ADOPTING ISOLATIONISM AS AMERICAN POLICY... It's Looking Better Every Day!

The upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference is to be held in Copenhagen, Denmark, December 7-18, 2009. There have been concerns raised, on my blog as well as elsewhere, that Obama would attend and sign a "Climate Change Treaty" which is purported to hold dire consequences for our nation, including the acceptance of a "Climate Debt", primarily levied upon developed (read: western) nations (all of Europe, Canada, USA, Japan and probably Australia). The disturbing text of the UN draft treaty reads, in part:

"8. Deep cuts [by developed countries] [by all Annex I country Parties] [by all developed countries] in global emissions by Parties in accordance with their historical responsibilities, as well as the principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities, and realistic changes in emission patterns [will be] [are urgently] required to prevent dangerous interference with the climate system and achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention. Early and urgent action by all countries on the basis of equity and according to their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities is necessary. [A] [Further] delay by Parties [in implementing their commitments to reduce] [reducing] emissions will increase their climate debt to the developing countries and significantly constrain opportunities to achieve lower stabilization levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and increase the risk of more severe climate change impacts. Avoidance of damage to SIDS and LDCs as a primary benchmark for assessing the adequacy of long-term cooperative action.
9. The shared vision for long-term cooperative action recognizes the strong link between adaptation and mitigation as well as the cross-cutting role played by financing, technology transfer and capacitybuilding. Failure to implement ambitious and immediate mitigation actions by developed countries will increase the need for adaptation in developing countries and therefore for financial support. At the same time, increased financial support and technology transfer to developing countries will help these countries in their implementation of NAMAs, reducing the risk of crossing tipping points that could result in abrupt climate change."

Disregarding the several contextually unrecognized acronyms, and the legalistic wording, the bottom line appears to be that somebody in the UN seems to think that the successful nations of the world should be billed for their successes. That somehow. that success was made possible by the sacrifices of the "3rd world countries", rather than those who - through their own efforts, expense, and ingenuity - created success from ecological chaos. Therefore, the developed nations owe a debt to those who were too lazy to get up and answer the door when opportunity knocked.

EXCUSE ME??

Who put the UN in charge of global debt collection? If they want to start, let them begin by collecting the war debts owed to the United States by most of the developed world! At last count, only Finland and Great Britain had repaid their WWII debt to the USA. The remainder was primarily ignored or even forgiven for political reasons.

The "mainstream media" - almost to a man - publishes articles expressing serious doubts that Obama will attend the Copenhagen Climate Conference. Keep in mind however, that the mainstream media has been in Obama's pocket since he announced his candidacy for the office of President. Another effect of the aforementioned treaty would be to place the United States under a "World Government", International law, and the auspices of the World Court, which would - in any practical sense - be handing over our sovereignty to some third party!

For a change, I actually hope the mainstream left-wing media is correct in their assumptions. Obama may be spineless and incompetent, but he cannot possibly be stupid enough to expect that signing us over to a "World Government" would go unanswered by Americans.

OBAMA ADMINISTRATION FOMENTING REVOLUTION?

Intentionally or unintentionally it appears that the current administration is doing everything it can to incite the American people toward revolution. Is it possible that Obama is unaware that his policies, appointments and decisions thus far have made mainstream America very nervous... or is it that he just doesn't care? Since his apotheosis, Obama must be absolutely certain that he is smarter than his worshipers - which really does "track" if you think about it. After all, how smart could those who have deified Obama be?

His concern now is focused upon those of us who would neither wear the rose-colored glasses, nor adopt the necessary Pollyanna-ish attitude of "everything will be wonderful when Barack and his band of socialist/Marxist/communist/totalitarian appointees take over our government". It's probably not a great, devouring, sleep-loss type of concern, for surely he sees us as intellectually inferior, pitiful beings who just missed the opportunity to support him. I'm sure he can't ignore the fact he didn't get our votes simply because we could see through the smokescreen and ignore the mirrors... and now he must silence us.

Do we all understand that the purpose and function of government? It's "raison d'etre" is control? This is true of all governments, regardless of the type of governance...

Dictatorship - generally considered a Draconian-type of rule, a dictator usually assumes office through acts of violence, and retains that office through the same methods. The dictator lacks those bothersome restrictions provided by a constitution, and there are no laws providing for recognition of opposing points of view. A tyrant, a despot, one whose "my way or the highway" leadership style is enforced by armed thugs and an unarmed general population. Total control.

Monarchy - this one begins with the words "once upon a time", because once upon a time the "rule" of ruling was that most governments were monarchies of some sort... and the monarch initially gained control by force of arms, and was then self-designated as Emperor, King, Queen, Shah, etc.. Hereditary rule is often the defining characteristic of a monarchy. Once totalitarian in nature, many monarchies have become "constitutional monarchies", providing their subjects with the comforts of constitutional protections.

Communism - a communist state exhibits a form of government characterized by single party rule, and are generally based on either Marxist or Leninist philosophies. Additional parties may be allowed, but the communist party is always given dominance in government. In many respects the communistic form of government is not that distant from a dictatorship, and often enforces its internal will by force of arms. Total control through force of arms when deemed necessary.

Democracy - there are two types of democracy: pure and representative.
In a pure or direct democracy power rests in the assembly of all citizens who wish to participate. This assembly might pass executive actions, make laws, elect and dismiss officials, and conduct trials. A representative democracy, such as the United States should have, is founded on the principle of elected individuals representing the people (as opposed to a direct democracy).

Republic - there are Constitutional Republics and Parliamentary Republics. I will only outline the Constitutional Republic here, inasmuch as it is the type which we in the USA experience (the other type isn't necessarily bad... it's just not relevant.). In a constitutional republic the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people, and (at least theoretically) must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the governments power over the people.

There are several other forms of government, but they are generally ineffectual, and not in direct practice these days, and therefore are not really worth including... so I won't!

The government of the USA is - purportedly - a representative constitutional democratic republic. Unfortunately, one of the shortcomings of a representative democracy is that although an official is elected to represent his/her constituents, it is not required that they represent the expressed will of those constituents.

About now you're probably thinking, "Okay, so get to the point of the post title. Exactly how is this administration "fomenting revolution?" (Understand that I will probably just scratch the surface of those actions that have been taken in contravention of the constitution, since I only have access to those acts that have been made public.) I enumerate:

1. Government bailing out American financial institutions and two-thirds of the American automobile manufacturing industry. There is no Constitutional precedent for such actions. These businesses developed financial troubles because of exorbitantly high executive salaries, bonuses, lavish expense accounts, and greedy union labor. And those same mistakes continue to be made today! The government lawyers failed to draft the bailout bills in such a manner that would eliminate those improper behaviors. Was that just an oversight, or was it intentional? In a practical sense it makes no difference, because the bottom line is the bottom line. Taxpayer money was used to support private corporations, and used without appropriate restrictions on the manner of in which it could be disbursed. The first thing AIG did with our money was pay those outrageous bonuses to its executives. (Granted, had those businesses gone under, there would have been tens of thousands of jobs lost, increasing the strain on an already stretched-thin unemployment compensation program.) However, the government now has "control" of the automotive industry, and most of Wall Street, both of which are areas in which government has no business. The government is unsuccessful in conducting its own restricted business, why should we believe they can run successful enterprises within a competitive free market system? Why should they even believe that?

2. Government involvement in individual health care issues. Nowhere in the Constitution is that a power specifically granted to the federal government. Therefore it is a "States Rights" issue. The government is not allowed to compete with private industry at any level, which is why all government contracts must be bid upon by private vendors.

3. Appointment of unelected, and generally unvetted, "czars" to positions of power equal to, and in some cases superior to, the powers of established Cabinet posts and Departmental Directors. Further, in many cases these "czar" positions amount to nothing more political payback for support during the election campaign, with a slant toward also "paying back" those who did not support his bid for election. Most Obama czars are very radical, foaming-at-the-mouth, left-wing thugs, whose primary interest is one of destroying the very foundations of our once-great nation. These appointees are working hard for Obama's agenda, devising ways to circumvent the First Amendment (Freedom of religion, speech and expression), Second (Right to keep and bear arms), Fourth (Search and seizure), Tenth (Powers of the states and people) and Thirteenth Amendments (Abolition of slavery) to the Constitution. The measure of a man's true character can be taken from the people with whom he surrounds himself.

4. Attempting to silence those who would disagree with new Presidential plans and policies, by re-instituting the 1949 "Fairness Doctrine", which was essentially deemed worthless by the FCC in August of 1987, who repealed it by a 4-0 vote, and labeled it "unconstitutional", saying:

"The intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists."

This ruling was upheld by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 1989.

5. Coming soon to Obamaland - the Internet Czar! A position designed to restrict the free flow of information between citizens of the United States over the internet. Purportedly, this poition is designed to “enhance remedies for violations of intellectual property laws and for other purposes”. It’s the “other purposes” that should have people concerned.

6. There is a rumor circulating - one that is well within the realm of believability - that Obama plans to sign away the sovereignty of this great nation in Copenhagen at the impending United Nations Climate Treaty (December 7-18, 2009). If such an act is not treason, then the ensuing revolt across the country will not be considered a revolution. The only freedoms that any official can sign away are his own! If Obama opts for personal slavery under the U.N. and a "World Government", replacing U.S. law and the Constitution with the laws of the International Court then let him sign away his freedoms. (It is also being said that once the document is signed it cannot be revoked.) No man can make such a decision for another person, nor can a President make such a decision for a nation of men... without cost. The cost of MY freedom will be dear to all concerned!

These changes are, for the most part, being made without challenge from the American citizens. Have we - the "silent majority" - been silent so long as to have lost our voice entirely? Or, have we been so ignorantly complacent that we no longer care? The government is NOT YOUR DADDY! You cannot depend on the government to meet all, most, or even any of your needs in the long term. If you don't believe me, ask any Native American what trusting your government does for you.

For those of you who may be the least bit concerned about such a thing as signing us over to a foreign entity - as if we were personal property - actually happening I would suggest you contact all your elected state officials demanding that they refuse to accept such a proposal. Thirty-three states have already re-declared their "States Rights". Could secession from the union be far behind?

AMERICANS TO BE ENSLAVED TO U.N.? You decide...

The following is a excerpt from a speech recently delivered by Lord Monckton in St. Paul MN, on the subject of Climate Change and the impending U.N. Climate Treaty (the one that says fine the western nations [that's US] for polluting the atmosphere, and then give the money to the poor developing nations - that treaty). This excerpt is less than 5 minutes of a 90 minute speech, but it carries a foreboding message, and is well worth hearing...

Is he telling us the truth, the truth as he interprets it, or just blowing smoke? If he's not just blowing smoke, then we have good cause for concern. Are we about to be sold out by our Nobel Peace Prize winning "President"? Or, is this how he actually plans to earn that Nobel? Will the liberals be successful in repealing the 13th Amendment and reinstating slavery for the masses? The possibilities seem endless.

"THESE ARE THE TIMES THAT TRY MENS SOULS."

Those words were penned by Thomas Paine - American - on December 23rd, 1776, in a pamphlet called "The Crisis". Words which are as applicable today as they were 233 years ago. Paine was a true believer in freedom. Freedom from, freedom to, and freedom for all Americans. Freedom from tyranny and government oppression. Freedom to assemble, associate, speak, write and worship. Freedom for all motivated Americans to develop their full potential, or to earn a fair and reasonable wage for their labors. To worship - or not - in the manner of their own choosing, and to be the architects of their own destiny. Thomas Paine, although something less than a social and financial success, was the personification of "the American spirit".

At that time Paine was expressing his opposition to Britain's King George III's tyrannical rule over the American colonies. The wording is a bit archaic, and therefore awkward for today's reader, but tyranny is still tyranny, and revolution is still revolution. "These ARE the time that try mens souls."

In today's United States of America there is a significant political, philosophical, and moral rift between the left-wing "liberal progressives", and the right-wing "conservative traditionalists". There is a second Revolutionary War being fought as I write this blog. Thus far the skirmishes have been restricted to the mass media, the halls of Congress, and the "town hall meetings"... and the fusillades are only verbal. Retaliatory barrages from the White House consist of verbal smokescreens designed to blind and confuse the opposition forces, while simultaneously obscuring the intent of those who wish to rule rather than govern and discrediting those who are most outspoken against the rapid, insidious development of the infrastructure needed to support that rule. Citizens are governed by choice - slaves are ruled by whatever means necessary! Paine also said, "Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER" and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth." (Two hundred thirty three years is a bit long, but I think that - were Thomas Paine alive today - he would be having a deja vu experience.)

Paine continues, delineating the difference between Tories (conservatives, sometimes called "loyalists") and Whigs (liberals, social reformists, believed in loose interpretation of the Constitution) -"Why is it that the enemy have left the New England provinces, and made these middle ones the seat of war? The answer is easy: New England is not infested with Tories, and we are. I have been tender in raising the cry against these men, and used numberless arguments to show them their danger, but it will not do to sacrifice a world either to their folly or their baseness. The period is now arrived, in which either they or we must change our sentiments, or one or both must fall. And what is a Tory? Good God! What is he? I should not be afraid to go with a hundred Whigs against a thousand Tories, were they to attempt to get into arms. Every Tory is a coward; for servile, slavish, self-interested fear is the foundation of Toryism; and a man under such influence, though he may be cruel, never can be brave."

Today's "Tories" are, politically speaking, primarily Republicans, Independents and assorted impotent-third-party followers. Mostly conservatives, they believe that the Constitution is an enduring document requiring little, if any, "interpretation". They also believe that the best government is the least government.

The "Whigs" of today are the Democrats - and their liberal following of government-dependent entitlement whores, who would sell our freedoms for a big screen TV and a couple of more government give-away programs. They believe the Constitution is a "living document" - one that should be changed as often as they change their minds... or their underwear, whichever comes first. The "blame America first" crowd, whose words and actions echo those of the Pogo Possum cartoon of 1970, wherein he proclaims "We have met the enemy and he is us."
The difference today is that the Tories are the ones who would "protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic", while the Whigs would tremble, quake and hide, while crying out for their nanny-government to protect and save them.

Our constitution - for all the wonderful rights it does promise us - it does not promise that we will be given anything other than that which we earn! It does not promise that we have a right to take that which another has earned, nor do we have a right to not be embarrassed, inconvenienced or otherwise upset by something we may experience during our appointed time on this Earth. We have the opportunity to fail in our endeavors, as well as the opportunity to succeed! How we exercise those rights and opportunities is entirely up to us.

Thomas Paine was not just a "man of his time"... he was a man for all times, and his words ring as true today as they did on December 23, 1776! Where will you be when the voices of opposition are silenced... right before the other noises begin?

VAT - One More Step Toward Converting The USA To European-style Socialism

Value Added Tax! This is a concept that most of western Europe implemented decades ago, to bolster failing economies. We can see how well that worked for them... inasmuch as their economies are now in the same dumper as ours. Granted it does raise more money for the government - but it is at the expense of the people! We do not, as a people, benefit from VAT. I mention VAT today only because it appears to have been revived by our Black/White Messiah.

After a bit of investigation, it appears that the average European Union VAT is roughly 20%. Three European nations (Denmark, Norway and Sweden) have a 25% VAT! Inflicting a VAT has been a dream of His Royal Highness Barack Hussein Obama since God only knows when. Grade school? The first documentation I have been able to find on his VAT position was in June of 2008, but that's just documentation of his socialistic desires.

Now add your State, County and local sales taxes to that VAT, and you'll see that it will cost you a bundle at the point of sale. Some EU countries even have VAT on basic necessities, like food, clothing, and shelter. No people have ever been taxed into personal prosperity - but they have been taxed until the government was enjoying prosperity.

At the risk of repeating myself from an earlier posting, we are not Europe! The United States had surpassed all of Europe in only 200 years, by functioning as a free-market, independent republic. The USA had no permanent income tax prior to 1913, and, prior to 1913, personal income was taxed only when our nation was embroiled in a war. What has put us in this financial predicament? Primarily it is the result of poor judgment in our Congress, following the exhortations of Barney Franks, and his League of Financial Morons, for the banks to lend mortgage money to people who didn't meet the minimum requirements established to ensure the loans could be repaid.

Actions such as that remind me of the almost continuous increases in the "minimum wage". Who among us does not understand that the minimum wage is the bellwether (leading indicator) for the cost of goods and services? When the minimum wage is forced upwards, manufacturers and service providers are equally forced to increase the costs of their goods and services in order to maintain (reasonable?) profit margins. There is no gain in personal income - workers just move into a higher tax bracket. Now, couple that cost with labor unions gouging corporations for what is basically unskilled labor (don't try to convince me that working on an assembly line requires more skills than the average chimpanzee possesses - been there, done that - if you have vision and hands, and any connection at all between the two, you can produce assembly line products.) Is it any wonder that 2/3 of our "Big 3" automotive corporations are facing extinction when their average blue collar worker's wage and benefit package costs them an outrageous $81 per hour? Thank you United Auto Workers! I hope those tens of thousands of soon-to-be-unemployed UAW members put some of their money under their mattresses -there's a long period of unemployment ahead for most of them in this economy. Oh yes, and don't forget to keep paying those union dues to the people who helped you become unemployed - while you're out of work! I also hope that the State of Michigan (and several other states) has some serious unemployment benefit money set aside for them.

VAT is not even an American concept, much less a tradition. AVOID THE "EVERYTHING IS FREE" TRAP OF SOCIALISM! It is only free as long as most people are working to support it! And who is dumb enough to keep working to support people they don't even know?

Write, phone, email your elected representatives and demand that they not support any VAT proposal in the USA. What happens if we are given no choice, and VAT is forced upon us? The American Revolution was begun because of unfair and unwanted taxation... ask King George III how that worked out for him.