Small Government is the Only Way

For far too long the federal government has been taking over more and more power and more and more freedom from the people of the United States.   This has happened under Republican and Democrat administrations – neither are immune from criticism.  I have taken time to illustrate many of the actions taking place which are eroding our freedom and I have attempted to explain why it is in our interest to reduce and then enforce the limits put on the federal government by instruments like the Constitution and the judicial system which is supposed to clarify the limit of the federal government.

From many troubling elements of the Patriot Act (most every congressman voted for this without reservation), the Campaign Finance Reform Act (sponsored by John McCain), to most everything President Obama’s administration has done show that were are heading down the road to federal totalitarianism quicker and quicker.    I am not completely against the Patriot Act, and I can even see the need to have passed it in its whole after 11 September and the realization that we were not well equiped to deal with the modern threats to our security, but that time as passed, for a while, it has been an appropriate time to look over all the parts of this legislation – line by line – and get rid of the more questionable and downright unconstitutional elements of the bill.   For instance, the fact that, if I see my neighbor’s house being searched by the feds, the feds can order me to NOT speak about it to anyone or else I myself may face federal charges.   Considering that I am a conservative / libertarian blogger, you can imagine how well that sits with me.

The McCain Feingold Act (Campaign Finance Reform), puts restrictions on both when I can speak and how I can speak regarding a candidate, as well as limiting the amount of money I can give to a candidate directly.   This last part may seem good on the surface, but what needs to be remembered is that the entrenched politicians who cater to the needs of their parties can get soft money from those parties as well as the fact that the parties can run ads and smears against the opponents just fine.   but if I were to run as either an ‘off the reservation’ Republican, or as an Independent, I would not get that money from the party organ, and with the limit people can give me how would I ever be able to compete against the parties in power?  I can not.  I can not get my word out enough, because I can not get money in the same amount as the parties of the status quo.  All this passed with a name as friendly as ‘finance reform’ since so many people thought it was a bad thing to see so much money in politics.   Did it work?  Not at all.  There is more money in politics today than yesterday, and tomorrow will have even more.   The powers-that-be know how to manipulate the system — they wrote the law, but you and I can get hammered if we fall out of line.

President Obama’s administration has taken control of the 19 largest banks, has pushed for the removal of a CEO of a large auto maker, and constantly is having his people push an agenda of growing control — all in the name of us, the people, or more disturbingly, the environment.   This is an incredibly large power grab mixing private business, publically traded corporations, and the government into the same pool where to object is to be moved off the scene.   The same Congress who rallies around these ideas is also the one who gives more money to supporters via pork barrel ear marks, yet complains and fakes outrage when AIG, who was forced to take money, pays some of the better executives it has bonuses that are of a smaller whole value as well as percentage than the pork barrel corruption in congress (versus the bailout money vis a vis budget).  AIG bonuses: Less than 1% of all bailout money given to them, Congress: Pork barrel spending between 1% and 2%.   Millions vs. hundreds of billions.

Complicit in this abuse of power is the media who seem more interested in smearing AIG and the Tea Parties than in asking tough questions and bringing concerns about Congress’ spending and politial theater.  There is a media mentality that truly thinks that it can not be the average citizen who is upset with the government, it must just be those people on DHS’ list of potential threats.    This thought is why they treated the Tea Parties the way they did.

We need less decisions being made in Washington and we need less of our money going to support their spending.   Congress’ addiction to spending our money for what benefits them as well as Congress habit of ignoring their Constitutional limitation shows that the danger is not from extremists on the right or even from the left — the danger lies in the hands and pens of the law makers at the federal level.   We need to remind these politicians who is in charge and who is the servant.

A Different Look at Somalia

Browsing through the numerous articles about Somalia I found this one, “United Nations’ report released this week says nuclear and hazardous wastes dumped on Somalia’s shores had been scattered by the recent Asian tsunami and are now infecting Somalis in coastal areas. A spokesman for the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), Nick Nuttall, told VOA that for the past 15 years or so, European companies and others have used Somalia as a dumping ground for a wide array of nuclear and hazardous wastes. “There’s uranium radioactive waste, there’s leads, there’s heavy metals like cadmium and mercury, there’s industrial wastes, and there’s hospital wastes, chemical wastes, you name it,” he said.  “It’s not rocket science to know why they’re doing it because of the instability there.” Mr. Nuttall said, on average, it cost European companies $2.50 per ton to dump the wastes on Somalia’s beaches rather than $250 a ton to dispose of the wastes in Europe.  He said the Asian tsunami dislodged and smashed open the drums, barrels, and other containers, spreading the contaminants as far away as 10 or more kilometers inland.

Mr. Nuttall said it is impossible to know the exact tonnage or number of containers of wastes on Somalia’s shores, but that the problem, in his words, “is very serious.”The results of the contamination on coastal populations, Mr. Nuttall says, have been disastrous.”These problems range from acute respiratory infections to dry, heavy coughing, mouth bleedings, abdominal hemorrhages, what they described as unusual skin chemical reactions,” he noted.

While I am not siding with pirates in this matter, I find myself wondering how much effort Europe, and the world in general is actually putting into getting a better outcome for failed states like Somalia.  The United Nationd publishes a report like this, but no actions seem to have been taken to stop the dumping.  If this were off the coast of Jersey (either Jersey or New Jersey) I’d wonder how long before both private and government action would have been taken to stop such dumping.

This does get to the heart of the matter again:  The United Nations, nor in fact, any foreign nation should be considered your friend.  Countries are respected because of they demand respect or they can buy respect, but respect is not given simply because you represent another land.  It was good of the UN to mention this, it is negligent of them to do nothing about it.

As famously stated before, a nation does not have friends it has interests, and with the state of disarray in which Somalia suffers, it is good to know the international community is doing so much to help them.   Of course, we’d do well to remember how much the United Nations did in 1993 for them while Aidid was holding international food relief from the populace until they agreed to support him.  Starve or join his ranks.   The response?   Well, the United States suffered “Black Hawk Down” and President Clinton ran from the scene looking every bit like the paper tiger Osama bin Laden thought us to be.   After the US left, no one was willing to help and by 1995 the country had lost UN support.   When the chances for photo opportunities went away, so did the UN workers.

This is why it is of the utmost importance for every nation to have a government which can react against foreign elements and support itself if provoked.   Without such a government responsible to the people situations like Somalia arise:  No government, no infrastructure, no way to stop illegal dumping in its waters.  This is why I am in favor of nationalism.   Not some sort of ‘rally at a stadium’ for the fearless leader kind of thing Hitler and President Obama do, but the kind of effort that understands that the nation in which you live is the only nation who might help keep your borders and waters secure.   Asking for, begging for, nor waiting for international action makes sense.

President Obama’s Method of International Relations

Giving DVDs usable in North America to the PM of Britain, Obama’s State Department’s inability to translate a ‘Reset Button’, as well as stating that The United Kingdom is just another nation… nothing special there are all signs of his ineptitude and all within the first hundred days.

While pushing away from, and then trying to get back in favor with, Britain Obama has been busy giving town hall speeches to Turks declaring that the United States does not consider itself a Christian or Jewish nation.   Strangely, the US does not have to define itself, nor let any individual define the US either.   When the vast majority of a country is of one form of faith then it is structured as such. The President should realize, unless he is too to understand that values always get translated into laws, ethics, and morality, then we are completely influenced by the largest single moral guide:  The Christian Bible.  Why? Because the majority of the people in the US is Christian.   Why has Iraq colored its laws in an Islamic frame?   Because the vast majority are Muslim.   This is not an insult or some sort of indictment; this is just a simple reality.  Why would someone need to backtrack and act like this is not the case unless that person is not happy with the current standing.   After 20 years of having Minister Wright as a moral lighthouse, perhaps I’d be turned from Christianity as well.

Obama also wants to get in bed with Cuba, cater to Venezuela, and make threats to North Korea with no plans of following through what so ever.   His cowardice and willingness to reverse so many US positions is giving more power to those who despise us.  This charity for our adversaries does go into the idea of spreading the wealth, but int his case it the wealth of international power and that is at the detriment of the United States.   His foolishness weakens the US, his stupidity makes it impossible for him to realize it, and his naivety makes him willing to give more away.

How much longer will Americans tolerate this?

Biden: Either Out of Touch or Out of Clues

Vice President Biden stated, “I would say to the protesters that unless we talk, unless we attempt to deal with this changed circumstance we find ourselves in, there is no solution. Things will only get worse.” This comment was in relation to the several thousand protesters who will be camped outside of the G20 meetings in London.   I do not find myself sympathizing much with these protestors because they have not been able to convey any message of meaning.  As reported, “The Put People First march was organised by a “rainbow alliance” of 150 trade unions, church groups and charities including ActionAid, Save the Children and Friends of the Earth. The theme was “jobs, justice and climate” and the message was aimed at the world leaders who will be gathering for the G20 summit here next week.”

Of course, anyone should be able to figure out that this not a ‘theme’, but three themes all jumbled together in a way to weakly link a lack of jobs, a lack of justice, and a changing climate to the ‘big bad rich nations’ and their ‘corporate goons’.  These people don’t like the way things are going, they haven’t like the way things have been going for quite some time and are interested in a completely different way… at least those not paid to be in attendence in order to boost numbers.

Vice President Biden should realize that their opinion will not change no matter what the results or decisions made in this conference; they do not like the fact that there even is a conference.  VP Biden comes off sounding weak and as if he is whining about there being a group of people who despise him and in fact, the idea of personal freedom.   Strangely, it is the unions and the environmentalists which his party woos during every election, and yet here his is offering up the weakest effort to explain what is going on to them.

We need to all remember the lack of effort and the false assumptions VP Biden works under: He assumes these people who are currently against him want the same ‘end game’ he does, he also assumes that talking it over will get them all neatly on the same page if they only would listen to good ole Joe.

Joe’d do well to listen, The Put People First march was organised by a “rainbow alliance” of 150 trade unions, church groups and charities including He said the march would have to mark the start of a more concerted movement to properly regulate financial institutions and invest in climate change solutions. “This is just the beginning of the prelude of the prologue. The forces of greed are very tenacious and just because we march up and down it won’t make a difference on its own.”

The protesters know this alone will do nothing to make the G20 people change, yet Biden thinks that if they only read the plans and proposals they’ll ‘see the light’.   This is very problematic and something that can be seen in the rhetoric not just with the Vice President, but also with the President: There is an idea, a false mind-set that assumes that talking and negotiation will make people see things your way, whether it is related to G20 protesters or talks with Iran, Venezuela, or even North Korea.  I do not think the modern Democratic Party understands that there are people out there who will never like or agree with the way we do things, and they will stop at nothing to first stop the spread of these ideas and then reverse the trend all the way up to and including destroying the United States.  These people do not want to hear your pathetic cries for diplomacy, unless it gives them more time to plan their own actions.

Not just Joe Biden, but the controlling body of the Democratic Party have lost contact with the realities of foreign policy and now send YouTube messages to foreign leaders or beg for protesters to give them a chance in a set of negotiations where the protesters will hate the outcome no matter what.

How much longer will ‘We the People’  permit these types to be elected and let them dictate the policy of this nation?

The Audacity of the International Elite

A perfect example of why local control is to be preferred over control that is further removed from our immediate control would be when United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon declared, in Congress,  that we the people of the United States of America are ‘deadbeats’ when it comes to paying the 22% of the operating costs we agree to do because we are not as prompt as he’d like.

As expected from any sovereign nation, our Congressmen stood up to such language and expressed their shock at such presumptive elitism coming from a non-elected figurehead of an increasingly irrelevant international social club.  Unfortunately this was not the case, and as may be expected those more likely to side with the non-elected figurehead were Democrats.

A Republican did speak up, “He used the word ‘deadbeat’ when it came to characterizing the United States. I take great umbrage (over) that,” Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the panel’s senior Republican, said after an hour-long, closed-door meeting. “We certainly contribute a whole lot of U.S. taxpayer dollars to that organization. We do not deserve such a phrase.”

Democrats responded with, Ban generally got a “very respectful” reception from the House committee, said Rep. Bill Delahunt, D-Mass., who chairs a subcommittee that oversees U.S. participation in the United Nations. “Clearly they have an interest in the United States meeting its responsibility. In terms of peacekeeping, we’re about $670 million behind, and I think the argument is well-stated,” Delahunt said.

Delahunt, a well established Democrat has a history of voting against anything in defense of the country — especially if backed by Republicans such as when he voted against HR2462 which was for continued funding our own troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, he voted no to go into Iraq (H J Res 114), he voted no on the Global War on Terror Bill (H Res 861 – not to be confused with the PATRIOT Act) and he voted no on the National Defense Authorization Ace FY2003 which was the first non-emergency funding after the September 11th attacks, including $7.3 billion for counter-terrorism programs, including $200 million for nuclear materials and weapons protection, $15.7 billion for the Defense Department, $5.8 billion for the Homeland Security Department, $7.8 billion for Ballistic Missile Defense programs, $56.7 billion for military research and development, eliminates a law that cuts the amount of retirement pay veterans receive if they receive disability compensation, and authorizes a 4.1 percent pay increase for military personnel; up to 6.5 percent for mid-level personnel.  What should then strike the reader as out of character is when [h]e noted America backs U.N. peacekeeping operations — and said it loses credibility if it doesn’t provide financial support. “And at the same time, we have to recognize that there are no American troops involved in the 17 different venues where there are peacekeeping operations.” It would appear he would not mind US soldiers dying for fights the UN deems worthwhile, but not when people in his own nation feel going to war is right.  He’ll side with unelected figure-heads over his own President…  especially if he is not a member of the correct party.

No one was reported to be taken aback at the idea that we ware deadbeats enough to bring up the fact that we’re already deficit spending like we just don’t care and that perhaps now would be a good time to cut back or eliminate dues to social clubs.  If it hard enough to think that people in Washington have your best interests in mind, even after being elected, what do you think some non-elected international big wig thinks about your opinion?   Why does anyone continue to support the United Nations as a whole unless they do not mind lack of control or accountability?