How the Establishment Suppresses Independent Candidates

/in , , , /by

I just received a phone call from a telephone number that my caller ID registered as only Sarasota and (914) 312-7514. Upon answering, the caller said they were conducting a quick one question poll. I said okay.

She said the poll question was: If the election for Governor was held today who would you most likely vote for?

A.  a Republican Candidate
B.  a Democrat Candidate
C.  Undecided

I responded by asking her why wasn’t there a choice for an Independent candidate?

She hummed and hawed and wanted to quickly get off the phone. I told her I can’t answer her poll because I would vote for a candidate other than a Republican or Democrat. In fact I am planning to vote for Adrian Wyllie, a Libertarian candidate. She said thanks and hung up.

Moral of the story:

Political polls are designed not to get to a true accounting and read out of the people’s opinions. Polls are designed to perpetuate the lies. Don’t pay attention to the results of political polling. They are pure fiction and designed to deceive and support the establishment.

It is time for the people of Florida to make 2014 the next 1860. What happened in 1860? Abe Lincoln won on a new party line, a third party. The Republican Party had been established in 1856 to challenge the Whig and Democratic parties. A Third Party won in 1860 and a Third Party can win in 2014 (if the people stop voting for the corrupt establishment that they claim to reject).

Immigration: It’s Time to Face Reality

/in , , , , , /by

In the years following the close of the Revolutionary War, the United States and Great Britain found little agreement on issues of national importance. There were ongoing disputes over trade, attacks on commercial shipping on the high seas… in which captured American seamen were forced to serve in the Royal Navy… as well as the provocation of American Indian tribes. As a result, the U.S. Congress approved a declaration of war against Great Britain in June 1812.

On August 24, 1814, British troops occupied Washington, DC, setting fire to the White House, the U.S. Capitol Building, and a number of other government buildings, and in September 1814 British forces in Canada invaded and occupied eastern Maine, along with portions of Michigan and Wisconsin.

With the exception of the shelling of an Ellwood, California oilfield by a Japanese submarine on February 23, 1942, the War of 1812 was the only instance in American history when forces of a foreign nation brought armed conflict to American soil… that is, until now.

Now, in the summer of 2014, in response to the open borders policies of Barack Obama, and in the face of the most horrific genocide taking place in Iraq… the kind of genocide we have not seen on this Earth since the Nazi holocaust of the 1930s and ‘40s, if then… we have no choice but to finally face reality.

The American people find their country invaded by hordes of minor children, drug dealers, and gang members from Mexico and Central America, and a host of troublemakers from Africa and the Middle East. Instead of importing the best and the brightest from the rest of the world, American leftists find it politically expedient to import the poorest and the most uneducated who will come to understand, as they enjoy the generosity of the American taxpayer, that liberals and Democrats are their principal benefactors. It is the most shameless and the most cynical political stratagem imaginable.

When all those impoverished indigents become registered voters, whether legally or illegally, and Arizona and Texas join the ranks of the blue states, Democrats will control 315 electoral votes, 45 more votes than are necessary to elect a president and a vice president. In that event, the United States of America, as we’ve known it, will cease to exist. No longer will we be the beacon of hope for all freedom-loving people; the “shining city on a hill” will be no more.

As it is, criminals from south of the border continue to cross our border, time and time again, after being deported. They have no respect for the rule of law, so they murder, rape, and rob, indiscriminately, with no concern for their victims or for the law. Prison life holds no fear for them because life behind bars is far preferable to the quality of life in their home countries.

Nor have recent administrations, Bush or Obama, taken the steps necessary to stem the growing tide of Islamists from Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, nearly all of whom arrive by plane at ports of entry, overstay their visas, and disappear into Muslim enclaves. Many have become American citizens and are free to travel between the U.S. and terrorist training camps in Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and elsewhere. Within the past week, the FBI arrested a North Carolinian, 44-year-old Donald Ray Morgan, as he attempted to re-enter the U.S. from Lebanon, where it is believed he had attempted to cross into Syria or Iraq to join Islamic State forces. Morgan has distributed videos of Islamic State beheadings and mass executions… including videos showing terrorists playing soccer with severed heads. I shudder to think of how many such homegrown jihadists are already living among us?

In confronting these intractable problems we can no longer concern ourselves with what may be politically correct, or with manufactured rights and privileges that liberal judges may find in our Constitution that simply do not exist.

While our commander in chief flits around on Air Force One, hosting high-dollar fundraisers for Democrat candidates, the American people are forced to endure reports of entire populations of Iraqi Christians and members of the Yazidi sect being given the choice of death by the sword or death by starvation. We see video reports of Iraqi soldiers being crucified, beheaded, shot to death, and buried in mass graves. We see reports of non-Muslim women being wantonly raped and sold into slavery. And we see reports of Christian children being captured and beheaded.

As these unspeakable atrocities take place just a twelve hour flight from New York, we are forced to stand helplessly by while Obama plays golf and members of his administration squabble over what should be done to end the slaughter, if anything.

Eventually, a great many of the criminals who sneak across our southern border, and a great many Islamic jihadists, will end up in our American prison system. When that time comes we cannot afford to imprison them in the same prison population with other prisoners… those who would be subject to recruitment into violent drug gangs or Islamic terror networks. Because of the danger they represent, we cannot afford to house them in facilities such as the Thomson Correctional Center at Thomson, Illinois, which Barack Obama and Eric Holder have proposed as an alternative for Guantanamo Bay detainees.

Because they are as dangerous as they are, and because, as terrorists, they are not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention, they may be held incommunicado for an indeterminate period of time. Accordingly, we must find locations where detainees can be treated humanely, but where they would be of no danger to anyone in the event of a massive prison break.

The State of Alaska, the largest of our 50 states, contains more than 2,600 islands in the Aleutian chain, which stretches some 1,100 miles across the north Pacific, from the western tip of the Alaskan Peninsula, on the east, to Attu Island on the west. The Aleutian chain contains 14 large islands, some 55 smaller islands, and more than 2500 islets. Many of the islands are uninhabited and would provide the remoteness necessary to prevent detainees from ever again being a threat to Christians and other non-Muslims.

For example, the Rat Islands are a chain of islands that stretch some 110 miles in the Aleutian chain. Kiska Island, one of the largest islands in the chain and uninhabited, was occupied by the Japanese during World War II. However, when allied forces arrived to liberate the island on August 15, 1943, they found the island completely abandoned. The Japanese, apparently finding the climate of Kiska to be a bit harsh, abandoned the island just two weeks earlier, on July 28.

The weather on Kiska would be perfectly suited for warehousing Middle Eastern terrorists and Mexican criminals who’ve seen sunny skies every day of their lives, who’ve rarely seen days when the temperature dipped below 90 degrees F, and where there is little or no annual rainfall. The average high temperature on Kiska in August is 55 degrees F and the average low temperature in January is 27 degrees F. It rains five or six days each week, there are only eight to ten sunny days in any given year, and the island is often blanketed by a heavy fog. It is the perfect venue for warehousing Mexican drug dealers and Islamic jihadists.

Amak Island, a part of the Delarof chain, is a large uninhabited island lying northwest of the Alaskan Peninsula. The island’s land area is approximately 5.8 square miles. The closest city is the town of Cold Bay (pop. 108) which has a small airport. The average high temperature is 56 degrees F in August and the average low temperature in February is 24 degrees F.

Finally, Montague Island is the largest uninhabited island in the United States with a land area of 305.4 square miles. It lies at the mouth of the Gulf of Alaska, the entrance to Prince William Sound, and is reachable only by boat from Seward, Alaska.

Any of these uninhabited islands would make an excellent location for a maximum security prison… a GITMO of the north… where we would not have to worry about prison breaks or prison conversions, either to Hispanic gangs, to drug cartels, or to Muslim terror networks.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans are either so naïve or so self-absorbed that they fail to follow national or international political developments, or they learn whatever they think they know from watching ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, or NBC. Most of the regular citizens I know… otherwise good, decent, hardworking Americans… have succumbed to the propaganda themes put out by liberals and Democrats. They tend to scoff at those of us who get our news from the Fox News network… the only reliable source of news among the mainstream and cable news networks.

While we attempt to minimize political discussions with our friends and neighbors, at times it is unavoidable. During a recent dinner party the conversation turned to the many scandals of the Obama administration. And when one of our guests mentioned Lois Lerner and the IRS scandal, another neighbor, an educated man with a masters degree in education, asked, “Who’s Lois Lerner?” Sadly, by the time such people are finally forced to face reality, it may be too late for any of us.

The Islamic State animals will be here, in our neighborhoods, knocking on our doors, and we will be powerless to do anything about it.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of Ironic Surrealism.

RELATED ARTICLE: Ineligible Illegals File Request to Get Dreamer Status, Force Obama’s Hand

RELATED VIDEO: Agents have separated some child immigrants from the general population due to gang affiliations.

Libertarian Movement on the Rise? by Doug Bandow

/in , , , , /by

It’s about time. We’ve tried everything else.

The New York Times wonders if the libertarian moment has arrived.

Maybe, suggested an article in the Sunday magazine.

Supporters of Rand Paul and father Ron think so. Award-winning economist turned left-wing pundit Paul Krugman is not convinced.

Unfortunately, there have been false starts before. Ronald Reagan’s election seemed the harbinger of a new freedom wave. His rhetoric was great, but actual accomplishments lagged far behind. Taxes were lower, but when he left office government looked pretty much the same as it did when he was sworn in, only bigger.

So, too, with the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress. As before, there was a tendency to confuse partisanship with philosophy. Admittedly, members of the GOP tend to toss around such phrases as “individual liberty” and “limited government.” However, their behavior in office looked little different from that of many Democrats. Like the Reagan Revolution, the Gingrich Revolution also sputtered out.

Since then there’s been even less to celebrate in America, at least. George W. Bush was an avid proponent of “compassionate,” big-government conservatism. Outlays rose faster during his administration than they had during Bill Clinton’s. No one did more to bail out business and enrich corporate America than Bush, the architect of the big-spending response to the 2008 financial crisis.

Barack Obama continued the tradition, promoting corporate welfare, pushing through a massive “stimulus” bill for the bank accounts of federal contractors, and seizing control of what remained private in the health care system. About the only good news is that incipient federal bankruptcy has discouraged Congress from adopting other massive new spending programs.

Over the last half-century, members of both parties took a welfare state that was of modest size despite the excesses of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal and put it on a fiscally unsustainable basis as part of the misnamed “Great Society.” Economist Lawrence Kotlikoff figures government’s total unfunded liability at around $220 trillion. America’s annual GDP is just $17 trillion. How Uncle Sam will ever make good on all its promises is impossible to imagine.

The national government has done no better with international issues. Trillions went for misnamed “foreign aid” that subsidized collectivism and autocracy. Only the recent growth of international markets and sustained pain of domestic failure moved many poor countries to reform. And even so the foreign money continues to flow, only in renamed programs for slightly different purposes.

Moreover, trade liberalization faces determined resistance, and is often blocked by countries that enjoy the greatest benefits of global commerce. Indeed, the Left in wealthy, industrialized nations has discovered how to kill trade agreements with kindness, loading them with environmental and labor regulations in the name of the world’s poor, but guaranteed to prevent new jobs from being created for those very same poor.

Even worse has been foreign policy. The ecstasy felt by most people after the collapse of the Berlin Wall—a quarter-century ago—has been forgotten. The defense budget has turned into a new form of foreign aid for America’s populous and prosperous allies. The U.S. has been constantly at war, repeatedly proving that the Pentagon is no better at social engineering than is any other government agency. Yet again and again Washington attempts to transcend history, culture, ethnicity, geography, religion, ideology, nationality, and more to fix other societies. It turns out that war is the biggest big government program around.

Americans across the political spectrum agree that something is wrong, that the status quo is no good. But they disagree on the remedy.
However, the answer shouldn’t be that hard to discern. The definition of insanity, runs the old adage, is to keep doing the same thing while expecting different results. Today, government attempts to solve problems by doing ever more of whatever it is already doing. Thus, those who support such policies, whether on the left or right, and expect things to improve in the future should head off to see their psychiatrists. For they are exhibiting disturbing symptoms of insanity.

The economy is slowing, people are falling behind economically, freedoms are being lost, and security fears are rising? No problem. Roll out the usual failed nostrums.

More spending on old programs. Lots of spending on new programs. New and more restrictive regulations. Paternalistic crusades. Criminal penalties for violating commercial and environmental rules. Restrictions on civil liberties. Wars in new places and new wars in old places. We know what the impact of these policies will be. All we have to do is look around the world and see what has happened.

It is this reality, not new personalities, organizations, generations, or something else, that is creating a libertarian moment. Statism and collectivism have been tried and found wanting in all of their variants.

The twentieth century killed off communism and fascism as serious alternatives. They resulted in totalitarian death states capable of killing on a mass scale, but little else. Lives were squandered, liberties were extinguished, the human spirit was suppressed, and people were impoverished.

The chief competitor was not laissez-faire capitalism, as some suggested, but highly regulated and monumentally expensive welfare states. They were freer and more prosperous than their geopolitical antagonists—even a little capitalism goes a long way—but the erosion of liberty and prosperity was constant. Perhaps more debilitating was the corrosive impact on the foundational principles of a free society, such as independence, self-reliance, responsibility, accountability, and more. This assault in America continues with, for instance, the federal government recently turning health care into another massive entitlement, highlighted by pervasive regulation and income redistribution.
The obvious, and only, alternative to more government, which has failed so badly, is less government. Why blame individuals and companies for fleeing the tax mess created in Washington? Lower tax rates and rationalize complex tax systems. Why threaten America’s future by running budget-busting deficits into the future forever? Cut the wasteful looting and pillaging that is a hallmark of today’s transfer society.

Why concoct expensive development and stimulus programs? Kill unnecessary and relax unnecessarily stringent regulations, while making legitimate rules more market-friendly. Why attempt to micro-manage the world with strategies that have failed at home? Model liberty, prosperity, tolerance, and peace for others, allowing individual Americans going abroad to be America’s best ambassadors.

Has the libertarian moment arrived? The bankruptcy of statism and collectivism and all their variants is evident. So is the desperate need for liberty-minded solutions.

However, the tyranny of the status quo, as Milton Friedman termed it, remains omnipresent and powerful. Those who benefit from the politics of plunder will not yield voluntarily. As a result, the libertarian moment will not “arrive.” It will have to be brought forward, seized by those committed to a better and freer America.

dougbandow3540ABOUT DOUG BANDOW

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and the author of a number of books on economics and politics. He writes regularly on military non-interventionism.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of FEE and Shutterstock.

Julio Gonzalez wants to expand Obamacare in Florida

/in , , , , , , /by

Dr. Julio Gonzalez is running for the Florida House of Representatives in District 74. The cornerstone of his campaign is his opposition, as a physician, to Obamacare. You would expect that Dr. Gonzalez would be against using any federal or state funds to expand Obamacare wouldn’t you? Well you may want to look at what Dr. Gonzalez stated in a Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops candidate questionnaire.

The Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops sent Dr. Gonzalez and his primary opponent Richard DeNapoli a candidate survey. One of the questions asked was:

COVERING THE UNINSURED: Using federal and state funds to decrease the percentage of uninsured Floridians by at least 50 percent?

Dr. Gonzalez responded:

SUPPORT

Candidate Comments: Only in situations where there are absolutely no viable alternatives available (a safety net). The state’s efforts should be directed at promoting ample opportunities and resources to our uninsured to obtain coverage for catastrophic conditions if they desire such coverage, and not to propagate the problem by having the federal or state governments artificially mask the problems of joblessness and poverty through patch-work solutions.

Richard DeNapoli responded:

OPPOSE

Candidate Comments: I am opposed to Obamacare and the current proposal to expand Medicaid because of the costs involved. If we reduce federal regulations and mandates on health insurance policies, the private sector will be able to offer more options for policies to address individual consumer needs.

Gonzalez on his campaign website states, “Repeal Obamacare.  Take care of our seniors by making sure Medicare remains vibrant and healthy.” How does this statement and his support for expanding coverage for the uninsured under Medicaid in Florida (a key provision of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act)  jive? Florida has opted out of Medicaid expansion.

Perhaps Dr. Gonzalez would like to clarify his comments to the voters of Sarasota/Charlotte County. Perhaps voters need to truly understand where District 74 candidates Gonzalez and DeNapoli stand on Obamacare and expanding Medicaid in the sunshine state.

UPDATE: The Florida Family Association sent out its voter guide for the District 74 race. Dr. Gonzalez did not respond to any of the questions posed by the Florida Family Association. You may view Richard DeNapoli’s responses by clicking here.

EDITORS NOTE: To see how your elected officials responded to the Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops candidate questionnaire click here.

John Bolton Endorses Four Florida Candidates for Congress

/in , , , /by

WASHINGTON, Aug. 14, 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Ambassador John Bolton endorses four Florida Congressional candidates. Citing the importance of the electoral map in Florida, Bolton’s PAC also contributes to the GOP candidates’ campaigns to ensure each has the resources needed to win in November. The candidates include Rep. Ron DeSantis (FL-6), Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (FL-25), Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL-27), and Carlos Curbelo running to represent Florida’s 26th district.

Bolton is committed to supporting candidates for elected office who believe in protecting the United States’ vital freedoms at home through securing American interests in a challenging world. The John Bolton PAC and John Bolton Super PAC have raised a combined $4.5 million to date with over $3 million cash on hand.

“Going into 2016, the importance of succeeding in Florida can’t be understated,” said Bolton. “I’m committed to helping Florida Republicans win this November so that come 2016 we’re able to create the change America needs.” Further statements from Bolton on each candidate endorsement:

  • Rep. Ron DeSantis (FL-6):  “As a former JAG Officer and current Navy reserve, Ron is a leader and understands the importance of a strong U.S. national security policy.”
  • Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (FL-25): “Mario has been representing South Florida for over two decades. He understand the need for strong national security policy and is the right person to represent the 25thdistrict.”
  • Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL-27): “Ileana understands this is a changing and challenging world. As the former Chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, she has become a leader on American foreign policy.”
  • Carlos Curbelo (FL-26): “The son of Cuban immigrants, Carlos represents a new generation of Republican leadership that will bring new ideas and direction to Congress.”

Ambassador Bolton’s PAC has endorsed and made contributions to 17 candidates, including U.S. Senate candidates former Sen. Scott Brown (NH), Thom Tillis (NC), Ed Gillespie (VA), Rep. Tom Cotton (AR), Joni Ernst(IA), Terri Lynn Land (MI), and Leader Mitch McConnell (KY), along with U.S. House of Representatives candidates Will Hurd (TX-23), Martha McSally (AZ-2), Barbara Comstock (VA-10), Rep. Adam Kinzinger (IL-16), former Rep. Robert Dold (IL-10), and Rep. Mike Pompeo (KA-4).

ABOUT JOHN BOLTON PAC: 

The John Bolton PAC was founded by former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John R. Bolton to raise the importance of American national security in federal elections. The PAC will support and contribute to candidates who are committed to restoring strong American economic and national security policies that secure America’s interests in a challenging world.

Long Term U.S. Senators Rarely Visit Home: Worst offender Harry Reid

/in , , , /by

Nick Tomboulides, Executive Director of U.S. Term Limits (USTL), has sent out a very revealing chart showing that the longer a U.S. Senator is in office the less time he or she spends in their respective state.

Tomboulides writes, “I’ve got a feeling we’re not in Kansas anymore. No, this line doesn’t just apply to Dorothy in the wonderful land of Oz. It’s also true about Kansas Senator Pat Roberts, who acknowledged in February that he doesn’t actually live in the state he was elected to represent. When Roberts visits Kansas, he stays with wealthy donors at their home on a golf course (really). The rest of the time, he’s in D.C.”

Roberts’ scant visits home were recently featured in research by the Washington Examiner’s Luke Rosiak, who analyzed congressional travel records to conclude that the longer a Senator stays in office, the less likely he is to travel home. Roberts, a 34-year Washington politician, was near the bottom with only 32 trips back to Kansas in three years. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was the undisputed champ of ignoring constituents, with only 11 trips home over the same period.

As USTL President Phil Blumel commented in the Examiner piece, “When they get up in age, folks like Thad Cochran, particularly in the Senate, you really don’t ever have to leave as long as you’re breathing because you’re going to get re-elected no matter what.”

“What Phil describes is really an iron rule of politics: A majority of politicians will only serve the public when that same action will also serve themselves. In an atmosphere of non-competitive elections, a public official’s interests only line up with the people’s interest about five percent of the time. That’s roughly the competitive slice of House elections each year,” notes Tomboulides.

Congressman Kevin McCarthy in a  2010 CNN op-ed wrote, “Washington isn’t listening. The disconnect between the American people and the agenda being advanced in Washington is growing by the day. When Americans have spoken up, their voices have fallen on deaf ears. Political expedience and partisan allegiances have repeatedly trumped the priorities of the American people.”

Time for Congressional term limits?

Why is the pro-amnesty Florida Chamber of Commerce defending Julio Gonzalez?

/in , , , , /by

An email to supporters from the Julio Gonzalez campaign states, “Richard DeNapoli, candidate for District 74 State Representative, has been formally asked by the Florida Chamber Political Institute to discontinue the use of confidential information that he and his supporters have been using to attack Dr. Julio Gonzalez.”

So the Florida Chamber is angry that its information is being used against a candidate that it supports and endorses. It that a bad thing?

The Florida Chamber of Commerce website states:

The Florida Chamber of Commerce joined with our partners at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers and the American and Florida Farm Bureau Federations in urging Congress and the administration to work together to enact immigration reform during a Day of Action – an effort that included events in Washington, DC and in more than 60 congressional districts across 25 states.

The Florida Chamber supports a comprehensive, federal approach to immigration reform – one that serves our nation’s best interest and is crucial for Florida as we position ourselves to win the global race for talent and jobs.

Comprehensive federal immigration reform is code for “amnesty.”

The campaign website for Dr. Julio Gonzales states, “Julio’s conservative pro-growth policies have earned him the endorsement of the Florida Chamber of Commerce.” There is no mention of immigration in the issues section of the Gonzales campaign website. Gonzalez has been endorsed by both the pro-amnesty Florida Chamber and Senator Marco Rubio, who is the Republican face for amnesty. What does that tell you about Gonzalez?

In stark contrast, Richard DeNapoli has these positions on immigration posted on his campaign website:

  • No Amnesty – period,
  • E-verify for all employers to ensure the jobs magnet for illegal aliens is turned off,
  • Oppose all Obama efforts to house illegal immigrants in Sarasota County jails,
  • Demand Congress act to secure the border,
  • Support completion of the border fence,
  • Shift taxpayer funding from benefits for illegal aliens to helping keep our commitment to caring for our Veterans.

It is clear where DeNapoli stands on immigration. It is not clear where Gonzalez stands, except  that he stands shoulder-to-shoulder with the Florida Chamber of Commerce.

The August 26th Republican primary is upon us. Voters need to understand where the candidates stand on important issues like immigration.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Florida: Since 2000 52% of jobs went to legal immigrants and illegal aliens
Hundreds of Convicted Criminals Among Illegal Immigrants Released by Obama Administration
Illegals hit jackpot with lenient U.S. judges…
DREAMers plan to occupy Cruz office…
PEW: More than 60% of Hondurans in USA Illegals…
CONFUSION: Obamacare Plans to End Without Proof of Citizenship…

Immigration: The Ultimate Get-out-the-vote Drive

/in , , , , , /by

One reason predictions of a Mitt Romney victory in 2012 were inaccurate, say analysts, is that the turnout among certain Democrat constituencies — in particular blacks and Hispanics — was greater than expected. And what a significant factor this is. Whether we call it getting out the vote, having a great “ground game” or just turnout, it can make or break an election.

But while the phrase “getting out the vote” is well understood, there is a lesser known election strategy: getting in the vote. What’s the difference? While the former involves getting as many as possible of the set number of sympathetic potential voters to the polls, getting in the vote is the process by which you increase that number of sympathetic voters. This process is most effectively exercised by Democrats, and it’s done in two ways. One is by indoctrinating people — especially young people — via academia, the media and entertainment. The second way is through immigration.

Why immigration? Because virtually the whole world is, to use our provisional (and lacking) political terminology, to the “left” of America. In addition, indoctrinating a young person is effective, but it’s an expensive process that must continue throughout his formative and teen years. Far easier is to import ready-made leftists. The results are quicker, too: the targeted babe born today won’t be entering the voting booth for 18 years. An immigrant, however, can perhaps be naturalized in just a few years. And politicians are more interested in the next election than in a future election involving the next person to hold their seat.

Moreover, you have to add to this the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965’s creation of a status quo in which 85 percent of our immigrants now hail from the Third World and Asia. This is significant because, like it or not and whatever the causes, there is an ironclad correlation between racial/ethnic identification and voting patterns. The GOP derives 90 percent of its votes from approximately 63 percent of the population: whites. In contrast, there is no major non-white group (note that I’m including Hispanics in this even though most are anthropologically classified as Caucasian) that doesn’t break Democrat by wide margins. Blacks cast approximately 94 percent of their votes for Democrats, while Hispanics and Asians come in at about 75 percent.

So if you’re a Machiavellian leftist who values power above all else, what do you do?

You increase the non-white segment of the population while decreasing the white segment percentagewise — as much and as fast as possible.

Call this demographic warfare. The idea is that if the people won’t change the government to your liking, you change the people.

This places our current border crisis in perspective. It explains why Barack Obama will not enforce immigration law. It explains why we’ve had seven amnesties during the last few decades, all accompanied by unfulfilled promises to secure the border. And it explains why a promoter of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 was hard-core leftist Ted Kennedy. Expecting power-hungry Democrats to seal the border and not facilitate the invasion of our nation is like supposing they will cancel their get-out-the-vote drives. Migration — illegal and legal — is one of the main ways in which they grow their constituencies.

Yet while we, again, face a largely statist world, Democrats would still prefer non-white migrants. There could be many reasons for this, but I will mention three. First, many such migrants are especially socialist, which is why south-of-the-border peoples have elected demagogues such as Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales. Second, they’re poor. This means that, unlike some European immigrants, they have no reason to be concerned about higher income tax rates. It also means that in a prosperous land in which they see wealth surrounding them, their socialist tendencies will be stoked all the more. Envy is a dangerous and easily exploited sin, and why shouldn’t they get a piece of that American pie?

Lastly there is the divide-and-conquer factor. Even if European immigrants are left-leaning, they will nonetheless associate with and more quickly assimilate into the more conservative white majority. In contrast, consider Hispanic immigrants. They generally will circulate within a left-leaning group — the wider Hispanic community — which places them in an echo chamber in which their socialist tendencies are reinforced, nurtured and where deviation from them could make one a pariah. It also makes them ripe for racial/ethnic demagoguery. You don’t want to vote like the gringos, do you? And I think here about how Obama told Hispanics in the run-up to the 2010 mid-term elections to “punish” their “enemies.” To whom do you think he was referring?

In fact, assimilation of many of these newcomers isn’t just unlikely, it’s impossible. This is because we have in our midst more than just an ethnic echo chamber — we have a burgeoning nation within our nation.

Consider: approximately 50 percent of our legal immigrants come from Mexico, and 67 percent of American Hispanics have origins in that nation. This translates into a legal and illegal Mexican-heritage population of 20 to 30 million — perhaps 20 percent of Mexico’s population. The consequences of such an unbalanced and suicidal immigration policy are severe, and they were explained well by University of Edinburgh professor Stephen Tierney in his book Multiculturalism and the Canadian Constitution:

In a situation in which immigrants are divided into many different groups originating in distant countries, there is no feasible prospect of any particular immigrant group’s challenging the hegemony of the national language [press one for English, folks?] and institutions. These groups may form an alliance among themselves to fight for better treatment and accommodations, but such an alliance can only be developed within the language and institutions of the host society and, hence, is integrative. In situations in which a single dominant immigrant group originates in a neighbouring country, the dynamics may be very different. The Arabs in Spain, and Mexicans in the United States, do not need allies among other immigrant groups. One could imagine claims for Arabic or Spanish to be declared a second official language, at least in regions where they are concentrated, and these immigrants could seek support from their neighbouring home country for such claims — in effect, establishing a kind of transnational extension of their original homeland in their new neighbouring country of residence.

So liberals are seeking to overwhelm what they call white America through demographic change. In the name of power, of a get-in-the-vote drive, they happily commit cultural genocide, the fear of which, Professor Tierney goes on to write, “is often compounded in situations where the immigrant group has historic claims against the receiving country. … For example, in the Mexican-United States case….”

This is why our handwringing over the current border crisis is a little ironic. Yes, the situation is outrageous, but taking exception to illegal migration while blithely accepting our legal-immigration regime is like thinking that government death squads are preferable to roving gangs of murderous miscreants. Demographically, politically and culturally the two types of migration have precisely the same effect. All the illegal variety does is accelerate the process, giving the left more votes now and authentic Americanism a quicker, and perhaps more merciful, death.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is of President Johnson signing the Hart-Celler Immigration and Nationalization Act of 1965 bill taken by Yoichi Okamoto, White House Photo Office.

Truths About the “Do-Nothing” Congress

/in , , , , /by

The House of Representatives is being labeled as a do-nothing congress. Congressional approval ratings are at an all-time low. I guess they must be pretty bad.

Should we believe every item of propaganda thrown our way? The president – who has the advantage of being before cameras on a daily basis – continually rails against the congress for failing to do anything. He wants us all to follow his lead, and blame congress for his non-accomplishments. In fact, the people of congress are elected by constituencies that may, in fact, expect their representatives to represent them and their wishes to hold back spending, control borders, investigate corruption and take action against government out of control.

If you believe the president and his acolyte, Harry Reid, it would appear they are the good guys and congressional representatives are the bad guys. But if you dig a little deeper and actually investigate the truth, it paints a different picture.

What people don’t know is that any bill passed by the House of Representatives must be evaluated or modified and then voted on by the U.S. Senate before they can be given to the president to sign. That is, if the Senate Majority Leader allows. Yes, that’s true. Senator Harry Reid has the power to run America, at the behest of the president with whom they are in lock-step on most issues. Harry Reid runs the legislative agenda of America. Period. (to quote the president)

If Senator Reid doesn’t like the contents of a House bill, it will not see the light of day on the senate floor. There will be no vote. It’s a one-man blockade who has that power, no matter the will of the people who elected 435 congresspersons and one hundred senators. One Man!

Consider this minor statistic: The so-called “do-nothing” congress is not so “do-nothing” after all. They have passed 352 bills, which still await action from the do-nothing Senate Majority Leader. That’s three-hundred, fifty two bills, 98 percent of which were passed in the house with bi-partisan support, but blocked in the senate. Fifty-five of those bills were actually introduced by democrats. Two-thirds of the bills were passed with 70 percent of the House votes….which includes scores of democrats.

In fact, congress is actually working together…until they hit a stone wall in the senate in the form of Senator Harry Reid. Meanwhile Reid and the president exploit the inaction by senate leadership as fodder, twisting facts to make the public believe it’s all the fault of the republican-led House. The general public, who listens to sound bites and never bothers to look further, buys into the propaganda.

If America is in a downward tailspin home and abroad, remember this: Our nation is being guided by four significant power brokers, two of whom are not elected. Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Eric Holder and Valerie Jarrett. It’s all about political gain and power.

If you think the president, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi feel sympathy for the migrants from Central America, don’t be naïve. They are thinking ahead. This has been engineered by policies executed in this administration for one purpose: Future power. Lopsided power. Demographic manipulation in the form of mega thousands of immigrants will translate to registered democrats in future voting bases. It’s all on purpose. Ten years from now, these “children” will be voting in more Reids, Pelosis and Obamas…only in greater majority numbers.

We’re being duped. Our grandchildren will be paying the price for our ignorance.

RELATE ARTICLE:

Guess How Many Bills the Senate Has Actually Voted on This Year | TheBlaze.

RELATED VIDEO:

Following are Congresswoman Jenkins’ remarks:

“The President is fond of referring to the House as the “Do-Nothing Congress.” But we have 352 reasons why it’s a “Do-Nothing Senate.”

“352 bills are sitting on Harry Reid’s desk, awaiting action.

“98% of them passed with bipartisan support. Republicans and Democrats working together to pass legislation.

“50% of the bills passed unanimously, with no opposition.

“70% of the bills passed with 2/3rds support in the House.

“And over 55 bills were introduced by Democrats.

“352 bills. Why won’t Harry Reid act? These are good bills; bills that put the American people back to work, put more money in hardworking Americans pockets, help with education, and skills training.

“We call upon Harry Reid to get to work before he adjourns in August to pass some of these bills. The American people deserve better.”

Libertarian Folly: Why Everybody is a Social-issues Voter

/in , , , , /by

There is this notion, one we hear more and more, that the Republican Party has to shed the social issues to seize the future. “Social issues are not the business of government!” says thoroughly modern millennial. It’s a seductive cry, one repeated this past Tuesday in an article about how some young libertarians dubbed the “Liberty Kids” are taking over the moribund Los Angeles GOP. Oh, wouldn’t the political landscape be simple if we could just boil things down to fiscal responsibility? But life is seldom simple.

If you would claim to be purely fiscal, or assert that “social issues” should never be government’s domain, I’d ask a simple question: Would you have no problem with a movement to legalize pedophilia?

Some responses here won’t go beyond eye-rolling and scoffing. Others will verbalize their incredulity and say that such a movement would never be taken seriously. This is not an answer but a dodge. First, the way to determine if one’s principles are sound is by seeing if they can be consistently applied. For instance, if someone claims he never judges others, it’s legitimate to ask whether he remains uncritical even of Nazis and KKK members; that puts the lie to his self-image. And any thinking person lives an examined life and tries to hone his principles.

Second, there is no never-land in reality. People in the ’50s would have said that homosexuality will “never” be accepted in the U.S. And Bill O’Reilly said as recently as 15 or 16 years ago that faux marriage (I don’t use the term “gay marriage”) would “never” be accepted in America. Sometimes “never” lasts only a decade or two.

Third, my question is no longer just theoretical. As I predicted years ago and wrote about here, there now is a movement afoot — one that has received “unbiased” mainstream-media news coverage — to legitimize pedophilia. Moreover, it has co-opted the language of the homosexual lobby, with doctors suggesting that pedophiles are “born that way” and have a “deep-rooted predisposition that does not change.”  A film reviewer characterizing pedophilia as “the love that dare not speak its name” and activists saying that lust for children is “normative” and those acting on it are unjustly “demonized.” Why, one Los Angeles Times article quoted a featured pedophile as saying, “These people felt they could snuff out the desire, or shame me into denying it existed. But it’s as intrinsic as the next person’s heterosexuality.”

My, where have we heard that before?

So, modern Millie, as we venture further down the rabbit hole, know that one day you may be among “these people,” these intolerant folks who just can’t understand why “social issues” should be kept out of politics and government out of the bedroom.

I should also point out that a movement advancing bestiality has also reared its head, using much of the same language as the homosexual and pedophiliac lobbies.

Of course, I’m sure that many libertarians have no problem with legalized bestiality; hey, my goat, my choice, right? And there may even be a rare few who would shrug off pedophilia, saying that, well, if a child agrees, who am I to get in the way of a consensual relationship? But these issues, as revolting and emotionally charged as they are, are just examples. There are a multitude of others, and this becomes clear if we delve a bit more deeply.

After all, what are “social issues”? What are we actually talking about? We’re speaking of moral issues, which, again, thoroughly modern millie would say should be kept out of politics. But this is impossible. For the truth is that every just law is an imposition of morality or a corollary thereof — every one.

Eyes may be rolling again, but let’s analyze it logically. By definition a law is a removal of a freedom, stating that there is something we must or must not do. Now, stripping freedom away is no small matter. Why would we do it? Unless we’re sociopathic, like Aleister Crowley believe “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law” and are willing to impose our will simply because it feels right, there could be only one reason: we see the need to enforce an element of a conception of right and wrong. We prohibit an act because we believe it’s wrong or mandate something because we believe it’s a moral imperative. This is indisputable. After all, would you forcibly prevent someone from doing something that wasn’t wrong? Would you force someone to do something that wasn’t a moral imperative? That would be truly outrageous — genuine tyranny.

There are laws where this is obvious and unquestioned, such as the prohibition against murder. But the same holds true even when the connection to morality isn’t so obvious, such as with speed laws: they’re justified by the idea that it is wrong to endanger others.

Then there is legislation such as ObamaCare. The wind beneath its wings was the idea that it was wrong to leave people without medical care; this case was consistently made, and, were it not for this belief, the bill could never have gotten off the ground. Or consider the contraception mandate and the supposed “war on women”: the issue would have been moot if we believed there was nothing wrong with waging a war on women.

Some will now protest, saying that there is nothing moral about ObamaCare and the contraception mandate. I agree, but this just proves my point. Note that my initial assertion was not that every law is the imposition of morality — it was that every just law is so. Some legislation is based on a mistaken conception of right and wrong, in which case it is merely the imposition of values, which are not good by definition (Mother Teresa had values, but so did Hitler). It is only when the law has a basis in morality, in Moral Truth, which is objective, that it can be just. Hence the inextricable link between law and morality. For a law that isn’t the imposition of morality is one of two other things: the legislation of nonsense or, worse still, the imposition of immorality.

So this is the fatal flaw behind the attack on social conservatives. It would be one thing if the only case made were that their conception of morality was flawed; instead, as with those who sloppily bemoan all “judgment,” they’re attacked with a flawed argument, the notion that their voices should be ignored because they would “impose morality.” But what we call “social conservatives” aren’t distinguished by concern for social issues; the only difference between them and you, modern Millie, is that they care about the social issues that society, often tendentiously, currently defines as social issues and which we happen to be fighting about at the moment. This is seldom realized because most people are creatures of the moment.

But rest assured that, one day, the moment and “never” will meet. And then you very well may look in the mirror and recognize that most unfashionable of things: a social-issues voter.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

“All We Need Is the Right People to Run the Government” by Melvin D. Barger

/in , , , , /by

It’s been a time-honored practice in America to “throw the rascals out” when things go wrong in government. This supposedly is merely the political version of what happens when the manager of a losing baseball team is replaced, or the chief executive officer of a failing corporation gets the axe.

Nobody should dispute the fact that government operations require capable, experienced people who know how to do their jobs. We’ve all probably had unpleasant bouts with incompetent public officials and clerks, and we wish they could be replaced.

But when government expands beyond its rightful limits, problems arise that have little to do with the competence and abilities of its officials and employees. The delusion that these problems can be solved by replacing officials only delays the day when people face the hard questions about what government should do and should not do.

Thanks to the relentless expansion of government, however, these questions are being asked the world over, with surprising solutions in some cases. There is growing criticism of government operations and regulations. There is also a rush to “privatize” many services. Though privatization moves are being made for economic reasons rather than to restore liberty, they still appear as hopeful signs.

The most important reason for limiting government to its rightful peacekeeping functions is to preserve and promote liberty. If this is done, people working singly or in groups will eventually find wonderful ways of dealing with the many human problems that government promises to solve, and meeting the human needs that government promises to meet. But as we now know, problems and needs continue to grow while the government colossus has created dangers, such as mountainous public debt and group conflicts that threaten us all and seem beyond solution. These problems worsen no matter who seems to be running things in government. Even people who used to have almost religious faith in the powers of government are becoming disillusioned as its clay feet become more exposed.

A second dilemma with excessive government is that it must always be run bureaucratically. Bureaucracy can be a maddening thing for people who have been accustomed to the speed and efficiency of market-driven services. When confronted with bureaucratic actions that displease us we tend to blame the officials in charge and call for their replacement.

But unless the officials we want replaced are completely incompetent, rooting them out is usually a waste of time and effort. As Ludwig von Mises explained many years ago, bureaucracy is neither good nor bad. Bureaucratic management is the method applied in the conduct of administrative affairs, the result of which has no cash value on the market, though it may have other values to society. It is management bound to comply with detailed rules and regulations fixed by an authoritative body. “The task of the bureaucrat is to perform what these rules and regulations order him to do,” Mises explained. “His discretion to act according to his own best conviction is seriously restricted by them.”

Thus bureaucracy is good (and inevitable, but easily excessive, and even ridiculous and unresponsive much of the time) when it is applied in public operations such as police departments, military forces, and records bureaus. But it becomes oppressive and deadly when it is imposed on business enterprises and other human activities. As Mises shrewdly saw, the evil in bureaucracy was not in the method itself. “What many people nowadays consider an evil is not bureaucracy as such,” he pointed out, “but the expansion of the sphere in which bureaucratic management is applied.”

Mises then contrasted this bureaucratic system with business management or profit management, which is management directed by the profit motive. Managers, driven by the need to stay profitable (which is to say, to keep costs below income), can be given wide discretion with a minimum amount of rules and regulations. And customers will quickly let them know whether the business is providing proper goods and services and prices which customers consider favorable.

This profit-driven system has its opponents, of course, and this creates problems and frictions for entrepreneurs who want to compete for our business. Some opponents fear the new competition, while others deplore the entrepreneurs’ use of resources. And one of the most effective ways of hampering entrepreneurs is to put them under either limited or total government regulation and control—that is, replacing profit-driven management with at least some degree of bureaucratic management.

So what we have in today’s world is a great deal of government with additional regulation and control of private business. There is lots of grumbling about the fact that “the system doesn’t seem to be working,” but nobody is likely to fix it. At election time, glib office-seekers promise to reform the system and “get the country moving again.” This doesn’t happen, and general dissatisfaction is growing.

And there still seems to be a persistent delusion that “putting the right person in charge” will fix the problem. One favorite government response, when conditions worsen in an area, is to appoint a “czar” with special powers to bring everything together with businesslike efficiency. We have had numerous “czars” to control energy and prices, and one was recently named to deal with health reform. However highly touted, these czars soon turn out to be no more effective than the Russian rulers who gave rise to the term.

Another common fallacy, a favorite idea with pro-business political administrations, is that government operations will work better if capable business executives are found to head them. But as Mises perceptively noted, “A former entrepreneur who is given charge of a government bureau is in this capacity no longer a businessman but a bureaucrat. His objective can no longer be profit (generating more value than cost), but compliance with the rules and regulations. As head of a bureau he may have the power to alter some minor rules and some matters of internal procedure. But the setting of the bureau’s activities is determined by rules and regulations which are beyond his reach.”

Some people thrive in this sort of work and turn out to be excellent bureaucrats. They are the right people to run government operations when government is limited to its rightful peacekeeping functions. But if our purpose is to preserve and promote liberty while seeking the benefits of a market-driven economy, we’ll look in vain for reasonable answers and solutions from government—no matter who runs it. We are slowly learning this lesson, though at great cost. We should, of course, continue to follow the time-honored American practice of “throwing the rascals out” when elected officials are performing badly. But in today’s world, the officials we’re criticizing might not be rascals at all, but just conscientious people trying to do jobs that shouldn’t have been created in the first place.

Melvin D. Barger

Summary

  • As government grows, it creates more and more systemic and intractable problems.
  • Profit management and bureaucratic management are two very different things. The former seeks to generate more value than cost while the top priority of the latter is the promulgation and implementation of rules and regulations.
  • The bigger government becomes, the more calls you hear for “reform,” which may suggest there’s something inherently defective about the political system that prevents its practitioners from ever getting things right from the start.
  • Running government “like a business” is a popular rhetorical point but essentially an illusion that fails to recognize the deep differences between profit-driven business and rule-driven government.

For further information, see:

“No More Czars, Please” by Lawrence W. Reed
“What’s So Bad About Big Government Anyway?” by George C. Leef
“Hayek Was Right: The Worst Do Get to the Top” by Lawrence W. Reed
“The Economy Needs More Planning—Central Planning, That Is” by Lawrence W. Reed
“Can Government Manage the Economy?” by James L. Payne

EDITORS NOTE: This essay by Ohio businessman and writer Melvin D. Barger appeared in the 1994 edition of FEE’s book, Clichés of Politics, edited by former FEE trustee Mark Spangler. His citations of Ludwig von Mises all come from Mises’s 1945 book, Bureaucracy. The featured image is courtesy of FEE and Shutterstock.

Making History is not Enough

/in , , , , , /by

In many ways Obama’s presidency has been historic.

On June 19, 2008, Obama became the first major-party presidential candidate to turn down public financing in the general election since the system was created in 1976.

On Thursday, August 28, 2008, Obama became the first Black to be nominated by a major U.S. party.

On November 4, 2008, Obama won the presidency with 365 electoral votes to 173 for Sen. John McCain, becoming the first Black to be elected president of the United States. Earlier, Obama won 52.9 percent of the popular vote to McCain’s 45.7 percent.

Sonia Sotomayor, nominated by Obama on May 26, 2009, to replace retiring Associate Justice David Souter, was confirmed on August 6, 2009, making her the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice.

On October 9, 2009, the Norwegian Nobel Committee announced that Obama had won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”

On November 6, 2012, Obama won 332 electoral votes, exceeding the 270 required for him to be re-elected as president. With 51.1 percent of the popular vote, Obama became the first Democratic president since Franklin D. Roosevelt to twice win the majority of the popular vote.

During his second inaugural address on January 21, 2013, Obama called for full equality for gay Americans: “Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law – for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.” This, too, was a historic moment. It was the first time that a president mentioned gay rights or the word “gay” in an inaugural address.

But for all of Obama’s firsts, at the same time, he has left people scratching their heads, especially Blacks.

How could the first Black president not even interview a Black female for either of the two Supreme Court openings he had to fill? After all, Black women were the largest voting bloc for both of his presidential elections (96 percent in 2012).

Obama promised during his 2008 campaign that his administration would be the “most transparent in history.” According to a recently released report by the Associated Press, nothing could be further from the truth. The AP calls the Obama administration “the most secretive presidency in American history.”

The AP analyzed 99 federal agencies over six years. According to their report, “the Obama administration censored more documents and delayed or denied access to more government files than ever before. In 2013, the administration cited national security concerns a record 8,496 times as an excuse for withholding information from the public. That’s a 57% increase over the year before and more than double the number in Obama’s first year in office.”

According to several media accounts, Obama has launched more than 390 drone attacks in his almost six years in the White House, eight times as many as the Bush administration; and there have been more than 2,400 people killed in these air strikes, many of them civilians.

Obama has signed at least three executive orders giving entitlements to homosexuals, at least two giving entitlements to those in the country illegally, and zero specifically for Blacks. Obama will go down in history as the first U.S. president to totally ignore his largest voting bloc and be allowed to get away with it.

Obama will also go down in history as one of the most lawless presidents in history (Benghazi, I.R.S., NSA, etc.). He has done more damage to the U.S.’s standing in the world than any other president in history. No one fears Obama.

Russian President Vadimir Putin thumbs his nose at Obama and marches into the Ukraine. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has total disdain, publically and privately, for Obama. Foreign leaders – including the presidents of Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador – are not afraid to chastise Obama while standing on White House grounds when they disagree with his policies.

Obama seems to think our sovereignty should be sublimated to other countries or their people, i.e., illegals in the country telling America they have a right to be in the U.S., feeling entitled to be in the U.S. even though they crossed our borders illegally or overstaying their visas.

Obama thinks he is the president of the world, not just the U.S. This is one possible explanation for why he is so hell-bent on trying to give amnesty to those in the country illegally or unilaterally trying to make homosexuality a universal entitlement. He and the Democrats really believe that we are responsible for the plight of the world, even at the expense of ignoring our own citizens who are in dire need of jobs, food, housing, education, and a crime free environment.

So, indeed Obama’s presidency is historic, but not for all the right reasons.

Why I ‘Heart’ Developers

/in , , , , , /by

To some who live in Sarasota County, Florida the word “developer” is a pejorative. For people like Dan Lobeck and groups like the Sarasota Council of Neighborhood Associations (CONA) having anything to do with a “developer” is like associating with someone infected with Ebola. Developers are pariahs and cause unspeakable damage to communities. These people complain from their company offices and homes in the very city and neighborhoods built by none other than — developers.

The worst crime any candidate or elected official can commit is to, heaven forbid, take a campaign contribution from a, dare I say it, developer.

A developer is defined as a person or thing that develops something. To read a short history of American real-estate development click here. Developers build homes, apartments, neighborhoods, hotels, theme parks, office buildings, grain combines, barns, hospitals, churches, schools, factories, roads, libraries, bridges, highways, railroads and entire cities. No one hates a software developer so why do some people hate those who develop their own land?

It is all about dirt control.

He who controls the dirt, a.k.a. individual property rights, controls the person, neighborhood, city, county, state and nation. Those who believe in central planning, designed to keep an individual or group of individuals (e.g. a company or church congregation) from real-estate development, want to, by proxy, control all of the dirt. These people work hard to put politicians in office who want to control dirt. They are against anyone who wants to control his own dirt and what he or she does with their dirt. I have even talked with some real-estate developers who want to control other real-estate developers dirt – a dirt oxymoron.

Florida is infamous for its draconian neighborhood associations, regional councils, regional planning councils and those politicians who want to control the people by controlling the dirt. From the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to the local city and county commissions, its always all about dirt. Control dirt and you control the person.

Some argue that developers should pay their own way. What these people do not understand is that like any business, all costs pass thorough to the consumer. It is the consumer who bears the burden. Some argue that with increased development comes more traffic, but these same people are for density restrictions, which packs and stacks people into limited areas, thereby causing other negative social anomalies. They have a “not in my back yard” mentality when it comes to new development. They have their dirt but you can’t have yours.

Mark Shousen, writes, “In his classic work, The Spirit of the Laws (1748), Montesquieu expressed the novel view that the business of moneymaking serves as a countervailing bridle against the violent passions of war and abusive political power. ‘Commerce cures destructive prejudices,’ he declared. ‘It polishes and softens barbarous mores . . . . The natural effect of commerce is to lead to peace.’ Commerce improves society: ‘The spirit of commerce brings with it the spirit of frugality, of economy, of moderation, of work, of wisdom, of tranquility, of order, and of regularity.’”

For those who have emailed me while drinking your morning cup of coffee or tea in your home, built by a developer, or from your office, built by a developer, or from a Starbucks, built by a developer, I thank you for reading this column. I hope you will leave a comment or two about my musings.

Charlie Crist: Using the power of the pen for evil — a case study

/in , , , , , , /by

Each Florida Governor swears to enforce the laws of the land. The governors role is as chief administrator and not law maker. In Florida a duly elected Governor takes the following oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect, and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States and of the State of Florida; that I am duly qualified to hold office under the Constitution of the State, and that I will well and faithfully perform the duties of Governor on which I am now about to enter, so help me God.

Both Rick Scott and Charlie Crist have taken this oath. But have they kept true to their oath? That is the question.

When Crist was governor he used the “power of the pen” via Executive Orders to bypass the legislature and impose his “green agenda” upon Floridians. The EPA.gov website has archived examples of former Governor Crist issuing Executive Orders to impose his agenda:

  • In May 2008 the state legislature passed an energy bill that included a prohibition on the state DEP from adopting GHG auto standards without legislative approval. On July 13, 2007, Florida Governor Charlie Crist issued Executive Order 07-126, which requires the Department of Management Services to only approve the purchase of new vehicles with the greatest fuel efficiency in a given class as required for that vehicle to minimize GHG emissions. The Governor also issued Executive Order 07-127 (July 13, 2007), which adopted California’s GHG standards for motor vehicles.
  • On July 13, 2007, Florida Governor Charlie Crist issued Executive Order 07-127, which established statewide GHG emission reduction targets of 2000 levels by 2017, 1990 levels by 2025, and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.
  • Executive Order 07-128, signed by Governor Crist on July 13, 2007, creates a new “Action Team on Energy and Climate Change,” to develop a “comprehensive energy and climate change action plan” that would lay out policy options and suggest strategies for meeting the orders’ goals and provide analysis of whether to implement mandates, voluntary standards, or market-based regulatory mechanisms.

When he signed these EOs gas prices rose and five coal fired energy plants closed causing electric bills to rise.

It appears Crist is up to his old proven tactics of bypassing the legislature in order to implement his personal beliefs upon all Floridians. According Brandon Larrabee and Dara Kam of The News Service of Florida report:

When former Gov. Charlie Crist floated a campaign promise this week to use executive orders on state contractors to boost wages for some workers and to bar discrimination against gay and transgender Floridians, Republican condemnation quickly rolled in.

GOP leaders in the Legislature issued a joint statement comparing the Republican-turned-Democrat Crist unfavorably to President Barack Obama and saying the proposal amounted to a power grab.

“Crist is lifting a dangerous page from President Obama’s playbook, saying he will do an end-run around the people’s elected representatives and single-handedly mandate policies through executive order,” said the statement, signed by the outgoing and incoming House speakers and Senate presidents. ” … Florida needs a governor who will work with the Legislature and not force his personal agenda on Floridians with the stroke of a pen.”

Larrabee and Kam point out that in 2011 Governor Rick Scott also used the power of his pen requiring all of Florida’s agencies and contractors to use the federal e-verify system when hiring. E-verify is a Department of Homeland Security system. According to the DHS website, “U.S. law requires companies to employ only individuals who may legally work in the United States – either U.S. citizens, or foreign citizens who have the necessary authorization. This diverse workforce contributes greatly to the vibrancy and strength of our economy, but that same strength also attracts unauthorized employment.”

Governor Scott used the power of his pen to enforce the laws of the land. Charlie Crist has a history of using the power of the pen to force his ideology upon all Floridians. That is a key difference between Rick Scott and Charlie Crist.

Joe Carr is the Real Deal

/in , , , /by

Mary and I made the trek from Florida to Chattanooga, TN for me to speak/sing at a rally for Joe Carr co-sponsored by “Beat Lamar” and Conservative Campaign Committee. Tennesseans have launched an enthusiastic grassroots effort to help Carr topple incumbent Obama sycophant Sen. Lamar Alexander in the Republican primary August 7th.

I had the pleasure of meeting Joe Carr the popular Tea Party conservative. Carr is down to earth, upbeat and friendly; a farmer. You can tell a lot about a leader by the way he treats those around him. Carr possesses that Ronald Reagan gift of making whomever he is speaking with feel important; giving them his full attention. A 21 year old black member of our CCC team commented about how much he liked and connected with Carr.

This is very important folks. We desperately need spokespersons to confidently present Conservatism in a positive and inspirational way to educate and attract the low-info masses.

My goal at the rally was to fire up Carr’s troops/volunteers. However, the Carr supporters and volunteers “are” fired up. Surprisingly and refreshingly, many of Carr’s volunteers are college aged. It was great to see youths who are thinkers rather than emotion-driven, MSM and liberal professor created walking dead Obama zombies.

I generally do not enter an environment and immediately start counting the numbers of minorities represented the way liberals do. However, with team Obama insidiously using race to polarize Americans along racial lines, I could not help noticing the diverse blend of Joe Carr, Beat Lamar volunteers. Voters of varying races and ages are excited about Joe Carr.

beat lamarJoe Carr truly is a conservative star who gets it. Carr knows what needs to be done and clearly has the conviction and backbone to follow through. Carr talked about the border crisis and vowed to fight the invasion. Tennessee Rep. Carr reminded the audience that his efforts helped Tennessee to enact the toughest illegal immigration laws in the country.

Joe also stated his respect for the sanctity of life. He touched on a variety of topics: lower taxes, less government regulations and restoring constitutional principles.

I got really excited when Carr expressed his eagerness to get to DC to help conservative senators Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and a list of others which he named off the top of his head.

Carr’s speech at the rally was unscripted folks. His bold and confident articulation of Conservatism appeared effortless as it flowed from his heart and soul without notes or a teleprompter.

Patriots, please join our Phone From Home initiative for Joe Carr at: PhoneFromHome@ConservativeCampaign.org

Mary and I are enjoying seeing a lot of the beautiful lush green state of Tennessee. On Monday, August 4th, we are driving to Maryville for me to speak and sing at another Joe Carr rally. Y’all come.

Joe Carr truly is the real deal.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is courtesy of the Tennessee Report.