Something Obama Has Done Right by Craig Covello

This week, a friend of mine who knows me well, and therefore understands my conservative views, challenged me with a question.

"I know you think Obama has done almost everything wrong. What do you think he is done right?"

I stumbled for answer, but eventually offered that Obama has done a relatively good job killing terrorists in the Middle East using the unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV). That's about all I could come up with until I reflect upon something that Michelle Obama said while stumping for her husband during the 2008 presidential campaign:

"Barack Obama is going to require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation. That you move out of your comfort zone. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual. Uninvolved, and uninformed."

Yes, I admit to criticizing this statement in some past OWD articles because it was reflective of the arrogance of this administration in attempting to dictate what Obama is going to require of me. It is a blatant proclamation of what Barack will demand that I do and what he is going to allow and not allow regarding my personal life. But there is an ironic twist. My friend's question made me come to the realization that Obama may actually be saving this country instead of destroying it. No, that's not sarcasm. Allow me to explain.

You see, many of us never really had much interest in politics up until now.

• We allowed Congress and past presidents, including Bush, to run up the national debt on a steady, predictable course.

• We permitted the federal government unrestricted growth and unreasonable domination over so many areas of our lives.

• We stood by and watched administrative agencies such as the EPA exercise almost totalitarian control over so many decisions, which should be left to the discretion of state and local government. The confusion and incompetence associated with attempts to clean up the Gulf oil spill is a sad but accurate example.

• We let George Bush pass the Patriot Act, which allowed the executive branch of government to issue search warrants, virtually eliminating our system of judicial checks and balances regarding rights to privacy.

• We saw Reagan give amnesty to illegal aliens in the hope that it would be a final cure-all, only to find ourselves in a more threatened position today regarding the security of our borders.

• No one paid much attention to Barney Frank's sanctimonious speeches in Congress touting the soundness of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, while promising affordable housing for everyone regardless of their ability to pay a mortgage.

• We let the President of the United States drag us into the Iraq war without a clear strategic vision or exit strategy.

• We permitted Congress to languish on implementing reasonable healthcare legislation designed to contain costs, increase portability and limit the staggering amount of our money going into the pockets of lawyers.

• We let politicians divide us by emphasizing differences in race, religion and economic status instead of uniting us as a nation of proud Americans. Americans who prefer to celebrate our accomplishments instead of denigrating our culture and heritage.

• We allowed the federal government to gradually take away our freedoms in exchange for bribing us with our own tax dollars.

All of this happened because many of us had forgotten the brilliance of our founding fathers and the importance of their gift to this country called the United States Constitution.

But Obama has changed all that. He has exponentially accelerated the progressive's agenda for this country to the point where the shift in ideology is no longer gradual or progressive. It is radical, impatient and demanding. And now it is drawing attention from all of us who are dramatically opposed to Obama's stated purpose of "fundamentally transforming the United States of America".

I remember when I was a teenager sneaking into the house late at night. We had a burglar alarm with a motion sensor covering the family room. I learned that moving very, very slowly would not set off the alarm. That's the trick, which progressives learned almost 100 years ago. And it worked. They have been making incremental steps at a pace so slow that no one has really noticed the damage being done to our economic and social freedom. But now Obama has galvanized a very small percentage of the American population who consider themselves revolutionaries. Their ignorance, impatience and narcissism are on display. In the process, they have sprinted past the motion sensor and are now drawing more attention to themselves than Lady Gaga at a Yankees game. That's a good thing, because the first step in the road to recovery is recognizing the problem.

Thank you, Mr. President. Mission accomplished.

Copyright 2010 by Craig Covello.  All rights reserved.  Used with Permission

Conservatism. Too Many Definitions and November is Fast Approaching by Craig Covello

Loyal Reader and Friends:  I am finally back from a long four month trip to Thailand where I was shooting my feature film entitled, "Elephant White."  The film which stars Kevin Bacon and Djimon Hounsou is currently in post-production and will be complete sometime in December.  Now, that I am home and relaxed, I will get back to writing at least one article per week for this column.  Again, I want to thank Ira Schwartz and Craig Covello for keeping this column going while I was away.

I'm hoping to have an article posted sometime mid-week.  In the meantime, here is one more article by Craig regarding the definition of a Conservative.  I think it is very well thought out and addresses a lot of points to make one think . . . . .

I was having a conversation with a friend of mine last week when, admittedly, I steered towards politics. I should know better. When it comes to politics, I believe we share many conservative viewpoints. He wants to keep his own money, live his own life-style and raise his kids as he see fit without government intervention. Yet when I suggest the obvious, his response is typically something along the lines of "that doesn't make me a conservative!". So it started me thinking, is there a generally accepted standard defining conservatism? After a little research on the Internet, it appears that Wikipedia lists no less than seven definitions:

• Christian conservatism — Conservative Christians are primarily interested in family values.

• Neoconservatism — A modern form of conservatism that supports a more assertive, interventionist foreign policy, aimed at promoting democracy abroad.

• Limited government conservatism — Limited government conservatives look for a decreased role of the federal government. They follow Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in their suspicion of a powerful federal government.

• Paleoconservatism — Arising in the 1980s in reaction to neoconservatism, stresses tradition, especially Christian tradition and the importance to society of the traditional family. Paleoconservatives are generally isolationist, and suspicious of foreign influence.

• Libertarian conservatism or Fusionism— Emphasizes a strict interpretation of the Constitution, particularly with regard to federal power.

• Fiscal conservatives support limited government, limited taxation, and a balanced budget.

• Social conservatism is generally dominated by defense of traditional social norms and values, of local customs and of societal evolution, rather than social upheaval.

Of course, Wikipedia is not the final word on any topic, so I decided to do a little more digging by looking for core conservative principles. Anthony Martin of the Columbia Conservative Examiner offers his top-ten list:

1. 'Government money' does not belong to government. It belongs to the taxpayers who worked hard for it, and who had funds deleted from their paychecks even before they got to see them. 

2. The government that governs best governs LEAST.

3. Government normally does not solve problems. People do. Big government usually IS the problem.

4. Oppressive large governments are responsible for more murders of citizens than all of the wars in history.

5. The private sector is where the juice of society lies. There you will find ingenuity, creativity, and the creation of wealth--provided government gets out of the way.

6. Government social programs reward pathological dependency. True adults, unless hindered by debilitating physical impairment, seek independent living as free persons who are not stuck in an infantile dependency on the government nanny.

7. The one role of government mandated by the U.S. Constitution is to provide for the national defense.

8. Human rights are not granted by government. They are inherent and automatic. We are 'endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.' Government can only choose to recognize and protect those inherent rights.

9. The right to self-defense, as encapsulated in the 2nd Amendment, is the key to all of the other rights described in the Bill of Rights. Free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and a free press are secured and kept secure by an armed citizenry.

10. Our form of government is NOT a 'pure democracy' or 'majority rule.' In a Constitutional Republic such as ours, the will of the majority is tempered and limited by the rights of the minority, which are always intact and unalienable regardless of the 'will of the majority.'

The Patriot Journal takes a somewhat more simplistic approach by listing three core conservative principles:

Faith:

Faith in God is the most important principle. God provides the moral stability that every standard of conduct is based.

Honor:

Your word is paramount in this world. A true Conservative would never let their honor come into question. Personal accountability is never an issue. You do what you promise to do and expect the same from others. You live by example always.

Patriotism:

Americans now are enjoying the fruits of labor of 233 years, and generations of blood, sweat, and tears of American ancestry before them. A lot of respect is due. As a patriot you believe that the country created by the Declaration of Independence and governed by the Constitution is just, and does not need radical change from the vision of the founders.

Political commentator Mark Liven has his own top 10 list of conservative principles:

1. America is guided by morality, having an origin in God.

2. The U.S. Constitution is not a “living and breathing document.”...It is the defining document which enables our rights, and delegates the powers to each branch of the U.S. Government, as well as to the states of the Union.

3. The Free Market fosters creativity and inventiveness.

4. Entitlement programs tend to be intergenerational swindles that threaten the well-being of future generations with massive financial obligation incurred from benefits received by today’s generation.

5. Illegal immigration is against the law, and threatens our security, morality and traditions as a nation.

6. Enviro-statism is a threat to freedom and its citizens.....With the assistance of a pliant or sympathetic media, the Statist uses junk science, misrepresentations, and fear-mongering to promote public health and environmental scares...

7. The Tenth Amendment is not to be ignored; rather, it is that amendment which was to keep the intent of the Declaration of Independence. ....States are more likely to better reflect the interests of their citizens than the federal government.

8. Self Preservation is the reason for public policy. Conservatives understand that the reason for public policy is for the preservation and improvement of American society. It cannot be made in an experimental attempt to rush us into a Utopian society.

9. Conservative activism must be maintained at all times to keep Americans educated....“The conservative must become more engaged in public matters.

10. Americans have the right to keep the fruit of his own labors.... taxes must be reduced to give people and business more disposable incomes. ... the progressive income tax must go. ... All residents must be required to pay the tax so they have a stake in limiting its abuse.

And finally, Mike Huckabee has his own list of 10 principles:

1. Lower taxes are better than higher taxes.

2. The purpose of government is to protect us, not to provide for us. We should provide for ourselves.

3. The best government is self-government.

4. If there must be a form of civil government, it should be as limited as possible and as local as possible. The most local government is ideal in that it is closer to those being governed and therefore more accountable to the governed.

5. Peace for a nation is best achieved by having a superior military capacity than those who pose a threat.

6. Government should facilitate and not complicate the free enterprise system.

7. Excessive taxation, regulation and unmitigated litigation lead to job migration. Government intervention and regulation should be the court of last resort and not the first option in anything.

8. Mothers and fathers raise better children than governments do.

9. Government should undergrid the basic family structure and not undermine it.

10. The Constitution and the Bill of rights were written to limit and restrict government from interfering with the right s of it citizens, not to keep citizens from exercising their rights.

By now, you're probably dizzy with various definitions of conservatism, so I won't bother including The Mount Vernon Statement, the Tea Party's Contract from America, or several other definitions of conservatism found in various websites. You should be aware, however, of a few fringe conservative views posted on the Internet which many mainstream conservatives would challenge:

• The statement that the United States is a European country and Americans are part of the European people.

• Conservative values include the protection of the environment and natural heritage.

• Conservatism supports America's national interest in advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world.

• If you want peace, prepare for war.

• Fundamentalist Muslims and Socialists are enemies of the state and must have no power or public influence on any law or custom in this nation.

• There are times when interference in the affairs of foreign nations are necessary for American security.

Analysis?

There are simply too many different descriptions of conservatism, and a few even seem to contradict each other. But that's not surprising since there appears to be at least seven different types of conservative definitions in this country. Why should we care? Because we are rapidly approaching the 2010 elections, and unless the Republican Party starts to do some heavy lifting in defining what it stands for, the moderates in America will be confused by all this noise. The Tea Party cannot shoulder sole responsibility for carrying the conservative message forward. It must be refined by the Republican Party. Sean Hannity may have the right idea by insisting that Republicans create a contract with America. It should be in simple terms so that it can be easily communicated to most citizens without room for excessive interpretation. Mike Huckabee's list might fit the bill.

Make no mistake. The progressives who currently are in control the federal government will use the radical's well-established technique of saying the exact opposite of reality. This website has chronicled literally hundreds of facts for the sole purpose of helping us remember the past 18 months of progressive rule. My fear, however, is that some moderate Americans will be so worn down by the corruption and deliberate obfuscation of facts by the Obama White House, that they may lose hope for America and avoid the polls altogether. The only way to stop this from happening is to continue to beat the drum of conservative optimism while exposing the progressives agenda for what it is: Total control over virtually every aspect of our lives by use of governmental force. The words of manufacturing czar Ron Bloom come to mind: "We kind of agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of the gun". All Americans need to be reminded of that statement in November.

It also might be appropriate to remind them of the words spoken by President Ronald Reagan -

"The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom......We're still Jefferson's children. Freedom is not created by Government, nor is it a gift from those in political power. It is, in fact, secured, more than anything else, by limitations placed on those in Government."

I could not have said that any better myself. Let's hope the Republican Party crafts a simplified conservative message now so that it will be understood in November.

Interpol by Craig Covello

INTERPOL. Are you familiar with the name? We don't hear much in the news about INTEROL, aka the International Criminal Police Organization.. Sure, the name keeps some limited visibility in the movies, particularly when the story line involves diamond thieves, drugs or espionage. But other than that, INTERPOL does not get much attention, which is probably by design. In keeping with it's low profile, Obama quietly issued an executive order on December 16th giving this international police force complete secrecy regarding its files, including INTERPOL files kept on American citizens. Sound ominous? Perhaps. Read on.

Back in 1983, President Ronald Reagan did not agree with certain privacy protections found in the International Organizations Immunities Act. Specifically, he objected to sections 2(c), 3, 4, 5, and 6 which gave INTERPOL immunity from legal search and seizure laws as well as freedom from duty and taxation which would normally apply to foreign agents working within our boundaries.

Now Obama has reinstated these provisions, thereby giving INTERPOL more power and bulletproof (no pun intended) secrecy.

While I am not a lawyer, it nevertheless seems reasonable to assume that by removing language from President Reagan's 1983 executive order, INTERPOL is now allowed to operate on American soil beyond the reach of our own top law enforcement arm, the FBI. INTERPOL is also now immune from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. This means that an INTERPOL branch in the US cannot be searched; its files are not subject to legal subpoena, nor discovery. By OBAMA’s signature, our government has conferred diplomatic immunity upon INTERPOL. In their own words, "The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable."

Do we care? Well, here are some considerations:

1. If any politician, government employee or department of the federal government wants to keep documents out of the hands of the court system, it is conceivable that they can simply hand them over to INTERPOL under the guise of an international criminal investigation. INTERPOL is now outside the jurisdiction of the federal courts, including the Supreme Court.

2. INTERPOL will now be able to collect and maintain secret files on US citizens on US soil.

3. It sets a legal precedent regarding nullification of U.S. sovereignty. Will this privilege of immunity be extended to other foreign organizations who may wish to set up shop in America?

There is also the question of "why"? What could possibly be Obama's motivation for changing the 1983 executive order and giving additional power to INTERPOL's U.S, operations? Perhaps it is in keeping with Obama's vision to make America subservient to other world powers, including the UN. Perhaps it is aligned with the recent climate control treaty in Copenhagen in which the concept of a world government is referenced. One thing is for sure; this action certainly reflects the style of this administration. Obama did not have to pass it by Congress, thereby avoiding that pesky system of government checks and balances.

The language in the International Organizations Immunities Act is somewhat tedious, but for those who want to wade through the legalese, here is the Reagan amendment followed by the Obama amendment. I have also included the language and my interpretation of the sections being reinstated. Please post your comments if I have any of this wrong, since there is no legal degree hanging in my office.

Reagan Amendment in 1983:

Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983

International Criminal Police Organizations

By virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and statutes of the United States, including Section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669, 22 U.S.C. 288), it is hereby ordered that the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), in which the United States participates pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 263a, is hereby designated as a public international organization entitled to enjoy the privileges, exemptions and immunities conferred by the International Organizations Immunities Act; except those provided by Section 2(c), the portions of Section 2(d) and Section 3 relating to customs duties and federal internal-revenue importation taxes, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act. This designation is not intended to abridge in any respect the privileges, exemptions or immunities which such organization may have acquired or may acquire by international agreement or by Congressional action.

Ronald Reagan

The White House,

June 16, 1983.

Obama’s Amendment in 2009:

Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983

International Criminal Police Organizations

AMENDING EXECUTIVE ORDER 12425 DESIGNATING INTERPOL

AS A PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION ENTITLED TO

ENJOY CERTAIN PRIVILEGES, EXEMPTIONS, AND IMMUNITIES

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words "except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act" and the semicolon that immediately precedes them.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,

December 16, 2009.

Text of Section 2(c), which has been reinstated:

“Property and assets of international organizations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation. The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable.”

Section 2(d), which has been reinstated:

Insofar as concerns customs duties and internal-revenue taxes imposed upon or by reason of importation, and the procedures in connection therewith; the registration of foreign agents; and the treatment of official communications, the privileges, exemptions, and immunities to which the international organization shall be entitled shall be those accorded under similar circumstances to foreign governments”.

Other sections that have been reinstated:

Section 3, which says that assets of alien INTERPOL agents are not subject to import duty taxes.

Section 4 which says that income of alien INTERPOL agents is not subject to federal taxation.

Section 5 which says that income of alien INTERPOL agents is not subject to Social Security withholding.

Section 6 which says that the assets of alien INTERPOL agents are not subject to property taxes.

Read it for yourself.

www.ipu.org/finance-e/PL79-291.pdf

© 2009 by Craig Covello.  Used by Permission.  All Right Reserved

Why is Charley Blaine Wrong about Unemployment?

A few weeks ago, I sent out a short e-mail to all of my readers saying, 10.2% unemployment, need I say more?” In response, one of my readers sent me an article by Charley Blaine explaining why this is not the end of the world. You can find the article at: http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Dispatch/market-dispatches.aspx?post=1356156.

The article clearly states 10% unemployment is no big deal because unemployment usually lags the economy. By the time that number is reached, the economy has already picked up or is picking up. He uses historical numbers from the 1982 recession as his guideline. However, he is missing one big point.

His article, in its key sentence states: “Then the economy began to surge in early 1983, fueled by tax cuts and, more importantly, substantial interest-rate cuts by the Federal Reserve.”

Unfortunately, this is not the case in 2009. The Federal Reserve cannot lower interest rates anymore. We are already at a target rate of approximately 0.25%. In fact, the actual rates may be closer to 0.0%. And, there are no Reagan era tax cuts right now. Most of what Congress is doing at the present time would be considered tax increases.

Hence it is my belief the 10% unemployment number will be far exceeded in the next two quarters or so before it finally starts to come down. I believe we might see 12-13% unemployment before this recession is over.

As stated above, the Reagan era policies are not being followed. In fact, they are being scoffed at. We are increasing taxes across the board. Many of our President’s followers will deny this, but even if they just let the Bush tax cuts expire, which is all but a done deal, there will be tax increases. Further, if this disastrous health care package passes, there will be tax increases even for the lower-middle class.

Secondly, the Fed’s policy is not to lower interest rates right now; it can’t, but instead to print money with nothing backing it up. We are building up mountains of debt. This President and the Democratic Congress has done nothing but spend money over the last 11 months. And, the President has done nothing to lower the deficit. He is even saying that the current rate of spending may create a prolonged recession. Accordingly, what we should have is mounting inflation, almost to the point of hyper inflation. But, that is not happening. In fact, we are teetering on deflation which is even worse than rampant inflation.

Based upon all of this, I do not believe that Charley Blaine is correct in his analysis. What I do believe is that we will see a double dip recession similarly to the Great Depression with the second phase being worse. The only thing that will get us out of this mess is decreased spending and lower taxes. Maybe then, the deficit will start to go away. After all, jobs must be created in the private sector and tax breaks tend to have the effect regardless of whatever the lefties dictate.

© 2009 by Frank T. DeMartini. Permission to copy will be freely granted upon request.

Health Reform and The Tenth Amendment

To begin with, I would like to thank Ira Schwartz for his contribution to the blog this week. The article was very informative and directly to the point on HR 3200 which in my opinion, is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever to be considered by Congress. It, not only, would lead us down the path of socialism, but, in the process, would bankrupt the entire country. Mr. Schwartz gave a very succinct and direct critique of the bill. However, I would just like to state, that if you read the bill, you will find many more problems. The issue of space just did not allow Mr. Schwartz to write more.

I am very happy to see that citizens are showing up at Town Hall meetings throughout the country and voicing their complaints about that bill and health care reform in general. It is actually quite funny watching Congressmen squirm when the tough questions are asked. And, it is even more interesting when they cannot respond to the tough questions because they have not read the bill or are even familiar with its contents.

I suggest you continue going to the Town Hall meetings and voice your concerns. And, do not be afraid to get angry. The Democrat and Republican Congressmen must know they will not be reelected if HR 3200 passes as it is currently written. But, please, do not get violent. Violence at these meetings will do nothing except make the opposition look weak and dumb, and hurt the path of Democracy. Violence at these meetings is similar to me being called a racist this week because I stated on a public forum that HR 3200 should not pay for medical services for illegal immigrants. Remember, the protest ways of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King.

The attendance at the Town Halls is working! Within the past twenty-four hours, a few Senate and House Members, including one Democrat, stated they will not pass a bill with the current language regarding even the possibility of the so called death panels. Keep up the good work America! The people are winning!

The power of the people brings to mind the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which is very short, but is also one of the most controversial sections of the document. There are many people who believe that it is the primary cause of the Civil War: i.e. did the states, not the Federal Government have the right to determine whether to be slave or free? Ronald Reagan believed in the amendment more than anything else, as did Thomas Jefferson. It simply states in its entirety: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

There are many people that feel that the Constitution was already clear on this issue and that the Tenth Amendment is actually, a redundancy. However, the Supreme Court has, within the last 25 years, actually used the Tenth Amendment as a rationale in deciding a few cases. See, e.g. New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), and Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985). Prior to these cases, the rationale used exclusively by the Supreme Court for limiting States’ rights was the Commerce Clause of the Constitution which is very simple on its face. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution states: “[The Congress shall have power] to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” This simple phrase as interpreted by the Supreme Court has given Congress the authority to slowly strip away powers granted to the States specifically in the Constitution and through the Tenth Amendment. In its most simplistic form, the Supreme Court has determined that everything legislated by Congress has some effect on Interstate Commerce and therefore, is within the power of the Federal Government. Maybe, the Supreme Court is now changing its analysis?

So, will power come back to the States or the people in the future? If Ron Paul had been elected President, the answer would have definitely been yes. In fact, we would be looking at the end of the Federal Reserve too which is probably a good thing. But, unfortunately the answer is currently “no”. President Obama, through his executive powers and the use of Congress, is turning the Federal Government into the ultimate power. Health Care is just one example.

Any normal interpretation of the Tenth Amendment would imply that health care and its regulation should be a power reserved to the states and/or the people. This is also the case with marriage and other personal issues. However, by the power of the Commerce Clause, the Federal Government will be able to regulate it unless the Supreme Court radically changes precedent.

I wonder why no one is bringing up the Tenth Amendment at these town hall meetings. Maybe, people should start arguing it while they are mentioning the other problems with HR 3200. Give the power back to the people in deciding personal issues, including, but not limited to health care.

A few closing thoughts. In the last week, my favorite target, Nancy Pelosi, put her foot in her mouth again. How dare she say that citizens protesting HR 3200 are Un-American. If anything, she is being Un-American for making that statement. Remember, Freedom of Speech and Assembly is a right in this country. I suggest her arrogance, Ms. Pelosi, read the Constitution before she opens her mouth in the future. We already know she is not going to read HR 3200 even though she allegedly drafted it. The least she can do is read the Constitution. In fact, it should be a requirement that all Congressmen have a copy of that little document in their pocket 24 hours a day. It is good reference material, especially when they are thinking of violating it.

Lastly, I would like to state that one of the main proponents of the HR 3200 is Joe Sestak from Pennsylvania. For all of my readers in his district and surrounding districts in Pennsylvania, let him know his job is on the line. This man is thinking of running against Arlen Spector and has delusions of even greater power. I have seen him speak. He is a true liberal and must be stopped in the same way Nancy Pelosi and her other cronies must be stopped by voting them out of office.

On the economy, do not let the President’s propaganda machine fool you, but this recession is definitely not over. In fact, it appears that we are in the first deflationary spiral in this country since the Great Depression. Based upon the CPI announcement this morning, consumer prices have fallen 2.1% over the past twelve months. The last time that happened was 1950. And, it has not happened this extensively since the Great Depression. And, I do not know if it has ever happened at a time when the government is printing so much paper money. If we were not printing paper money, how low would prices have fallen; ten percent, twenty percent or more?

Last week, I failed to mention that the Jekyll Island book about the Federal Reserve which I recommended was referred to me by my good friend Robert Spaeth. It is also recommended reading by Ron Paul. Again, check it out.

In closing, I would like to repeat. Keep up the good work at the Town Hall meetings. Let us destroy HR 3200 and hopefully, the Senate will be able to write a true bipartisan health care reform bill. It is the only chance we have as the Senate might try to stop the Democratic onslaught in the House.

©2009 by Frank T. DeMartini. Permission to copy will be freely given upon request.

What is a Republican Today?

This week turned out to be very interesting. Because of its events, I now have a whole new view on what has become of the Republican Party and who are actual Republicans. Unfortunately, it appears that the Reagan Republicans and the highly educated Yuppies from the 80’s are long gone. The party is beginning to look like it consists of what used to be Democrats in the 50’s and 60’s. It seems that our base has completely changed.

On Monday night, totally by accident, I attended an ACLU event that honored, among others, Magic Johnson. The title of the evening was something to the effect that this organization protects the Bill of Rights. I had to really hold my tongue on that one. In fact the pamphlet given to all attendees stated Freedoms of the Press, Religion, etc., as the cornerstone of the ACLU.

Nowhere on this pamphlet was there any mention whatsoever of the Right to Bare Arms. Being a lawyer, I am pretty sure this would also be considered part of the Bill of Rights. You and I both know that there is not one left wing Democratic or ACLU cardholder that would ever defend that position.

It also struck me as odd that this is the organization that supposedly protects Freedom of Religion. Again, you and I know that this organization only protects such when it benefits the Democratic way of thinking. The ACLU would never defend a Christmas display on public grounds. In fact, it would sue to eliminate such displays. We already know that the ACLU is totally against the Ten Commandments. They have tried to stop them being displayed in a number of places. This is not Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Religion. It is an outright attack on those freedoms.

If the ACLU truly believed what it allegedly stands for, the Bill of Rights would be protected completely. There would be no exceptions. Free Speech would be just that. The Supreme Court has basically stated that there are limited exceptions to Free Speech. Among these are obscenity and inciteful speech. These exceptions are logical. There should be no others.

However, this whole discussion is the subject of another column completely. Let’s get back to the point. As I was sitting at this ACLU propaganda filled banquet, I began to peruse the room. It was filled with Corporate Leaders, Attorneys, and other high net worth individuals. A large portion was entertainment industry as one of the honorees was the head of Universal Pictures. This group, on the whole, was the elite of Southern California society.

On Tuesday, I attended another mostly entertainment industry event. This event was sponsored by an underground group of Republicans who make their living in the entertainment industry. Most of these people are afraid to even tell anyone that they are Republican. In fact, they hold occasional meetings in which the tone is that of an AA meeting. They sit at a round table and complain about how they have been treated as being a Republican in the entertainment industry. Sounds to me like the entertainment industry is suppressing a person’s right to free speech just like the hypocrites at the ACLU.

As I sat there and talked with a number of the group, which I might add was a much smaller group, than the Liberal ACLU crowd, I noticed a stark difference between the groups. Here, among my brethren, were mostly blue collar workers. This was the union cardholding, working class of the entertainment industry. It was grips, electricians, stunt men and actors. Where were the producers and moguls? Where was the group that I would expect to be Republicans?

In fact, I was actually told, when introduced to a working stuntman, “What are you doing here?” His meaning was clear. The amount of management, producers, executives, and creative intellectuals that are Republican is really low. The majority of this group was the working class Joe!

My mind really began to spin at this point. Have the tables turned that much? Are the Republicans of old, the Democrats of the present? I was seriously beginning to think that is the case.

I then began to think about this year’s election and the campaign and my hypothesis became clearer. During the campaign, who was Sarah Palin playing to? She was playing to the base of the party: Joe the plumber and Joe six-pack. In fact, most of her support was blue collar labor, exactly what used to be a Democrat.

When you look at where our party runs strongest, it is obvious that there is a fundamental change going on here. We win the south, Midwest and what are substantially rural, working class areas. Where do the Democrats run strongest? In areas that contain intellectualism and big business.

What have we done and why has our base completely changed to this portion of the populace? And, more importantly, how can we get the Reagan Democrats and intellectuals back?

For my whole life I always believed that Republicans believe in small government, strong national security, supply-side economics and traditional family values. I still believe this is the core of our party. This is what will win elections. In the last eight years, has the Big Government Bush White House caused a loss of faith in our electorate? Have the Keynesian ideologues changed things that much? Has the country swung to the left? Or, have we just lost our way?

Isn’t it funny that one of Mr. Bush’s last accomplishments in office will be to pander to the United Auto Workers and make sure that the Big 3 gets their bailout? His administration seems to be bent on giving them the money even though a large group of traditional Republicans are against it. Is big spending what he wants to be remembered for? Or, would he rather be remembered for his foreign policy accomplishments?

I do not have answers to the questions posed at this time. I can only state that the questions exist and must be answered by the next generation of the GOP. We must go back to our roots and our beliefs. We will get the intellectuals back, but it will take time. Until then, we will have to live with the left wing, big government Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, Reid, Frank and Bush. Oh, did I say Bush?

On another subject completely, I must make a small comment here about the scandal in Illinois. Politics as usual in Illinois must stop now. The Governor must step down, admit his wrongdoing and spend a substantial amount of time in prison. A Special Prosecutor must be appointed to investigate this scandal at all levels. And, if these investigations lead to the incoming federal administration, they must be dealt with accordingly.

We cannot allow politics as usual to continue in Illinois. It is really time for this machine that goes back 50 or so years to change! Oh, isn’t that a great word, “Change!”