing text))
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted — by present facts — of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can’t think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it’s because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it’s because they want it in the red If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ , it’s because they want them in IRAQ. If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it’s because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like “the economy,” “inflation,” or “politics” that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power. They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses. We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess! Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.
What you do with this article now that you have read it………. is up to you.” End quote.

On this Independence day, 2010, I urge you to lay down the partisanship. Look to the well-being of the nation as opposed to your locality or state. For 25 years we have stood by and watched as our country, our sovereignty, our national wealth, has diminished with each passing day. It’s time for REAL change which can be brought about by voting incumbents from office in large numbers.

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

Posted by Roy Ellis at July 4, 2010 7:51 PM
Comment #303067

Roy, First of all her’s hoping your 4th was a good one.
Is Charley Reese only half right? I mean he seems to blame the 545 people currently in office and had forgotten the many more that over the years has made the mess inherited by some of the current crop of representatives. He also makes the voting public sound like innocent bystanders not the voting public that elected the previous and current group of representatives. I mean after all, this mess did not happen in the past 2 years but has been growing for 30 years.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 4, 2010 10:45 PM
Comment #303075

A good 4th, stuffed the grandkids with hot dogs and ice cream. We are going to test the ole eneergy grids this week. Just think, if we had an alternative energy source our trade deficit would be cut almost in half.

I can’t totally agree that the voter owns half the responsibility for out problems. The voter is only offered candidates that have been vetted by the Corpocracy to begin with. This buying the best government money can buy thing has slowly ratcheted up over many years. Waxman getting approval for the ‘Leadership PAC’ really put the money influence in overdrive.

Still, the voter has some major responsibility there. Joe Hirschhorn recommends that voting be mandated, that election day be made a national holiday and, I believe he recommends that felons who have served their time should be allowed to vote. All in Republic Sentry’s Agenda statement. I would think about 6 weeks of schooling, around grades 9-10 should be devoted to ‘good government practices’.

Best thing we can do for ourselves at this point is to vote out the old guard and start fresh. As Barry Lynn, writer of ‘Cornered’ states, we should work to split, and split again and again the institutions of the Corpocracy.

Otherwise, - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 5, 2010 10:59 AM
Comment #303077

Roy, Mandating voting for candidates which one may not choose to, if free to do so, is anathema to democracy and freedom.

Mandating uninformed and uninterested voters to vote is anathema to the founders entire doctrine of government by informed and vested consent of the people.

Joel Hirschhorn couldn’t be more wrong on this issue. It violates some of our most fundamental founding principles regarding freedom and liberty and representation in a democratically elected republic.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 5, 2010 1:29 PM
Comment #303088

I reluctantly agree on that one David. I checked Republic Sentry and had not included a mandate vote for that very reason. Here are the related voting bullets in the Agenda:

Legislate to shorten the election period to six months preceding the election.

Legislate to restore voting rights to those who have completed incarceration.

Legislate to declare that Election Day is now a National Holiday.

Legislate to effect same day primaries be held by political parties.

Legislate to modify the Electoral College to produce a one person, one vote effect in the general election.

Legislate to mandate adequate media exposure for political candidates. This measure would ensure sufficient media exposure for candidates of the five major parties in the run-up to election.

You may have a problem with modifying the Electoral College too.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 5, 2010 6:30 PM
Comment #303123

Roy, no, actually, I am in favor of all your positions stated above. The Electoral College is an anachronism. We are, for all intents and purposes, no longer a federation of States, but, a single nation spanning half a continent.

I believe in States retaining rights to their local governance, but, not to the detriment and harm of the American people at large, or the nation and its future (Delaware and Banking, Big 3 Auto in Mich. Ohio, and Indiana, Bison mis-management in Yellowstone, and drying up the West through the Colorado River Authority, as examples).

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 6, 2010 11:08 AM
Comment #303141

So, I assume that you believe the waters of the Great Lakes is a national resource, that Georgia has a claim to water from the Tenessee River and so on. By that same reasoning, as we all belong to the United Nations, would not Africa’s tantalum be up for grabs as well? How about East Africa’s diamonds? Would a globalized world not lead us to such thinking? If someone has the wealth to buy a natural resource can anyone refuse?

I have more of a problem with the FED than Michigan relative to the auto mfctr’s. The FED used taxpayer dollars to send GM to China, then used taxpayer dollars to allow GM to declare bankruptcy, get rid of legacy mfctring equipment and retool for new stuff. I know GM received some billions of stimulus and now, GM wants about $5B to ensure it has enough capital to stay afloat. Meanwhile, GM/China is making big profits. It all stinks of the Corpocracy, of government making winners and losers, of socialism and more. Has way less to do with Federal or States rights and way more to do with removing the influence of money from politics/government. The need to abolish CP and MIFS and all that.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 6, 2010 8:19 PM
Comment #303154

Roy, the Great Lakes are an International Resource, by Treaty, with Canada, and certain Indian tribes. What is needed is judicial enforcement of existing contracts and agreements regarding the stewardship of natural resources.

You went WAY OFF THE DEEP END arguing UN and foreign nations having ANY claim to America’s natural resources, or vice versa, and positing that that was even implied by my position.

The UN, difficult and failed as it is in so many ways, does not reapportion natural resources of individual nation’s to other nations. And nothing I said suggests it should.

Globalization of markets is little more than free enterprise across national boundaries, extending to an ever growing number of national and regional participants and partnerships. With that must come contractual enforcement agreements and arrangements which preclude war as the means of resolving disputes over agreements.

You said there is a better way. What is it? BTW, when was the last time the U.N. forced the U.S. to do anything its representatives didn’t want to do? I would ask the same question of the WTO?

Please tell me that you are not harboring some anarchist notion that each of us should be responsible for settling our own disputes across international boundaries. That is being tried in Mexico and along some of our border states, and it isn’t working out too well, so far, by all reports.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 6, 2010 10:50 PM
Comment #303201

IMO, soonest and if we get on the other side of the great recession there will be a move to one world government. Not the UN but a UN like body.

It seems we both want the Corpocracy taken down for different reasons. You seem to prefer globalization and I abhor it. But, that’s ok. So long as we take down the Corpocracy first, we can deal with our differences later.

We’ve got Lion fish threatening our reef’s and some kind of hogwild barnacle that you kain’t kill with kerosene sticking to ships and shoals. Here in Va. we fight Kudzu 24/7, etc. A little less harmonizing and a little more sanity lest we lose what’s left of our eco system. I can almost read your response between the lines here. ‘Just let them all come in and fight it out and we will be a better country for it.” Chestnut is gone, oaks have been devastated by some obsoleted silk worm that escaped 50 years ago, etc. Well, of course we could plant some mahogany or teak trees and spray lotsa poison on pesky silk worms, etc. Probably be a better country for it. Etc

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 7, 2010 10:43 PM
Comment #303207

Roy said: “IMO, soonest and if we get on the other side of the great recession there will be a move to one world government.”

Perhaps there will be a move. But, it won’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of succeeding. The people of democratically elected governments cannot be sold on such a thing. This notion lies in the realm of martians invading and taking over the planet soon. In other words, this is more Beck-oning of Beck profits from the gullible and susceptible.

If I am wrong, please explain in detail just how such a one world government (not economy, government) could be brought about? Please keep it in the realm of the plausible.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 8, 2010 10:23 AM
Comment #303208

Zarkozy of France is in deep doo-doo over allegations of taking illegal campaign money from the wealthiest woman in France. If our leaders can’t even get away with raising money outside the law, just how can a one world government be implemented amongst democratically elected populations?

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 8, 2010 10:25 AM
Comment #303246

Roy, speaking of invasive species, Amerindians and white men were among the first invasive species to reach N.America. The white men brought toxic diseases that killed many Indians.

Some invasive species are deliberately distributed, out of ignorance or greed. Others are opportunistic. The hog wild barnacle that you mentioned is perhaps the zebra mussel that piggybacked its way to the Great Lakes on commercial shipping.

Globalization is basically a done deal, the good and the bad. How long did it take George Bush to fly to Beijing? How long would it have taken George Washington to make the same trip by sailing ship and horse? Our technological society has shrank the world to the point where anywhere is closer to you than the other side of Virginia was to Washington.

Global government is still Mount Everest. The odds are still as great that we will destroy ourselves as a species as they are for a One World Government. IMO, the corpocracy, that is the corporate side of corpocracy would like to have only one government to buy. But the people are beginning to understand that there are some very undesirable elements attached to the corpocracy and there is a resistance to it that will continue to grow.

IMO, a one world government is a long way off and it is contingent on social progress far more that technological progress. Not in your lifetime, not in your children’s lifetime, not in your grand children’s life time.

In our country, power is vested in the people. That is why it is vitally important for wealth and power to use the genetic material and the environmental interactions, that make each of us an individual, to divide and conquer us. That is what Glen Beck is paid the big bucks to do.

Progressive legislation is not the culprit. Social spending is not the culprit, Greed is the culprit. Greed is the product that Glen Beck is peddling. There is hardly a week that goes by without Glen devising a new gimmick to separate the true believers from their cash. He is laughing like a crazy man as he deposits his earnings in his favorite corpocracy bank.

Posted by: jlw at July 8, 2010 7:15 PM
Comment #303247

David wrote: “The higher productive nation’s incur lower population increases, than lower productive nations.”

The population growth of productive countries are heavily influenced by immigration. Gibralter is the African gateway to the EU and we have the southern border conduit.

David wrote: “Why all this talk of foreign nations laying claim to American resources? It isn’t happening, with only a handful of exceptions like Mexico’s treaty claim to Colorado River water, which is legitimate, btw.”

I’m curious about the inclusion of a 2’ pipe in the NAFTA highway planned from Texas to Kansas City and beyond. Is that to be a water coduit for Mexico? I believe water resources will become a stickler for some developing areas in the near future.

David wrote: “Globalization of markets was inevitable with the export of democratic elections and free enterprise doctrine. It is what it is. The challenge now is how to regulate it for the best of all who are now inter-dependent upon it and each other for their economic survival.”

I don’t accept globalization and free trade as inevitable. I believe world trade and fair trade would be more amenable and way more beneficial to ALL world countries.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 8, 2010 7:16 PM
Comment #303259

Speaking of Beck, he was hot this evening – came up with about ten reasons why it is a good idea to vote against Obama in 2012. Beck complains that the main stream media is giving Obama a free ride in not reporting on several important issues.
He relates that while 26% are liberal, 42% conservative and 28% independent the liberal minority is running our government, radicals included. Like Az being sued while 64% support the Az law. And pushing through a healthcare bill while 60% want the HC bill repealed.
He notes that while FOX covered the NASA Director stating that his main mission was to help the middle east understand the importance of their science and engineering efforts, the main stream media did not. Says there was no coverage from the Wash Post, NYtimes, ABC, NBC or CBS.
Says that Levi Johnson admitted to lying about Sarah Palin the main stream was silent. And, when the DOJ dropped a case against the ‘New Black Panther’, shown on TV intimidating voters in 2008, FOX reported but the Wash Post, Boston Globe, NBC, ABC, and CBS did not. A DOJ lawyer recently quit and is now whistle blowing re the DOJ stating that they will not prosecute black on white voter registration cases.
Beck is complaining about a new radical, Donald Berwick, socialist, being given the reins to Medi-Care, representing 1/6th of the federal budget. A known socialist radical appointed as Director without a Congressional hearing. After Obama made statements pre HC bill that rationing would not be part of the policy Berwick has stated “excellent HC by definition is redistribution of wealth” and “ not whether we will ration care but will we ration care with our eyes open”. Beck faults socialists and progressives on both sides of the aisle for this appointment.
Beck says the Russians are supporting the Obama agenda, attacking FOX news for their reporting on the ‘new black panther’ organization and the voter intimidation law suit. Beck believes the reason for the Russian support is the likes of Bill Ayers, Communist, working in the Administration. He notes that in the cold war days the Russians held out that American people were good while their government was bad. Now the Russians are taking the opposite approach, helping to build racial tensions among Americans and hanging tight with the Obama Admin. Also, the fact that it took only ten days to effect a swap of the Russian spies with Soviet spies. Not much time for the FBI to question the spies as they are already in Russia tonight.
Seems the Administration has all the leaks plugged but for FOX. Glenn really enjoyed some press agent asking Gibbs why the Justice Dept hasn’t gone after sanctuary cities for getting in the way of the federal gov’t. Gibbs was awe struck, couldn’t get a word out for a while, gonna look in to it, etc. How could the press corps have let such a question come to the floor? They need to tighten up on some loose nuts. Send that guy over to Putin for an attitude adjustment, etc.
Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 8, 2010 10:00 PM
Comment #303265

The majority of voters have what they deserve.

Too many voters prefer to wallow in the blind, circular partisan-warfare, incumbent politicians still enjoy 90% re-election rates, and it’s largely because there are rarely any challengers from the same party. So the incumbents are repeatedly re-elected (since Dems won’t vote for Repubs, and vice-versa). Hell of a deal, eh? When will enough voters figure this out?

And things continue to deteriorate, as these 10 abuses continue.

Funny how the IN-PARTY and their blind loyalists always try to twist the facts to try to make THEIR party look like they’re making progress, and the OUT-PARTY and their blind loyalists do their best to thwart progress to make the IN-PARTY look bad, and BOTH act like they never engage in such behavior.

Funny how the blind party loyalists whine and scream “bloody murder” when the OTHER party does the very same things THEIR own party did when they are the IN-PARTY/OUT-PARTY.

Funny how the blind party loyalists truly believe there is any real difference of any significance.

The fact is, most (if not all) incumbent politicians in BOTH main parties are FOR-SALE, incompetent, and/or corrupt.

There’s really no important difference between the majority of incumbent politicians in the duopoly. Beyond each of their equally destructive extremes, incompetence, greed, and corruption, there’s simply no difference, and the evidence of it is the deterioration of this nation and a growing number of constitutional violations for the past 30+ years.

But the blind, party loyalists (the majority of the voters that bother to vote) still prefer to fuel and wallow in the circular partisan-warfare.

Never mind that insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over, while expecting a different result.

The majority of voters are actually getting their badly needed education, and the majority of voters mostly only have themselves to thank for their own predicament.

What will it take to dissuade those who prefer to cheer-lead for THEIR party, cheer-lead for THEIR politicians, fuel and wallow in the partisan-warfare?

Repeatedly rewarding failure, incompetence, greed, and corruption, and fueling and wallowing in the blind, circular partisan-warfare will almost certainly lead to more pain and misery. The majority of voters are reaping what they’ve sown, and it’s not going to get much better for many years. Sadly, they’re also stealing their childrens’ futures too. But that growing pain and misery is the potential built-in self-correction mechanism (provided enough voters get their education soon enough).

Now, let’s see … Who will be offended by these axioms?
Who will claim they don’t fuel and wallow in the partisan-warfare?
Who will steadfastly assert that THEIR party is better, and there really are significant differences between THEIR party and the OTHER party?
Who will refuse to see how they’re being used, turned into partisan cheer-leaders, and blind to the minor differences and over-whelming similarities of deeds of both the IN-PARTY and the OUT-PARTY?

With 90% re-election rates for Congress, and BOTH parties taking turns at being the IN-PARTY and OUT-PARTY, what are the significant differences with either that matter?

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, … , and re-elect (and deserve), at least, until repeatedly rewarding failure and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, and corrupt incumbent politicians with 90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 9, 2010 12:21 AM
Comment #303266

Roy, I read all those news stories Beck talked about. I read one of them at Fox News. My home page is nothing but news services. No sports, no entertainment, just news. When Beck says no other sources are reporting these stories, he is just lying.

The government and the Russians are conspiring to get Fox News? Oh, my god, no.

I am hedging my bets, when Beck’s brownshirts show up at my door, I am going to show them my diploma from GBU while chanting faith, hope, charity at the top of my lungs.

Posted by: jlw at July 9, 2010 1:01 AM
Comment #303272

D.a.n. absolutely right. We have a great shot at weakening the Corpocracy with the midterm and 2012 elections. While unfortunate, a bad economy will be the major issue for both election cycles. The news is that retailer’s are now struggling, housing market dropped after the end of the governments $8k housing assistance program ended. The best the Admin can offer at present is an obesity program where they will spend millions to install veggie displays in grocery stores in hopes of getting obese people to eat more veggies. Still working, in every way possible, to piss away US taxpayer dollars in breaking down the middle class to enable them to compete in the global economy.

jlw, do you believe the ‘black panthers’ should have walked? What about the DOJ refusing to take black on white voter intimidation cases? What is your take on the FED suing Az for usurping fed authority but doing nothing about sanctuary cities usurping fed authority? Beck puts his stuff on video so he ain’t making it up. O’Riley says the New York Times is near the end, Newsweek is done and that the Wash Post isn’t far behind. We soon may have to rely entirely on FOX for the news.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 9, 2010 10:05 AM
Comment #303276

Roy said: “He relates that while 26% are liberal, 42% conservative and 28% independent the liberal minority is running our government, radicals included.”

And you accept and pass on such numbers, unquestioned, as gospel? That explains Beck’s success, to be sure. Does Beck even attempt to define those terms? Rhetorical question. I know he does NOT! They are designed to appeal to the emotive centers of his audience, predominantly conservative. Perhaps he is using the numbers of his own audience makeup. That might explain them, but, then, they constitute a lie, which Beck is a major trafficker in.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 9, 2010 11:25 AM
Comment #303277

BTW, what are the other 4%, not included in Beck’s percentages ? Martians? Wouldn’t be surprised. :-)

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 9, 2010 11:27 AM
Comment #303308

I wonder were some other person giving the news instead of Beck would it make any difference in the way they view the news for those who don’t like Beck for whatever reason? He and O’Riley are teaming up on the ‘Factor’ tonight.
Well, the IMF has ‘recommended’ the actions we must take to stick in with the ‘new world order’. Cut Social Security benefits, ditch the deduction for interest on home mortgages, tax gasoline. Further, the IMF said the Obama Admin is overestimating US growth and needs to trim gov’t deficits by ‘hundreds of billions’ of additional dollars to meet its announced budget targets. Says the G20 will use peer pressure to whip each other into line. The report cites lingering unemployment, likely permanent loss of output, expected wave of defaults on commercial real estate that could damage local/regional banks, in their long list of recommendations for US officials and regulators. The article says Britain, France and Greece are reducing entitlement cost by extending their retirement age, which might be a hard sell in the US. China is next in the dock for a little talk with the IMF.

Sure takes the heat off the Corpocracy – ‘the IMF made me do it’. ‘We can’t just save the whales, we’ve got to save the whole world’, etc.

About the best we can hope for is that when it’s all said and done is that stimulus spending during the great depression and recession will be seen as a failed policy with no world war spending to save us from ourselves this time. If you would just agree to work for $3/hr and stop fighting it we wouldn’t have to jump through all these hoops.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 9, 2010 7:27 PM
Comment #303319

Roy said: “I wonder were some other person giving the news instead of Beck would it make any difference in the way they view the news for those who don’t like Beck for whatever reason?”

No. Not for whatever reason. For very specific reasons, as in, Beck appeals to people’s passion instead of reason, he demeans intellectual critique and analysis while posturing as providing same on his show, he is in it for the money, not the truth, and he plays very fast and loose with history which he repeatedly demonstrates a lack of knowledge about, and he plays fast and loose with facts, giving them his own spin rather than just providing the facts, which precludes his show being NEWSworthy, at all.

Beck and O’Reilly? Garbage in and garbage out.

Look, it is fine for conservatives and liberals to provide public commentary on the news and their spin of it. What is dishonest is to call such commentary and opining, news. O’Reilly, btw, is teaming up with Beck because O’Reilly’s ratings have been dropping steadily for quite some time now. He can’t seem to hold his own anymore, given his enormous number of contradictions and way over the top commentary bearing no resemblance to reality whatsoever.

Just because they pepper their shows with occasional honest and newsworthy items, in no way makes up for all the rest of the surreal and misinforming over the top impassioned pleas to rile up money from their audience for their personal coffers.

I take these persons and the likes of Chris Matthews and Keith Obermann shows with a grain of salt, save for some of their guests who may have enormously more integrity than the show’s host.

Try Dylan Rattigan. There is news with some opinion, which distinguishes honestly between the two, from a true independent and critical point of view of both parties, all ideologies, as well as the corporate world mixing with the government world. Dylan came out with a fantastic plea to his viewers to vote out the incumbents several days ago, listing honest news items as a litany of reasons why voters should. It was great.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 9, 2010 8:45 PM
Comment #303339

It’s a bad idea to put to much store in any of the talking-heads who try to present opinion as if it were real news. All of them make some sense some of the time, and all of them are completely wrong some of the time.

I don’t pay much attention to O’Reilly after he ruined his credibility after he sued a Fox News Anchor (Andrea Mackris), who was suing him for sexual harassment. O’Reilly subsequently dropped his lawsuit after Andrea Mackris produced the audio-taped evidence, and a transcript.

I don’t pay much attention to Glenn Beck after he despicably mocked Obama’s 11 year-old daughter (Malia) in a child’s voice, saying:

  • “Did you plug the hole yet, Daddy?” and “Daddy, why [does] he [Glenn Beck] hate black people so much?”.

Beck then attacked Malia’s intelligence by saying:
  • “That’s the level of their education, that they’re coming to — they’re coming to Daddy and saying, ‘Daddy, did you plug the hole yet?’”

I don’t watch much of Chris Matthews; especially after he said the following:

  • I have to tell you, you know, it’s part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama’s speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don’t have that too often. No, seriously. It’s a dramatic event. He speaks about America in a way that has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with the feeling we have about our country. And that is an objective assessment.

And then Chris Matthews agreed with Evan Thomas, who said:

  • EVAN THOMAS: “We stand for something – I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God.”

Everyone does and says bad, stupid, or false things some times, but there are degrees of each, and should those deeds be so easily dismissed or over-looked?

And those that try to defend or over-look such deeds (as they all to often do), will soon find themselves thoroughly frustrated and twisted into a pretzel, while trying to defend their weak (if not totally absurd) position with all sorts of circular, twisted, obfuscation and gobbledygook. Facts and logic, be damned.

I do not hate O’Rielly, Beck, Matthews, etc.
But I don’t put a lot of faith in what they say, because they have already demonstrated that they are trying to substitute opinion as fact, when the facts don’t really support their opinions.

If you bounce between the MSM News channels, it’s very obvious that each has an agenda, and a spin on the facts.

CNN leans left.
NBC and MSNBC leans left.
FOX leans right.

All of them have to be taken with a grain of salt.
If a person really wants to know the truth, it takes some work and research from multiple sources, and even then, it’s sometimes difficult to get to the truth, in which case it’s necessary to stay open minded. This is very difficult for too many people, because they want to believe what they want.

The evidence of it is also all too easy to see in blogs like this.

Again, nobody is perfect, but for me, those things are hard to forget, and it is therefore difficult to trust the main stream media (MSM).

Nobody is perfect, but we should have better news, better reporting, and more honesty and accuracy than we’re seeing in the MSM.
In my opinion, the MSM deserves (at best) a grade of D-

The MSM does some good things, but they could do so much better. For that matter, we could all do so much better.

As a result, if you want to know the truth about something, it’s a lot of hard work.
But, unfortunately, too many people want their news spoon-fed to them, and that’s scary.
What they’re really getting, too often, is propaganda with a specific spin; fueled by a specific agenda. And if it’s what some people want to hear, they consider it news and facts.

Too many people want to believe what the want to believe, and are too lazy to work to get to the truth, or admit that they may be wrong.

And the talking heads often sound convincing, because they mix some truths with some lies.

The fact is, several federal administrations and state governments in BOTH political parties have been FOR-SALE, incompetent, and corrupt for several decades, and no one president and their administration is to blame.

They are ALL to blame, and so are the majority of voters too, who repeatedly reward failure and repeatedly reward FOR-SALE, incompetent, and corrupt incumbent politicians with 85%-to-90% re-election rates.

It doesn’t have to be that complicated.
What often complicates things is over-complication for nefarious reasons by the cheaters and master-parasites, and their unwitting, lazy supporters (even cheer-leaders) who don’t see that in the long-term, they have chosen a path of more pain and misery; not only for others, but often for themselves too.

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, … , and re-elect (and deserve), at least, until repeatedly rewarding failure and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, and corrupt incumbent politicians with 90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 10, 2010 11:24 AM
Comment #303341

When 55% of the voters think Obama is a socialist, it signals the end of the Age Of Reason and the beginning of the Age Of Ignorance. That is what historians will appropriately call these times.

I would have thought, or at least hoped that the information age would enhance a new age of reason and enlightenment. Instead, it has brought on an age in which truth must conform to ideology.

I am not a socialist.

I do not agree with many of the things that Obama is doing.

Therefore, Obama is a socialist.

SOCIALISM: Anything and everything that does not conform to conservative/libertarian ideology.

Posted by: jlw at July 10, 2010 11:50 AM
Comment #303344

The term “Socialism” is a label, which doesn’t tell the whole story.
Many of those labels (e.g. Conservative, Liberal, etc.) are not only misleading, but inaccurate.

The real problem is the extremists:

  • Extreme #1: One extreme wants regressive taxation, unfettered capitalism, little (if any) government regulations, and freedom to explore and wallow in almost every manifestation of unchecked greed.

  • Extreme #2: The other extreme wants a nanny-state with citizens increasingly dependent on the government; with massive cradle-to-grave government programs (which are usually severely mismanaged) that nurture a sense of entitlement and dependency on government; tries to disguise envy and jealousy as demands for equality; wants to grow government ever larger (despite the already current nightmare proportions); rewards failure and laziness; and perpetuates the myth that we can somehow all live at the expense of everyone else.

Their actions are what define them; not only their words and numerous promises, which ring hollow far too often; for which they almost always blame someone else for.

Anyway, it’s better to simply refer to the actions that one considers wrong, instead of obscuring the issue with inaccurate labels.

Bailing out some corporations is worse than socialist; especially when it not only provides no net benefit to those who were told it would benefit, but steals from the tax-payers to give to a few cheaters and master parasites; regardless of what someone says the definition of “is” is.

Suing Arizona, instead of helping, for Arizona planning to do what the federal government refuses to do, is wrong.

Another blanket amnesty similar to the previous amnesty in year 1986 may quadruple (or more) the problem again (or worse).

eVerify should be required, and governments at all levels (state and federal) should prosecute the greedy illegal employers, and secure the borders.
If the federal government won’t do their job, then the state should have that right.
eVerify, and prosecuting greedy illegal employers is not racism, and not a green light for racist profiling.
If racist profiling occurs, then the perpetrators should be held accountable, per the laws that already exist.

And the continuation of these 10 abuses is worse than being a socialist.

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, … , and re-elect (and deserve), at least, until repeatedly rewarding failure and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, and corrupt incumbent politicians with 90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 10, 2010 12:31 PM
Comment #303345

Amidst the war of lies many are searching for the truth.

A Harley Biker was visiting the zoo in Washington, DC when he sees a little girl leaning into the lion’s cage. Suddenly, the lion grabs her by the collar of her jacket and tries to pull her inside to slaughter her, under the eyes of her screaming parents.

The biker jumps off his Harley, runs to the cage and hits the lion square on the nose with a powerful punch.

Whimpering from the pain the lion jumps back letting go of the girl, and the biker brings her to her terrified parents, who thank him endlessly. A reporter has watched the whole event.

The reporter addressing the Harley rider says, “Sir, this was the most gallant and brave thing I’ve seen a man do in my whole life.”

The Harley rider replies, “Why, it was nothing, really, the lion was behind bars. I just saw this little kid in danger and acted as I felt right.”

The reporter says, “Well, I’ll make sure this won’t go unnoticed. I’m a journalist, you know, and tomorrow’s paper will have this story on the front page…

So, what do you do for a living and what political affiliation do you have?”

The biker replies, “I’m a U.S.Marine and a Republican.” The journalist leaves.

The following morning the biker buys the paper to see if it indeed brings news of his actions, and reads, on the front page:


Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 10, 2010 12:43 PM
Comment #303347

d.a.n, you and I still see things very much in the same way. Your comments could have been mine and I wouldn’t have recognized them as otherwise.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 10, 2010 1:25 PM
Comment #303348

Roy, that is a very funny joke. Like all jokes, it carries a kernel of truth, but, grossly distorts the reality.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 10, 2010 1:26 PM
Comment #303353

I think you nailed it pretty good d.a.n. I think a lot of people are like me, they want to listen to people who agree with them. Most of us put a high mark on video/audio recordings from the source. When I see Andy Stern, Van Jones, Bill Ayers and others who proudly state they are socialists, communists, etc then I do believe them. Then, when Beck weaves these folks into the tapestry of government it gives him way more credence than if I had not seen the videos.
Sorting out our history is an even bigger problem. Because of the war of lies I doubt all information I receive relating to history. If it can’t be traced to the words of the ‘original’ source I take it ‘with a grain of salt’. I think most people act the same way. We have heard so much about the colleges being full of professors with this ‘ism’ or that ‘ism’ and that most prof’s are lefties. Highly degreed economists fight over Adams and Keynes. Part of Beck’s popularity is that he uses source material when presenting the Founder’s and early history. His latest venture is an on-line university where the masses can learn about early history.

As it relates to everyday information, few if any, have access to the source. For instance, Levi Johnson said something derogatory about Sara Palin or her family, etc. Most media reported on it. Then it was determined that Levi had lied and some media reported on that. Not everybody heard the full story so many are walking around with incomplete information about the story. For my part, I don’t ‘know’ that Levi said anything about Palin as I can’t get to the source or haven’t seen any recordings. I am just aware that these things have been passed around in the ‘news’. Ostensibly, with a lot of political spin attached.
So, it seems you have the Professor’s who can’t get it right all the time and the couch potatoes who are ‘just aware’ coming to the same understanding on some things for entirely different reason. One might read a book by some Founder and form an opinion about him whereas if he read ten books by that Founder he would develop a different opinion.
People read the same articles and develop different opinions as to what the article was intended to communicate. Some think we are a democracy even though, we are a Republic. From Joel Hirschhorn’s “Delusional Democracy”: “Contrary to popular belief and considerable democracy-worshipping, the United States is not a great democracy in theory or practice. Our Founding Fathers hedged their bet on democracy by limiting the power of ‘we the people.” They chose a representative republic over a direct democracy, because they feared the will of the majority. It pays to remember that the word democracy does not appear in our Declaration of independence, Constitituion, national anthem, or pledge of allegiance.”
We, as a people increasingly can agree on very little. I often state that we are all working on the next ‘tower of Babel’. Realizing how difficult it is to gain a quorum on any number of issues I like to think that by simplifying things it will allow people to come together for the common good and such.
Most recognize the extent of our corrupt corpocracy, best gov’t money can buy etc. Therefore, to remove the corpocracy we must first abolish corporate personhood and money is free speech laws. To do that will require a new 3rd party with a different political attitude - - - -
Once achieving that bit of success we could continue on with the wars of lies and ideologies.

Otherwise - - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 10, 2010 2:20 PM
Comment #303354

David R. Remer,
Thanks. Yes, we often agree on most things.

Roy Ellis,
Thanks. I hope you don’t think I believe that you idolize Glenn Beck or O’Rielly, because I know from our conversations that you agree with them on some things, but not everything.
Often, Glenn Beck and O’Rielly make perfect sense.
It’s just too bad when they subsequently tarnish their repuations with some dastardly deed, or with some spin fueled by a hidden agenda or idealogy.
Or perhaps their popularity goes to their head.
Nobody is perfect, but it’s not a reason to over-look some things.

In fact, Glenn Beck is on the tube now, and he’s blaming inaccurate or incomplete history on “progressives”.
There’s one of those labels again, and it’s a bit of a stretch that “progressives” are all (or mostly) bad.
Again, the fact is, some people from the extremes have distorted and/or rewritten history, for a very long time.

History is important, if it is accurate, and we learn from it.
One thing Glenn Beck just said is that you can’t trust the Main Stream Media, and if you want to know the truth, you have to work, and dig, and search for the true history.
That’s very true.
Can’t argue with that.
But Glenn Beck is now blaming all of it on the “Progressives”, which seems like a bad idea.
So, what does that label, “progressive”, really mean ?
Is there a “left progressive” and a “right progressive” ?
Which is better or worse ?
What is a “spiritual progressive” or a “religious progressive” ?
Is “progressiveness” a bad thing ?
Or, are all “progressives”, left or right, bad ?
How about eliminating the labels, and simply deal with the actions, events, and facts ?
Sorry, but it bugs me when people start trying to label each other as conservatives, liberals, progressives, libertarians, etc.
Who perfectly fits the definition of those labels, even if you can get a consistent definition of the label.
Such labels bug me, because it tries to sum-up and portray a person’s beliefs, in order to demonize, ostracize, and shun someone; rather than focus on the deeds and actions (if any).
At best, based on many different issues, a person might be said to lean left, or right, or libertarian, etc.
But how one leans still does not tell the whole story.
Some people lean left on economic issues, but lean right on social issues (or vice-versa).

What’s really important is not peoples’ labels, but peoples’ actual deeds and actions.
I don’t really care whose liberal or conservative.
What’s important is what their specific position is on specific issues (e.g. or their voting records).
Because there are many things I both agree and disagree on with people who claim to be liberal, conservative, libertarian, etc.

Perhaps I didn’t see everthing he ever did or said, and I didn’t agree with everything he believed, but the only person’s whose opinion I had some respect for (even when I disagreed), most of the time, was Lou Dobbs (who used to report on CNN). But even for Lou Dobbs, in my opinion, it appeared that he let it go to his head a little too much; especially when he repeatedly interrupted his own co-reporters.

That’s a funny joke about the biker.
It reminds me of another joke:

This one was about a particular member of a political party, and I’ll leave it up to the reader to guess which.

    There’s a Democrat and a Republican walking down a street with their families. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes around the corner and locks eyes with both men, screams obscenities, raises his knife, and charges. The Democrat and Republican are both carrying a Smith & Wesson and are both expert shots. There are only a few seconds to act. What do they do?
    • One man ponders for a moment: HMMmmmmm … I may not have enough information. HMMMmmmm … does the man with the knife look poor or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack me? Could we run away? What do other people think? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Does the gun have an appropriate safety built into it? Why am I carrying a loaded gun and what kind of message does this send to society and my children? Is it possible he would be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me or would he just be content to wound me? Perhaps I might live if I go ahead and let him stab me once or twice? This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for a few days to try to come to a conclusion. Or perhaps there should be a Congressional Committee formed to analyze the problem?
    • The other man’s solution: BANG!

Now, since I don’t think either person is necessarily from one party or another, I won’t say which was which in the original joke.
But who do you think most people will label one way or the other.

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, … , and re-elect, at least, until repeatedly rewarding failure and repeatedly rewarding incumbent politicians with 90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 10, 2010 3:38 PM
Comment #303356

Roy said: “Some think we are a democracy even though, we are a Republic.”

Man, there you go, buying that Beck crap again. We are a democracy and a republic. Republic in its simplest and most common meaning simply means, absent a monarch. James Madison however defined OUR Republic in terms of representative democracy as opposed to direct democracy. A democracy, nonetheless, absent a monarch, which is what it what makes it a republic. To say we are a Republic means nothing more than we don’t have a King or Queen ruling. To say we are a democracy has vastly more meaning and there are several types of democracy, and Madison defined ours. And universal suffrage, now part and parcel of our Constitution defined it further as a representative democracy in which the representatives are directly elected by the people, save for the president, who is still elected by the archaic electoral college.

Republicans and conservatives seem to read far more into the word Republic, no doubt out of ignorance of what the word means, and extrapolating that since they are REPUBLICans, a Republic is a government run by them or in a manner they think it should be governed by. Pure nonsense of the uneducated. Republic simply means no King. Democrats believe in our Republic stature as much as Republicans.

Republicans are more aligned with Madison’s definition of a representative democracy as opposed to Democrats who rhetorically speak to a more direct democracy. But, please note that Madison defined our government structure as a democracy, and indeed, the House of Representatives was established under the principles of democracy directly elected by the people among themselves.

The most important decision any adult in this modern world can make for themselves is to define and accept what they don’t know, because they haven’t done the learning for themselves. Then, at least, the door is open to them, and their mind readied for learning what they don’t know. The worst decision a person can make in this modern world is to decide they know all they need to know and rationalize away all attempts by others to disagree or inform on learned grounds.

To become aware of, and accept what one doesn’t know and hasn’t learned, opens daily doors to learning and expanding one’s understanding of the world about them, and empowering them to make better decisions and have more influence in their society. And it builds integrity and confidence by preventing a person from foolishly declaring their ignorance as veracity in public venues, as Beck does so frequently.

One doesn’t need a college education to become a learned person, even today. One does however, have to first decide and accept that they don’t know all that there is to know. A person who knows what they don’t, will go research what they don’t know before speaking to it or deciding on it. A person of faith without reason has no such need or proclivity. Every destination requires a known departure point and direction toward a destination. To start from a position of lost, does not arrive at any desired or fruitful destination at all.

There is no greater investment America can make at this, or anytime, than in a rational, objectively based, and critically analytical education for all of its people to the limits of their abilities.

In this regard, a host of other nations are now on a path to surpass America in that regard, and many, are already producing the kind of minds and critically analytical education that is highly commercially prized by American employers, leading to ever greater demand for and incentives for, foreign students to come here and stay here. This fact and trend has second class citizenship for Americans born and raised here, written all over it in the future.

We see this already, as so many faith based American masses vote on faith instead of research, and continue to be disappointed and alienated by those they elect to represent them. Who is making out like bandits in this system? The engineers, the corporate execs, the lawyers and medical professionals, the investors and brokers, so many of whom, and a growing number of which, are coming from India (50,000), the Philippines (45,000), China (41,000), Vietnam (22,000), Colombia (15,000) and Russia (14,000). (2003 figures for legal immigrants)

Mexico is of course the 1st in this list, but, not on the basis of educational accomplishment and higher income jobs which is led by China and India. It is the greatest tragedy that America is not producing its own born and bred engineers, doctors, and other professionals currently imported, and it spells ever increasing cultural and ethnic problems down the road.

One does not have to abandon faith to become an engineer or cast an intelligent vote. One does however, have to acknowledge the difference between personal faith based questions and external physical world questions, and define these differing spheres of decision making appropriately. This kind of education is becoming commonplace in China and India, so it is no surprise that our top professional immigration is coming from these two nations.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 10, 2010 4:22 PM
Comment #303359

d.a.n. I caught Beck’s show today as well. I recall him beating up on ‘progressive’ John McCain. McCain brings a slow cancer to the US according to Beck.

I see David’s latest post blending in well with the ‘progressive’ thought as related by Beck. He states that a progressive started the public education system. And, that the progressive thought is to keep reforming and reshaping everything and everybody until perfection is achieved. In that sense if we all improve our education we can hold our place in society and the world. A lofty goal, to take the millions of new immigrants and millions more who can’t swing the $100k to cop a degreee in eng. or the sciences.

A harder sell yet when some Va. students with 4.0GPA’s can’t manage a position in some of the State’s best univ’s.

Then there’s this effort by our gov’t to break the back of the middle class in getting them ready for ‘Globalization’. Temp-Work visas to those who will come and work for lower wages. Thousands, who apparently can’t compete in their own countries, coming to the US to take the remaining hi-skilled jobs for a lower wage. Or, do they represent a brain drain on their home country? Millions just walking in for those ‘jobs Americans won’t do’. They are going to need a critical analytical education as well if given amnesty.

Seems the major mil and civ contracts are going to foreign companies of late. BAC will get to bid on the new US refueling tanker after we just had a blowout over some French company winning the first contract, since repealed. Fer shure, seems we kain’t keep them furneirs out of our knickers.

I don’t portend to know what a ‘progressive’ is, but it seems the world is heading in a so called ‘progressive’ direction. Not sure education is the panacea to ensure our survival as a top line competitor. I’ve heard that saving more money is just as good as making more money. But, we are being told that if we don’t consume the ‘Globalized’ world will collaspe.

Just a reminder before closing. The IMF wants your socials reduced, your taxes raised, and the home mortgage interest tax deduction removed. You may want to think about a second degree about now.

Otherewise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 10, 2010 5:27 PM
Comment #303360

A couple of links relating to democracy/republic




Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 10, 2010 5:34 PM
Comment #303362


The reason for so many H1B visas, immigrants, and scholarships for foreigners is primarily due to the profits from cheap labor, and votes.

The U.S. is severely lacking in medical doctors.

So, we import huge numbers of doctors from India and other countries.

I don’t have a problem with that.
That’s smart.

But importing many tens of millions of uneducated, diseased, poor, and non-English speaking immigrants for votes and profits from cheap labor, and pitting U.S. citizens and legal/illegal aliens against each other for profits and votes, is truly despicable.

This won’t change as long as voters repeatedly reward FOR-SALE, incompetent, and corrupt incumbent politicians with 90% re-election rates.

And, in my opinion, Obama is risking re-election by suing Arizona. If he thinks he is right, fine. But if he’s doing it as some sort of political calculation, then it is truly despicable.

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, … , and re-elect, at least, until repeatedly rewarding failure and repeatedly rewarding incumbent politicians with 90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 10, 2010 5:58 PM
Comment #303373

d.a.n. I have a hard time believing that we can’t graduate enough doctors without importing. I am aware that Bush wanted to import about 40k nurses as the US was projecting a need for 46k. I recall that nurse applicants close to that number are rejected each year from nursing schools for ‘lack of funds’ and ‘not enough facilities or faculty’, etc. As we’ve been discussing, who can know the real truth?

One could postulate an answer re Obama from his actions. He is suing Az for usurping FED authority. Yet, he has not sued sanctuary cities for usurping FED authority. Also, RI I believe has had an immigration policy similr to the one Az wants to pass and hasn’t been sued. Leads one to think that Obama is pandering to the latino vote in the areas where the latinos are numerous. I got that from listening to Beck, sorry! But, I couldn’t have reached that assumption otherwise, since I wasn’t aware of all the information and I didn’t learn it from the MSM.

And, as we can see Obama’s immigration policy seems to mirrow Bush’s immigration policy, and so on, all the way back to Regan and the ‘greed is good’ era.

Many are hoping to effect some change by voting incumbents from office in large numbers over the next two election cycles.

I may be as conflicted as the Founder’s were as to what the mix of republic/democracy should be. I believe we now have too much democracy which has created a lot of our problems. Voting for entitlements, etc. Yet, I am proposing a party that will focus memebers and political candidates on carrying out the party’s agenda. In other words, the public putting pressure on Congress to vote this way or that. But, I’m proposing such a democratic measure to correct the fact that we have had too much democracy already. Until I know better, I’m sticking with it.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 10, 2010 9:50 PM
Comment #303375

Roy said: “He states that a progressive started the public education system. And, that the progressive thought is to keep reforming and reshaping everything and everybody until perfection is achieved.”

What you are referring to as progressive includes an awful lot of plain simple human adaptation to changing conditions and circumstances. If conservatives without any historical education want to insist that we would all be better off by simply returning to the government of slavery, and 13 states, and a population barely over 2.5 million, fine! But, they just demonstrate their incredible ignorance.

Our nation had no choice but to adapt progressively as the states grew, the population grew, and the demands of the people and states and municipalities grew, not to mention the incredible growing complexities of international trade and relationships as Europe modernized and adapted as well.
Let’s not confuse progressive politics of today, with the mandate of adaptation and evolution of our society, technologies, and relationships domestic and international. It is a grave mistake to make.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 10, 2010 11:25 PM
Comment #303376

Roy said: “Not sure education is the panacea to ensure our survival as a top line competitor.”

There are no panaceas, EVER! Every policy and decision ever made came with opportunity and consequential costs. That said, when has having too much relevant information or too much ability to acquire relevant information EVER been a detriment and hindrance to human sound and beneficial decision making?

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 10, 2010 11:28 PM
Comment #303383
Roy Ellis wrote: d.a.n. I have a hard time believing that we can’t graduate enough doctors without importing.
It’s cheaper for hospitals to import doctors, which leads to higher profits.

It’s cheaper to import software developers and engineers, which leads to higher profits.

It’s cheaper to import foreign labor, products, materials, which cost much less, which leads to higher profits.

It’s wonderful for those people who all make much less where they come from.

At least, for a while … until our standard of living has fallen as low as those other nations.

It doesn’t help when laws are designed to reward corporations that move jobs offshore.

And it doesn’t help that the majority of voters repeatedly reward FOR-SALE, incompetent, and corrupt incumbent politicians with 85%-to-90% re-election rates.

Roy Ellis wrote: I am aware that Bush wanted to import about 40k nurses as the US was projecting a need for 46k. I recall that nurse applicants close to that number are rejected each year from nursing schools for ‘lack of funds’ and ‘not enough facilities or faculty’, etc. As we’ve been discussing, who can know the real truth?
There are tens of thousands (or more) of H1B visa workers flooding into the U.S.

I met a guy who is from China, and asked him how he came to be working in the U.S. He said he received a full scholarship to Texas A&M, and after he graduated, he got another visa to work in the U.S. Yet, he can barely speak intelligible English. The communication problems are terrible, but those H1B visa workers are only paid as little as 10%-to-50% of what American citizens or legal immigrants make for doing the same job.

Some despicable politicians and greedy employers are selling us out in numerous ways. The federal government not only refuses to prosecute illegal employers, but has opened the floodgate for imported workers (engineers, software developers, doctors, etc.).

It also doesn’t help when there are law firms, such as Cohen & Grigsby, which teach corporations how to avoid hiring Americans (i.e. H-1B Visa abuse, and fake job advertisements).

It also doesn’t help when one of the the richest person in the U.S. (Bill Gates) tells lies to convince the federal government to increase the limits on H-1B Visas so that more cheap labor can be imported (despite 1.5+ Million foreign workers already being imported annually).

The problem with this race-to-the-bottom model is that there’s always somewhere else where the labor is cheaper, and when wages rise high enough, or fall low enough, corporations either import more cheap labor where they currently reside, or they bounce from one place to another (i.e. other countries), wherever the labor is cheaper. As a result, wages begin to fall where the corporations have left (such as the U.S.), and start to rise where they have moved to and now reside (such as China and India, who also have a huge population of 2.4 billion people, and an average income in China is $10 per day).

As a result, the corporations are ensuring that they always have someplace with cheap labor.
When wages fall low enough, some jobs will come back.
When wages rise too high, the jobs dissappear.

So, it’s not hard to understand why free trade (more like, unfair trade) is so important to the corporations, because they don’t want governments taxing their imports.
And those corporatons don’t care if those other countries heavily tax imports from other countries (such as the U.S.).
So foreign nations prevent or heavily tax U.S. products imported into the foreign nations, but the U.S. does not (for the most part).
Who profits from all of this?

Well, U.S. citizens profit from the lower priced products for a while, but not for long, because eventually, so many of those U.S. citizens who are buying foreign imports soon lose their job, since they don’t produce much of anything anymore (e.g. automobiles, electronics, etc.), and also have declining exports.

To make matters worse:

  • the U.S. wastes incredible amounts of time and money trying to track financial information for filing federal, state, and local taxes.

  • The U.S. wastes incredible amounts of time and money trying to make money by playing with money (instead of producing something of real value).

  • The U.S. wastes incredible amounts of time and money that is funneled as subsidies to corporations, many of the wealthy.

  • The U.S. wastes incredible amounts of time and money due to fraud (e.g. Medicare fraud, Social Security fraud, Welfare fraud, etc.).

  • The U.S. wastes incredible amounts of time and money due to some unnecessary wars.

  • The U.S. wastes incredible amounts of time and money for substandard public education.

  • The U.S. wastes incredible amounts of time, money, and lives due to healthcare that is not only increasingly unaffordable, but dangerous too. reported (27-July-2004) that “An average of 195,000 people in the U.S. died due to potentially preventable, in-hospital medical errors in each of the years 2000, 2001 and 2002, according to a new study of 37 million patient records”.
    Since 1999, that is over 1.5 million people killed by preventable medical mistakes. That is more than all the 917,316 American soldiers killed in all American wars (American Revolution (4,435), the War of 1812 (2,260), the Indian Wars (1,000), the Mexican War (1,733), the Civil War (462,000), the Spanish American War (385), WWI (53,402), WWII (291,557), Vietnam War (58,209), Korean War (36,574), the Iraq Gulf War (529), and the current Iraq and Afghanistan wars (5,232 as of 18-OCT-2009)) combined! Compare those 195,000 killed by preventable medical mistakes to the 43,000 people killed annually in the U.S. in automobile accidents.

  • The U.S. wastes incredible amounts of money on interest on the fast growing $13.2 Trillion federal debt of nightmare proportions, and over $57 Trillion of nation-wide debt; up 410% since 1956).

  • The U.S. wastes incredible amounts of time, money, and lives due to illegal immigration (estimated between $70-to-$327 Billion per year. Most Republican and Democrat incumbent politicians are despicably pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for profits and votes, disguised as compassion (severely misplaced compassion, at best).

Yet, the majority of voters continue to reward FOR-SALE, incompetent, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Congress with 85%-to-90% re-election rates.

Roy Ellis wrote: One could postulate an answer re Obama from his actions. He is suing Az for usurping FED authority.
Obama is making a big mistake in suing Arizona, and there may well be significant consequences.
Roy Ellis wrote: Yet, he has not sued sanctuary cities for usurping FED authority. Also, RI [Rhode Island] I believe has had an immigration policy similr to the one Az wants to pass and hasn’t been sued.
That’s right, which reveals their despicable hypocrisy.
Roy Ellis wrote: Leads one to think that Obama is pandering to the latino vote in the areas where the latinos are numerous.
Probably, but it could back-fire, since most polls indicate that most Americans support the law in Arizona and Rhode Island, and several other states are planning to do the same.
Roy Ellis wrote: I got that from listening to Beck, sorry!
That’s OK. Much of what Glenn Beck says is right, even if he isn’t right all of the time.
Roy Ellis wrote: But, I couldn’t have reached that assumption otherwise, since I wasn’t aware of all the information and I didn’t learn it from the MSM.
Right. Good point. But even Glenn Beck, who harps incessantly about the U.S. Constitution, has not made a peep about the blatant violation of Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

Why not?
If Glenn Beck and the other talking heads are TRULY concerned about the nation more than their ratings, they would be talking more about several abuses, such as:

  • Lawlessness and Constitutional Violations

  • Wars (some Unnecessary)

  • Plutocracy / Kleptocracy

  • Illegal Immigration , Illegal Employers , and Unfair Trade Practices

  • Election Problems

  • $13.23 Trillion National Debt , $57+ Trillion Nation-Wide Debt and

  • Inflation / Usury / the Monetary-System is a Pyramid-Scheme

  • Regressive Taxation

  • Insufficient / Inadequate Education

  • Dangerous Health Care?

Roy Ellis wrote: And, as we can see Obama’s immigration policy seems to mirrow Bush’s immigration policy, and so on, all the way back to Regan and the ‘greed is good’ era.
That’s right, because it’s about profits and votes by despicably pitting American citizens and illegal aliens/imported labor against each other.
Roy Ellis wrote: Many are hoping to effect some change by voting incumbents from office in large numbers over the next two election cycles.
If the majority of American voters continue to reward Congress persons and their other elected officials for doing it, then the majority of American have what they deserve.

If the majority of American voters continue to reward FOR-SALE, incompetent, and corrupt Congress persons and their other elected officials with 85%-to-90% re-election rates, then the majority of American have what they deserve, and they will reap what they sow (i.e. more pain and misery).

Roy Ellis wrote: I may be as conflicted as the Founder’s were as to what the mix of republic/democracy should be. I believe we now have too much democracy which has created a lot of our problems. Voting for entitlements, etc. Yet, I am proposing a party that will focus memebers and political candidates on carrying out the party’s agenda. In other words, the public putting pressure on Congress to vote this way or that. But, I’m proposing such a democratic measure to correct the fact that we have had too much democracy already. Until I know better, I’m sticking with it.
We are supposed to have an indirect Democracy or a Democratic Republic, which makes sense.

Unfortunately, that’s not what we have, because our government is essentially FOR-SALE, and incumbent politicians have given themselves numerous unfair incumbent advantages:

  • (a) Perk$ of Office: Incumbents have more party support and resources to draw upon. Each member of Congress has an office budget allowance (provided by tax-payers). That allowance is large enough to employ a sizable staff both in Washington, D.C. and in their home states or districts. This staff provides a huge advantage, and tax-payers fund it. In addition, members of Congress also have travel allowances for trips between Washington and their constituencies, and also for trips inside their states or districts. Also, House and Senate members can use the United Stated Postal Service for free for informational letters or announcements to their constituents.

  • (b) Time: Members of Congress and their staffers not only get paid (by the tax-payers) while campaigning and raising money for their campaign war-chest, but they have the time (as part of what they are supposed to do within their job description). But challenging candidates are not provided the time or money by the tax-payers. In contrast, a candidate challenging an incumbent is not paid to do those things, but must determine how to fund it. Many candidates go into debt.

  • (c) Visibility and Access to News Media: Members of Congress have visibility by virtue of being elected, have easy access to the news media, make appearances on television, radio, and are frequently mentioned in newspaper articles and editorials.

  • (d) Campaign Organization: Members of Congress have the advantage of the experience of having managed a campaign organization (and winning), and already have a volunteer campaign organization in place. Also, have you ever noticed that there is rarely (if ever) more than one candidate from any party. This is one of the clever mechanisms used to perpetuate the two-party duopoly, and the incumbent politicians’ high re-election rates; by capitalizing on voters’ blind-party-loyalties and reluctance to vote for anyone not in THEIR party. This is why many politicians love to fuel the partisan warfare. It is extremely effective.

  • (e) Money: The biggest advantage that incumbents have is the ability to raise large contributions. Big-money-donors prefer predictability. Incumbents that refuse to cater to their big-money-donors are not likely to receive more big-money contributions. 90% of elections are won by the candidate that spends the most money. Unfortunately, government is FOR-SALE.
    Hence, incumbents have many unfair advantages (some funded by the tax-payers).

  • (f) And a very tiny 0.3% of all 200 million eligible U.S. voters contributed 83% of all federal campaign donations (of $200 or more; source: What chance does the remaining 99.7% of all eligible U.S. voters have against that. In 2004, total federal campaign donations (of $200 more more) totaled about $2.4 billion. 90% of elections are won by the candidate that spends the most money (usually, the incumbent). Government is FOR-SALE. Too many incumbent politicians spend too much of their time campaigning, peddling influence, filling their campaign war-chest$, giving themselves cu$hy perk$ and raises (10 raises between 1997 and 2009), and other irresponsible behavior, instead of solving the nation’s most pressing problems that are growing dangerously in number and severity, threatening the future and security of the nation. Therefore, we have the best government that money (largely printed out of thin air) can buy.

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, … , and re-elect, at least, until repeatedly rewarding failure and repeatedly rewarding incumbent politicians with 90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 11, 2010 11:27 AM
Comment #303384

Bill Gates …

Posted by: d.a.n at July 11, 2010 11:31 AM
Comment #303386

d.a.n. Now that was a ‘buffer full’. To which I agree fully, excepting one small area. You wonder why Beck doesn’t take on Article V and other more current issues. Beck makes the point every so often that his intent is not to politic on issues but to educate the voting public. He believes, as most will agree, that the big picture solution to our problems is an educated voting public. He often says we can’t know where we should go until we know where we came from, we must know our history. So, he is starting with the Founder’s and will continue to walk us through our history from that point. Of late he is talking about Wilson, TDR, FDR and has mentioned Lincoln several times. But, I don’t think he will take on any issues at least until his history lessons are completed.

Your post is replete with tautology ( I learned that word from Christine – and it’s a good one ) as to the wrongs, perceived or known, being visited primarily upon the middle class workers. And, that’s fine, that’s needed and will, for sure, be continued in all social media. But, somehow, sometime, the tautology should invite solutions.

How long has –

Immigration been an issue?
Taxation been an issue?
Campaign Finance been an issue?
Government for sale been an issue?
Abolishment of Corporate Personhood been an issue?
Abolishment of Money Is Free Speech been an issue?

All major issues and you can stick you own pet peeve in here but, for years the people have wanted resolution. And, IMO, we will ‘want’ a lot longer as the Corpocracy can not, will not relinquish any power that goes toward changing the status quo or their control over government. Here is information from d.a.n. regarding Rockfeller that fits well here: “We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected the promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world-government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the National auto-determination practiced in past centuries.” - David Rockefeller, in an address to the Trilateral Commission meeting, year 1991.

The solution, IMO, is that it will take a 3rd party with a different political attitude to push a reform agenda to remove the influence of money from politics/gov’t. That agenda will require abolishing corporate personhood and money is free speech laws. Following that, the party would push campaign finance reform. At that point we will have removed the money influence.

It would help if we have a strong anti-incumbency movement to weaken the Corpocracy by replacing many long tenured officials. A congress of ‘fresh faces’ would be more amenable, IMO, to accepting additional political parties, accepting Article V and pushing the Supreme Court to do likewise.

If not now, when?

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 11, 2010 1:19 PM
Comment #303439

d.a.n and Roy Ellis, I’ve been sensitive to your views of the re-election rate and how it has been steadfast in the middle-90% range for many,many years. You both blame the electorate and perhaps it is well placed, considering the constant political partisanship I witness first hand from my neighbors.

But, considering this documentary:

I wonder if this could be a contributing factor in the continuing high re-election rates.

David, I believe there are more than one definition of a republic

re·pub·lic   /rɪˈpʌblɪk/ Show Spelled[ri-puhb-lik]
1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
2. any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth.
3. a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.
4. ( initial capital letter ) any of the five periods of republican government in France. Compare First Republic, Second Republic, Third Republic, Fourth Republic, Fifth Republic.
5. ( initial capital letter, italics ) a philosophical dialogue (4th century b.c.) by Plato dealing with the composition and structure of the ideal state.

You claim only definition #3 in your arguement is valid. Clearly definition #1 is what others claim. Both are valid. #1 is obviously more relevant today.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 12, 2010 2:59 PM
Comment #303551

Here is another instance of where the election process is in doubt.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 14, 2010 12:10 PM
Comment #303553

I expect some to focus on the messenger and ignore the message in
this piece.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 14, 2010 12:19 PM
Comment #303581

WW, your reading skills are seriously wanting, in saying: “You claim only definition #3 in your arguement is valid.”

Allow me to quote myself, so can try a reread for comprehension and reality this time: Republic in its simplest and most common meaning simply means, absent a monarch. James Madison however defined OUR Republic in terms of representative democracy as opposed to direct democracy. A democracy, nonetheless, absent a monarch, which is what it what makes it a republic.

In saying Republic in its simplest and most common meaning…I am alluding to the acknowledgment that there are other meanings, which you itemize. For the sake of this topical article, however, we were discussing America’s Republic, and I quoted what that means using James Madison’s definition.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 14, 2010 6:42 PM
Comment #303632

Thank you David, for your clarification. I would also like to make myself clear, if possible.

Many people mistakenly refer to our form of government as a democracy. I was simply correcting this mistaken reference.
Our republic is a republic.

1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

Whereas a democracy:

1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

Notice the word “OR”?

“exercised directly by them” is one step away from anarchy and the condition of this republic reflects the distortion the word democracy has had on our political process. My tenacity to make the distinction prompts my reply.

Why is our republic being refered to as a democracy? Perhaps it is because a political party finds it expedient to do so. Perhaps the Democratic Party thinks it can convince everyone it is the only party that can govern this “Democracy” using “Democratic” principals.

In the long run, people who think they can determine their own rules using a “Democratic” government will eventually lead us into anarchy.

Which is also why I question why you trivialize the word as only representing a form of government that is absent a monarch. Are you promoting a democracy or a republic? I suppose you are supporting both using the words of James Madison, but the current condition of our republic is is such disarray, I question your motive. The support of our current president’s overall position leads me to believe you support the Democratic Party and the illusion that this country is a democracy, giving every individual free reign over their environment. It this a means to an end? Are your posts promoting more government by generating anarchy?

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 15, 2010 3:16 PM
Comment #303664

A Republic if we can keep it. One problem is that we have too much democracy, tending toward socialism of late. Shouldn’t expect otherwise with a bunch of socialist/commie radicals running the Executive Branch.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 15, 2010 10:27 PM
Comment #303697

Roy, to say our Republic is a Republic, is a tautology, rendering the statement, meaningless.

Our form of government is both a democracy (indirect), and a republic. Look up the definitions, Roy. They both apply. A rose by any other name still smells as sweet. I don’t care if you call our government a blertzaloudignorantly. It is a democratically elected government with universal suffrage, and that constitutes a democracy, albeit through elected representatives instead of direct voter participation in the decisions of government.

I wonder if this misinformation wasn’t created by some idiot who one day discovered that the word Democracy did not appear in our Constitution or Declaration of Independence and proceeded to make a Conservative argument, that we are not therefore, a democracy (entirely ignoring the writings of many of the founders including Madison and Jefferson who did refer to our republic as a democracy.)

The votes taken in the Senate and House are governed by democratic vote. The electoral College’s decision is reached by democratic vote. Our government’s structure is entirely obtained by democratic voting. Hell, even the Supreme Court operates on democratic voting to arrive at its applicable decision. To argue we are not a democracy, defined as using democratic voting to arrive at applicable legislative and governing decisions, is truly an argument steeped in ignorance and lack of contemplation and appreciation of the word, democracy means.

Where so many get this wrong is in assuming the two terms, democracy and republic, are somehow mutually exclusive or at odds with each other. Such folks have NEVER looked up the definitions, or worse, insist like good authoritarians, on authoring their own eccentric definitions which only they know the meaning of.

There is a reason civilized people produce so many dictionaries and encyclopedias. Anyone who does not make use of them is not living up to their full civilized potential, which is to learn, baby, learn, to paraphrase Sarah Palin, who paraphrased KGFJ radio personality Magnificent Montague during the Watts Riots of the 1970’s. Though, I am sure she is not aware of the origin.

For an excellent read on this topic, there is Roy Lokken’s, The Concept of Democracy in Colonial Political Thought. Also, Jeffersonian Democracy is a term worth noting. Many of our founders were literate in Greek and Latin, where the term democracy originates, having meaning derived from the roots demos and kratia, translated as ‘people’ and ‘power’ (or strength), respectively.

The topic of how much power to give to the people consumed a great deal of debate amongst the founders. The people of the colonies after all, had just overthrown the rule of King George in the Revolutionary War. People power was central to their pursuit of freedom from the King of England. The prospect of the power of the people to overthrow the most powerful nation in the world of their time, however, did not bode well for this new government they were about to construct. Checks and balances on such power of the people had to be erected.

Their compromise was to provide the (eligible) people the power to elect House Representatives directly, but, as a check and balance on such “people power”, a host of other provisions were put in place to insure this new government did not result in a series of revolutionary toppling of government after government, not the least of which was providing the president with the resources of the militia at his command to put down any such future “people power” revolutions.

This was literally the case of rebels and revolutionaries building a government that, itself, could not be successfully rebelled against or overthrown. A chief concern considering the awesome deed of such rebels and revolutionaries having won the war against England. The Civil War was the ultimate test of the durability of these rebels and revolutionary’s design of a government that could not be overthrown by the people. The 1960’s and 1970’s provided another test of that durability. This democratic republic proved to be a very durable design for over 230 years.

It is about to be tested again over the next couple of decades, as the people suffer the consequences of failing political and economic design flaws of modern creation.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 16, 2010 11:52 AM
Comment #303747

David and Weary Willie, here are some inciteful websites and excerpts thereof:

“The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly—through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf. The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies “have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths” (Federalist No. 10).”


“In the strictest sense of the word, the system of government established by the Constitution was never intended to be a “democracy.” This is evident not only in the wording of the Pledge of Allegiance but in the Constitution itself which declares that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government” (Article IV, Section 4). Moreover, the scheme of representation and the various mechanisms for selecting representatives established by the Constitution were clearly intended to produce a republic, not a democracy.”

“These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.


A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution—adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment—with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term “the people” means, of course, the electorate.”

“The distinction between our Republic and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance.
The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to “liberty and justice for all.” Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy. (see People’s rights vs Citizens’ rights)
In a pure democracy 51 beats 49[%]. In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Only five of the U.S. Constitution’s first ten amendments apply to Citizens of the United States. Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates was executed by a democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable. “

David Weary Willie, I suspect it comes down to who you choose to believe. I would suggest that if you were educated in this United States you would come down on the side that we are a Democracy as a Democracy has a more socialist bent to it. Socialists don’t like to hear about ‘individual liberty’ for some reason. I would guess that if we were a Democracy we wouldn’t be hear to blog about it today as Democracies are known to be short lived, turning socialists, followed by anarchy.
I believe I am close enough in taking the position that we are a hybrid Republic with some Democracy thrown in. And, I firmly believe we have too much Democracy today for the good of the nation.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 17, 2010 4:30 PM
Post a comment