Here Comes Da Judge!

I had just started writing this piece when a friend on mine asked if it were not redundant in light of my previously released piece, "His-PANIC" which addressed some of the concerns about the nomination of Judge Sonya Sotomayor to replace retiring Justice David Souter as an Associate Justice in the Supreme Court of the United States. I replied that while there were similarities, the previous piece, "His-PANIC" dealt with the racial factors inherent in the nomination and how both Republican and Democratic senators should handle the confirmation hearings about this nominee. With this article, I'm addressing the role of judges and justices in general in the interpretation and enforcement of laws that make the framework for the rule of law that is so essential to the structure and foundation of our democratic republic.

In the interest of full and fair disclosure, and because some of what follows will come across as being somewhat esoteric, let me preface the following by saying that I come by my knowlege of legal and judical practice and procedure very honestly. In addition to having a bachelors degree with a pre-law concentration, I also have the benefit of over ten years of experience working as a litigation paralegal. Additionally, I had the benefit of having as a mentor, a close family member who served as a Circuit/Superior Court Judge for more than thirty years. I also had the pleasure of cultivating personal friendships wtih judges of both the elected and appointed varieties as a result of my political activities over the years. Accordingly, my opinion on these subjects is more than the average layman's opinion.

Like most of the country, I first heard the name Sonya Sotomayor when she was first floated as a potential nominee to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter. When I first saw a photograph of her, I knew that identity politics were in play. I also knew that she would have a compellling story, and that she would he a highly qualified jurist, because the democrats are all about the rule of law, or more to the point, the MANIPULATION of the law to suit their political ideology. Democrats have been using the court system for DECADES to force laws and policies on this country our legislators (and the VOTERS who elect them) never intended. Republicans have joined in this practice more recently. By packing courts with "ringer" judges that will rule in accordance with the wishes of politicians, but enable them to avoid political liablity for these acts, the politicians are using the judiciary as "unelected legistlators," a role for which the judiciary was NEVER envisioned or intended by our Founding Fathers as set out in the U.S. or State Constitutions

The Supreme Court was established in Article III of the United States Constitution. Article III, Section II defines the juridiction of the Supreme Court and provides a framework for the kinds of cases the Court may hear and determine. The Court first asserted its jurisdiction in the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison, which established the precedent for judicial review of laws passed by the Congress and their compliance with the Constitution. The whole rationale for the Supreme Court was that the framers of the Constitution understood that an elected President and Congress could collude to pass laws that would enfringe on the rights and liberties of the citizens, and could become every bit as tyrannical as the British King Geroge we had just sent packing. They also understood that elected legislators and Presidents would be beholden to their electorates, and the whims and caprices of the passions of the moment, because they were all about getting elected and re-elected. Politicians, therefore, must sometimes subordinate their better judgment to satisfy the demands of voters, who sometimes do NOT think about the long term effect of their acting on their momentary passions.

Every elected politician and government appointee from the President down to the newest enlistees in the armed forces takes an oath the "support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States" prior to their entry into office or commencing their service. Sadly for us, some of them shed that oath the second they enter their offices and start promoting their social ideologies and political agendas which are sometimes CONTRARY to that very oath. When this occurs, it is to the judicial branch that We the People must look to preserve our rights and liberties. The framers of the Constitution understood this, foresaw it, and for this reason, built the judiciary to be free of the caprices of contemporary politics. Accordingly, once appointed, a federal judge or supreme court justice can serve for the remainder of his life, or as long as he or she so desires and cannot be removed unless they are impeached by the house and found guilty in the senate of serious criminal wrongdoing. This is NEVER happened to an associate justice of the Supreme Court and very RARELY happened to any members of the federal judicial branch. The most recent example I can think of is the case of Federal District Court Judge Alcee Hastings, who is now a serving member of the House of Representatives.

Though the office of a Federal District or Appellate Court Judge or Supreme Court Justice is not a political one, per se, candidates must be nominated and confirmed by elected politicians. These politicians look for judges and justicies that are sympathetic to their political and social ideologoes and agendas because they look to the courts to provide cover and in some cases to take on the role of legislators to protect the politicians from the wrath of the voters when laws may be unpopular with their constituents, but nonetheless support the politicians political or social ideological beliefs.

There are two kinds of judges or justices one can expect to see on the bench. The ones that read into the Constitution and legislation what they choose to support their own political or social beliefs are colloquially referred to as "activist" or "liberal" judges or "legislators from the bench." The other kind of judge or justice is the one that actually reads the Constitution or the law for what it says in black and white and doesn't attempt to read "into" it, his or her own personal politcs or ideas of "social justice" or "empathy." These are referred to as "strict constructionists" or sometimes "conservative" judges or justices. Sadly, there are far more of the former, than the latter sitting on our courts today. At a time when our rights to property, and even life itself, have never been more precarious due to the behavior of an elected President and Congress who have abandoned their oaths of office the second their hands came off the Bible, We the People have never been more dependent on a judiciary that actually FOLLOWS the Constitution as the framers wrote it and intended it. We are faced with government tyranny and corruption as never before and the stakes have never been higher.

In the weeks leading up to the senate's judiciary committee hearings, I did extensive research on the more recent rulings of the Hon. Sonya Sotommayoras well as some of her earlier decisions on the district court bench. I reviewed my research with friends in the legal profession, as well as active jurists and found that her rulings are both fair, and supported by statutory and case law precendents. Her judicial record is both impressive, and conservative though I would stop short of actually calling her a "strict constructionist." Likewise, I do not consider her remarks made at hispanic organizational meetings to rise to the level of indemic racism, and further consider attempts by politcians and political pundits to brand her as a racist on par with David Duke of the KKK, to be neither warranted nor accurate. I was particularly offended by a photoshopped representation of her in Grand Dragon's robes. I guess the election of our first black president hasn't moved us to that post-racial nirvana we were led to believe it would.

A very wise man, a career jurist, and my childhood mentor once told me that I should refrain from drawing a conclusion or making a judgment until it was absolutely necessary to do so. He went on to say that when it WAS necessary, that I should only make my judgment with the evidence of my own eyes and ears and not to rely on the reporting of others. If the past election cycle coverage has taught me anything, it is NOT to trust any so-called journlist for a fair and objective reporting on any political or social issue ever again. To that end, I did my own research and reading of Judge Sotomayor's judicial opinons, discussing them only with men and women more qualified than I to analyze them. I also sat through every agonizing second of the dog and pony show that passed for the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on CSPAN so as to avoid the spin applied by reporters and political pundits alike. Despite numerous temptations to change the channel or pop in a DVD, I watched virtually every second of the speeches, the questions, and most importantly the ANSWERS to make my own independent evaluation of Judge Sonya Sotomayor and her fitness to be the next Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

When all was said and done, I arrived at two distinct, and (some might argue) disparate conclusions, or such was the consensus at my Toastmaster's Rountable group discussion earlier this week. The first conclusion was that the Hon. Sonya Sotomayhor is a very impressive woman with a personally inspirational life story, an impressive ciriculum vitae as both a lawyer and a jurist, and that she is in every way highly qualified for the office she aspires to enter. I also believe that she will, in fact, be affirmed to that position for both political and social considerations. While I don't wish to opine that she is an "affirmative action" candidate, I will not hesitate to state that her nomination is the result of the "identity politics" for which both political parties have become renowned in recent memory. Conservatives, anxious to avoid a repeat of the Robert Bork debacle, nominated Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court believing that the Democrats would risk the support of the African-American community if they attacked him too viciously as they had Robert Bork. But for the emergence of the Anita Hill sexual harassment charge, his would have been a relatively passive and successful nomination and a political victory for conservative republicans. He did manage to get confirmed despite the best efforts of senate democrats, and I firmly believe that with Judge Sotomayor, history will repeat itself.

This, too, is the case with the nomination of Judge Sotomayor, and the Democrats have even gone so far as to verbally warn Republicans that they proceed against this nomination at their own peril, meaning they risk losing any support from the Hispanic community if they are perceived to have a bias against Judge Sotomayor for any reasons that can be deemed to be racial. When the facts fail, resort to the racism charge. In point of fact the Republicans have bent over backwards to avoid any racial component in their questioning of Judge Sotomayor, with the exception of asking her to explain her thinking when she repeatedly made her more controversial remarks as both a Federal District and Appellate Court jurist. The republican senators focused their questions and comments more appropriately on her judicial rulings, including the now infamous Ricci case which has since been reversed by the United States Supreme Court, though Judge Sotomayor relied on existing statutory and case law in sustaining the judgment of the District Court dismissing the case. We can only speculate as the whether or not she might have ruled differently if the plaintiff in "Ricci" were of Hispanic or African-American descent.

My second, and more controversial conclusion, judging by earlier reaction, is that if and when she is confirmed as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Sonya Sotomayor will be every bit the liberal judicial activist that the republicans fear she will be. Now, I can hear the questions forming just as they did in my Toastmaster's roundtable when I was asked how, when conisdering her judicial record, I could conclude that she would totally change her judicial philosophy if confirmed. This is why I disclosed the fact that I had been privy to inside information from other judges. As a result of this special insight, I am aware of several fears shared by judges in general, but only TWO shared by ALL judges regardless of their jurisdiction or party affiliation.

The first universal fear shared by all the judges I know regardless of the demographic differences, is the fear of the loss of control of their courtrooms. This is a very real, visceral, fear that was illustrated and justified all too well a few years ago in Atlanta, Georgia when an escaping felon took the sidearm of a deputy sheriff and shot and killed several people in the courtroom, including the Judge. After this event, even the most liberal of judges, whose rulings had previously gone against the Second Amendment and groups like the National Rifle Association (NRA), suddenly found gun ownership to be a good thing. Many of them even started carrying their own firearms, in and out of court. There is nothing like seeing a collegue murdered to change a liberal judge's religion when it comes to firearms.

The second universal fear, and more relevant to the conclusion I reached about the Hon. Sonya Sotomayor, is the fear of having a judgment reversed by a higher court on appeal. This is the equivalent of getting your examination back in school with the dreaded red check marks. A reversal says to the judge "you got it WRONG," Reverals can have a detrimental effect on a jurist's career, esp if such reversals are frequent, and involve high profile cases with political implications. While reversals do NOT impune a judge's qualifications, they can lead a politican or layperson to conclude the judge may be less than competent. If a judge's appointment to higher office is a matter of political contention, numerous reversals can be used to justify NOT supporting the judge's nomination, as the reversals of Judge Sotomayor's rulings, including the "Ricci" case, have been used by the republican senators to challenge her qualifications for higher office.

Judges and lawyers alike have a colloquial expression for being reversed on appeal. It is called "being spanked on appeal." Unless these judges and lawyers are closet masochists, that would seem to imply that reversal is, at a minimum, an unpleaseant experience for a judge. It is for this reason, among others, that judges in lower courts tend to make their rulings conservatively to avoid the dreaded "spanking." The higher up in the chain a judge goes, the less fearful he or she is of the "spanking" consequence. Since there is no higher judicial authority in the country than the United States Supreme Court, and even if a justice's opinion is in the minority, it is not considered "wrong" and will be represented in the published opinion. Therefore, when a jurist is appointed to the Supreme Court, he or she is free to exercise his own opinons without fear of reversal or admonition, whereas as a judge in a lower court, the same jurist might tend to be more conservative in her or her rulings. For this reason alone, a judge's record on the bench is not an accurate predictor of how he or she will behave when all judicial constraints are removed and the said jurist is free to "let his or her freak flag fly,"

Ironically, this is EXACTLY what happened in the case of Justice David Souter, the man retiring from the Court creating the vacancy now being filled. Justice Souter was appointed by George H.W. Bush, a conservative republican president, who believed that he was appointing a conservative justice who would interpret the consitution literally. His vetting team concluded that then Judge David Souter was such a jurist based partly upon his judicial record, and in part upon the extensive interviews they had with the prospective nominee. Apparently Justice Souter was able to provide the team with the answers they wanted, because he got the nomination and he got confirmed. Since his confirmation, however, Justice Souter has ruled liberally more than sixty-five percent of the time, and if often referred to as one of the four liberals on the bench. Clearly, he was able to deceive the Bush vetting team, the President himself, and the senate judiciary committee to get the job, and once ensconced, was free to be himself, a liberal judicial activist.

In the Hon. Sonya Sotomayor, I see very many of the same chameleon qualities that we failed to see in then candidate Barak Obama. While her statements and answers in her confirmation hearings were well reasoned, I could tell she had been prepped very carefully and was, in fact, going to her memory to respond to questions that should have been second nature to her. Like the President, she backpedalled away from not only her record, but also a lifetime of political and social views that she had clearly heretofore embraced. This was reminiscent of the way then candidate Barak Obama threw his pastor of twenty years acquaintance, under the proverbial bus when he became a political liability. Suffice it to say, the logical conclusion is that Judge Sotomayor has been prepped by the same deceptive bunch of experts that caused us to elect a President that is NOTHING like the candidate sold to us under very FALSE pretenses. In short, I don't TRUST her and I don't know which Justice will show up to work on that First Monday in October. Will it be the one she's been all her life, the wise latina woman who will make better decisions than a white man, or the more moderate, and constitutionally faithful one she tried to convince us all she was in a week of hearings before the senate judiciary committee. One thing I am comfortable in saying is that the old expression "birds of a feather flock together" seems to be very much applicable to the present situation. I believe that President Obama would not nominate anyone that he didn't think shared his judicial and social philosophy. I believe he is intelligent enough and skilled enough as both a politician and lawyer to recognized someone who is aligned with his model of the world, and who will likely perform in the manner he expects her to. I do not think he is a man who can be easily fooled, but I also believe that his ego is such, that he may actually believe his press clippings and if that is the case, he might not be able to acknowledge the possibility that he is wrong in his assessment. Judge Sotomayor could turn out to be nothing like he thought and therefore be a pleasant surprise to those of us that want a justice who reads and applys the Constitution as written. Only time will tell.

As to how this likely appointment will affect the current makeup of the Supreme Court, there will not be an immediate impact. The current court consists of four justices that are considered liberally biased and frequently rule for the left side of an issue, four justices that are purported to be conservatives and frequently rule on the right side of an issue, and one lone justice that is referred to as the "swing voter" because he cannot be pinned with either a liberal or conservative judicial bias. Whether this is because he is the only justice who is faithfully adhering to his oath and genuinely trying to make his rulings in accordance with the Constitution, or because he is weak, and moderate in his views and can be readily persuaded by either argument. I can't say. I do not know the man well enough to speculate. I only know that at times I am very grateful for his support, and at other times I curse him for his vascillation. Isn't that always the way it goes?

With regard to judicial nominations, this round goes to the democrats. I congratulate President Obama for a very politically well reasoned and diabolical pick in the person of the Hon. Sonya Sotomayor. He found the one candidate who could actually survive the nomination process virtually unscathed, and claim a bi-partisan victory in the process. Whether you agree or disagree with his political and social philosophy, you have to give the man his due in that he is one formidable politician. Whether the credit for this goes to him or his handlers is a matter for specuation. But he did this without the aid of a teleprompter, cliffs notes, or any other crutch traditionally employed by politicians to help them make their points without making Biden-style gaffes. The republicans wisely chose to not waste their ammo against the unassailable Judge Sotomayor, but the equally, or perhaps MORE important issues of Cap n' Trade, and National Health Care Reform are battles still to be fought, and that fight may well end up before the Supreme Court of the United States where then Associate Justice Sonya Sotomayor will be able to answer our burining question "who will she be tomorrow?"

July 4, 2009, The Dis-Spirit of '76!

I LOVE the Fourth of July holiday! It is a time when American pride is at its' height. Summertime is in full swing, families are usually beginning or ending their summer vacations, school's out and will not be restarting for at least another month and a half, and it's generally a very happy and festive time. It is a time for watching fireworks, cooking hot dogs, burgers, steaks, brats, etc. It's a time for getting together in the great outdoors with family and friends, most of whom will be decked out in red, white, and blue apparell, waving flags, and singing songs about America and American pride. This has been the sum total of my forty-six years of experiences with this national holiday.

Of all the celebrations I remember, the one that stands out most in my mind is the one from our national bi-centennial in 1976. At a time when our nation was recovering from the Vietnam conflict, Watergate, years of economic malaise, we managed to put all of that aside and come together as we hadn't been able to do since World War II to celebrate our nation's 200th birthday. I remember well, that every square inch of the city was draped in either a flag or red, white & blue bunting. You couldn't walk a foot without bumping into someone wearing either a tricorn hat, an Uncle Sam styled stovepipe hat, or a revolutionary war era costume. Even more than the costumes themselves, were the SMILES on everyone's faces as they embraced and attempted to propound the Spirit of '76. This past weekend, a mere 33 years later, there was little if ANY of that sort of thing in evidence.

In the four years following the bi-centennial, the Carter years, national morale went into a steep nosedive. To be fair, we were still reeling form the ravages of Vietnam and Watergate when we elected President Carter, but it was his domestic and foreign policies, which culminated in the capture and holding of our embassy personnel as hostages for more than a year while we did NOTHING to effect their rescue, that had our national morale at an all time low when we elected former actor and Governor of California, Ronald W. Reagan to oust the innefectual Carter from the White House.

Reagan's greatest political asset was his abilty to communicate with the people of this country and appeal to our patriotism and national pride. He made us proud to be Americans, once more, and inspired the patriotic anthems "Pround to Be An American", by Lee Greenwood, "In America," by the Charlie Daniels Band, and a slew of other musical tributes, including one by noted liberal, Bruce Springsteen, called "Born in the USA." Even though the latter was not written to celebrate America or Reagan, it was still played as though it were. President ?Reagan restored our national pride in many ways, including but not limited to the freeing of our hostages, the support he gave the Polish labor movement, Solidarity, and his challenge to Soviet Premiere Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall." He never flinched on the world stage, and he NEVER showed even the slightest sign of weakness in this country. He also NEVER apologized for or about anything the United States had done, said, or stood for, especially on foreign soil.

Contrast that to our current President who has circled the globe, pretty much on his knees, apologizing to friends and foes alike for all things American. Contrast the optimism and hope of Reagan with our own First Lady's comments about not having pride in her country at any time in her adult life, including the Reagan years, prior to 2008 when her husband was nominated by the Democratic Party as it's presidential candidate. Would Nancy Reagan ever have made a comment like that? I don't think so. In fact, this President has spent more time on his knees than Debbie did the whole time she was doing DALLAS! I hope he has a good pair of knee pads because I have a feeling he's not through groveling just yet.

The final blow for me came this past weekend, our Fourth of July Independence Day holiday, when this selfsame apologist-in-chief actually had the temerity to apologize to ENGLAND for our own Declaration of Independence and by extension, our very existence. His next stop is Russia where he'll be right at home among fellow Marxists like Putin and Medvyedev. I wonder what he'll apologize for THERE. Winning the Cold War, perhaps, Salt, Detente, Perestroika? The possibilities are endless.

The worst part about all of it is that it's for NOTHING. He's not going to win one point in either popularity or gain one concession as as result of his prostration before the thugs and dictators of the world than he would have gotten making his requests in the same manner used by George W. Bush. The difference is that the world leaders RESPECTED George W. Bush, even if they didn't always say so. They KNEW he wasn't a man they could mess with, and that he would back up his words with decisive action if necessary. They have NO such illusions about Barak Obama. In all fairness to President Obama, he may very well be able to act if necesary and all the supplication may just be a tactic to engineer a specific outcome. At some point in time, however, he's got to realize that it is not only ineffective, but that it makes our country look weak and inconsequential in world affairs. He's being punked like a freshman nerd in the high school playground on the first day of school. This is evidenced by every two bit thug and dictator doing pretty much whatever he pleases these days. Iran is escalating it's nuclear production and has no intention of abating this no matter what takes place in any discussion with this president or his representatives. North Korea is firing off missles and exploding bombs like there is no consequence for doing so, because at this time there ISN'T. Thugs and dictators don't respect social niceties, they respect only what they FEAR and they do not fear Barak Obama. They see him, unfairly or not, as a weak willed dilletante they can push around at will, and they are doing so daily. How can we feel a sense of national pride with such a leader?

In all fairness to President Obama, this is not all his fault. patriotism and Americanism has been under assault in this country in earnest since the Vietnam era. Our television and print news media, entertainment media, music, movies, schools, etc. have been systematically programming their audiences with the none to subtle message that America is BAD and that the bad things happening in the world are somehow OUR fault. There are at least TWO generations of students that have pretty much been indocrinated since preschool to think this way. There are at least THREE generation of college students, including the baby boomers like Bill Clinton, that have been programmed with this and other marxist ideologies since college.

Traditional American ideals and values, such as Christianity, liberty, self-sufficiency, free enterprise, capitalism, etc. have been under constant seige by the Left for DECADES. When Hillary Clinton referred to that "vast right wing conspiracy" that was out to get her husband, she indavertently exposed the very real "vast LEFT wing conspiracy" that had been in existence since the late nineteeth century. This freudian slip was the result of a psychological phenomenon known as "projection," which means that you "project" your own ideas or behaviors onto others as either a coping mechanism to help you deal with them, or as a form of subterfuge to distract your opponent from what you yourself are doing. This is a technique often employed by philandering spouses when their mates become suspicious of their behaviors. The cheating husband whose wife is getting suspicious of his late night "business meetings" will suddenly turn and accuse the wife of having an affair. It puts her off her guard and on the defensive and takes her focus off of him and what HE is doing. This is the same reason magicians often have beautiful leggy girls in skimpy attire as their stage assistant. It is not by accident, but design, as they know that the audience will be more likely to stare at her LEGS and NOT his HANDS, so he can complete his illusion without his methods being detected.

This left wing seige began with the publication of "A Communist Manifesto" by a writer/philsopher named Karl Marx. This philosphy was embraced by academic institutions the world over and has been effective in indoctrinating both democrats and republicans alike. Marxist indocrinees are responsbile for the existence or organizations like the ACLU, labor unions, and community ordganizations like ACORN. Students of these teachings have graduated and become television and print journalists, hollywood actors, directors, and screenwriters, educators, law enforcement officials, etc. These teachings have been at least partly responsible for the moral decay experienced by our society and the war on religion, family values, and our sense of pride in our national identity.

It continues to this day in the relentless assault on the Bush administration by both the Obama administration and it's sycophants and toadies in the congress. For what is the Bush administration, but the long legged magicians assistant designed to keep our focus looking backwards so we don't see what our governement is doing in the present time. In point of fact, nothing President Bush did puts our lives and lifestyles in peril half as much as what's being done today and we need to keep our focus on that. Democratic congressmen and senators aren't all true believers and many of them are betting their re-election on President Obama's popularity ratings. If they continue to fall as they have been, you're going to see these career politicians start backing away from him and his policies like rats off of a sinking ship. It is for precisely this reason that the administration is in such a rush to get Cap n' Trade, National Healthcare Reform (a euphamism for socialized medicine), and maybe even a SECOND stimulus passed and signed before that can happen.

Cindy Hale wrote "Governments don't take away the rights of free people in large blocks but in small chips that are barely noticed, until one day you wake up and realize you are no longer a free people." Whether liberty is lost in a sudden violent hail of bullets or legislated away in thousand page bills passed over a period of years, the net result is the same. It's gone, and as long as keep electing the same kind of politicians to public office, it's NOT coming back. Our founding father Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that there were three rights endowed by our Creator and not by government. These were life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Liberty is second only to LIFE in that trilogy. He further started the then New Democratic Party to safeguard against the legislating away of any of these rights by the creeping bureaucracy of an expansive federal government. Today it is that self same Democratic Party that is doing precisely what Jefferson warned us against for he understood that although these rights come from God, not government, they CAN be legislated away. Eleven score and thirteen years later, my how things have changed!

In spite of outward appearance however, the Spirit of '76 is alive and well. It was evident in the Tea Parties of April 15, and July 4, it's evident every day on the internet and certain television stations, and it is only going to grow as our President and Congress continue to try to legislate us into a socialist model of utopia in a vainglorious effort to preserve their political power and polish their legacies. Still, as long as we remember the words of yet another founding father, Virginian Patrick Henry when he said "Is life so dear as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me LIBERTY or give me DEATH!" While I don't believe anyone in the Obama administration or the Congress of the United States desires our deaths per se, I DO agree with Patrick Henry in that a life without liberty is a mere existence and not worth the effort. So, unfurl your flag, dust off the tricorn hats and keep going to meetings, websites, tea parties, and ultimately the voting booths and keep the Spirit of '76 alive and well so that we may proudly celebrate our Tri-Centennial in 2076.

California DREAMING

When I woke up this morning the LAST thing I had planned to do was write anything of a political nature. I was working on a nice blog article about the passing of Farrah Fawcett, which has all but disappeared from the public notice in the media tsunami over the equally untimely and tragic passing of Michael Jackson. So there I was writing my little personal tribute to the woman whose face and figure helped get me through the "awkward" phase of adolecense when I heard President Obama's dulcet tones telling us that we should model our national energy policy after that of the State of California, and that we as a country should be more like California. So much for the Farrah piece because I can't let a man with such a large microphone spew out inaccurate, false, and deliberately misleading statements without challenging them. This is supposed to be the job of the press, but since they are too busy obsequiously fawning over their hand-picked and annointed messianic symbol to do their JOBS, I guess it will be up to people like me, so here goes. I lived in California in the Reagan 80's and even then, California had a serious pollution problem. I remember in Los Angeles, we got daily smog reports with the morning weather and traffic, and as long as I can remember, California cars have had significantly stricter requirements for automotive emissions than the rest of the country. Despite all this, you could still see a brown smog cloud hanging over Los Angeles, especially in the summer months and it made being outside, nearly unbearable at times. Clearly some reforms were needed, and they were being undertaken by the last good Republican governor to run the Golden State, Pete Wilson. When Californians elected liberal democrat George Dukmejian, the enviornmentalists where pretty much given the keys to the kingdom and free reign over the Sunshine State. I'm glad I got out of there before that happened, especially in light of what followed. To be fair to the environmentalists, the Golden State of California was a mess in many ways. We're all familiar with the story of Erin Brockovich, thanks to her book, movie, and portrayal by academy award winning actress Julia Roberts. She took on the largest power company in the state over the issue of toxic waste coming from a power plant. When Dukmejian was elected, he targeted the largest power companies in the state, forcing them to close a number of power plants deemed hazardous to the environment. This is all well and good, but if you take power plants off line, what happens to the power they generate? Do we stop using less just because we're making less? In the case of California, the power companies tried to make up the shortfall by rehabilitating some of the closed plantsto bring them back online. This was rejected by the government. The utility companies then wanted to build a nuclear power plant as nuclear power is cheaper and less polluting than coal or oil run plants, but thanks to the specters of 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, and The China Syndrome, the state refused to allow nuclear power. The companies attempted to increase output from the remaining plants, but consumption was too high. This forced the power companies to make up the shortfall by buying electricity from out of state companies at a premium. As businesses do, they pass their cost increases down to their customers, and California residents saw their power bills increase exponentially. This is something we might ALL be able to relate to soon, if Cap n' Trade passes in the Senate and gets signed into law by The ONE, himself. When people are unhappy the complain to their representatives and the unhappy Californians were no different. The problem is, that when you ask politicians to solve a business problem you get a political rather than an effective solution. The same held true in California, and instead of allowing the power companies to create more power by opening a plant or easing environmental restrictions, the government of California decided to regulate the rates utility companies could charge their customers, regardless of the costs those utility companies incurred to produce that energy. This created an inbalance which the government then offset by paying subsidies for the power purchased from out of state. All was well for a time. The people were happy because their utility bills were leveled off, the government was happy because the people were happy, and the power companies were not quite as happy, but they weren't hemorrhaging money so they weren't unhappy. This would have gone on smoothly, but as i pointed out earlier, the state was being overrun by the enivronmentalists and their lobbyists. This resulted in more and more regulation and restrictions on the power plants, which in turn resulted in decreased power production and increased purchasing of power from outside the state and premium rates. The subsidies in place were no longer adequate and the State of California refused to either increase the subsidies, or relax the regulations to allow the power companies to generate more of its own power. The power companies then made the decision produce as much of its own power as it could given the regulations, purchase only as much additional power as the subsidies would cover, and if that weren't sufficient, then there would be blackouts. To minimize the discomfort to the residents, the blackouts were allowed to roll from one end of the st ate to the other keeping the outages to a minimum, and the inconvenience to the residents to a minimum. These rolling blackouts earned then Governor Grey Davis the less-than-flattering nickname of "Grey-Out Davis." They also got California's legilslators costituents calling their representatives again. Consequently, Governor Davis and the legislature decided to increase the subsidies to the power company to stop the blackouts, but then decided to announce an increase in the state's property taxes to help pay for it. That tax increase announcement was the straw that broke the camel's back and caused the citizens of California to rise up, recall, and replace Gov. Grey-Out with Arnold Schwarzenegger, a.k.a the Governator. Whether that was a good thing or not is a matter of public debate. I won't get into that issue here. In conclusion Mr. President, if we're going to emulate any policy of California, it should NOT be an economic or ENERGY one. We don't need skyrocketing utility bills or rolling blackouts on a national level. We also don't need to be swimming in a sea of red ink that makes the Red Sea look like a kiddie pool by comparison. If there is ANY policy of California we might WANT to emulate on a national level, I vote for the ability to recall and ineffective or downright dangerous chief executive. THAT policy I could support with a clear conscience.

His-PANIC!

When Barak Obama was elected, I PRAYED that his term would pass without any of the nine Supreme Court Justices retiring or passing on.  I only asked for a four year moritorium because I believed then, as I believe even more NOW, that he will be a one-term President.  I also believed that he would, at some time, overreach his authority as President and perform some act that he was not constitutially empowered to do and, in this area, he did NOT disappoint me.  Thanks to his unprecendent seizures of banks and auto companies and, his forcing salary caps and bonus restrictions on private companies, as well as his firing of General Motors' CEO Rick Wagner; and, his strong-arming of a bankruptcy court judge to deprive Chrysler and General Motors' bondholders and shareholders of their rights under federal laws, he has opened himself and his administration up to legal and political drama.

 Clearly, there are numerous grounds for legal challanges against this administration.  In our entire history there has only been one attempt to nationalize a private enterprise and that occurred when Harry Truman attempted to nationalize the steel industry during the Korean war.  Now granted, this was about settling a strike that was hurting our war effort, but notwithstanding this, the courts struck this down as unconstitutional and that case is controlling to date.  A legal challenge against these actions is the only recourse we have to protect our private property rights.  As voters, we can do nothing against this administration before November, 2012. However, the bondholders and shareholders can take the administration to court to seek injunctive relief.  Due to the unprecendented nature of events, any such challenge would likely reach the Court of Appeals, or even the Supreme Court.

Into this muddled morass of facts and circumstances comes the Hon. Sonya Sotomayor, the nominee for the position of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court being vacated by the current Justice, the Hon. David Souter.  Justice Souter was appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush, and was believed to be a conservative leaning Judge at the time of his appointment.  Contrary to this belief, Justice Souter has ruled with the liberal justices more the sixty-five percent of his time on the bench.  Clearly, replacing him with an equally liberal justice does nothing to change the balance on the court at this time.  Still, every prospective justice should receive proper vetting by the United Sates Senate prior to his or her confirmation, and this is where we find outselves.

Sadly, there is more to this story because the liberal Democrats of the Senate, as well as the White House Press Secretary are playing traditional identity politics with this nomination.  They are doing the typical quota-filling tokenism with this nomination, and they are daring those on the right to "proceed at their peril" when it comes to the vetting process required by law.  They are betting that any challenge to this nominee will cost the Republican party any propect of support from the Hispanic community in upcoming elections.   Where was this concern for THEIR support from the Hispanic community when THEY were ripping into Alberto Gonzales? The simple answer is that is was nowhere to be found.  This is probably because it is all a load of BULL.

What the press may not want you to remember is that the senate democrats demonstrated the very bigotry then now warn the republicans not to display when it came to the nomination of the  Honorable Miguel Estrada, to the Court of Appeals.  Miguel Estrada is a judge with an American story every bit as impressive as Judge Sotomayor's is.  Why then, you may ask, is there not an Appellate Court Judge named Miguel Estrada?  The answer is a bit more complicated.  Liberal democrats have this "token" mentatlity when it comes to minorities.  They like to be the first to put a "first" in a position of authority or responsibility.  That would not have been a bar here as there were already Hispanic judges at the Appellate Court level, namely Judge Sonya Sotomayor.  And what was their excuse for the treatment shown to Alberto Gonzales when he was nominated for Attorney General.  He, too had a very compelling American story, but that didn't seem to matter to the senate democrats, including the self-righteous Senator from New York, Charles Schumer, and the junior Sentaor from New York, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The actual reason there is no Justice Estrada on the Court of Appeals has nothing to do with his being an Hispanic, and EVERYTHING to do with the fact that he believes the role of a Judge is to take the laws written and enacted by the legistlature (i.e. the Constitution), and apply it, as written, to the fact pattern of the case at bar.  This is the mark of a CONSERVATIVE judge.  Now in contrast to this, the liberal democratis believe that it is the role of the judge to write new legistlation from the bench if the laws on the books do not comply with said judge's political ideology.  This is the mark of a LIBERAL judge, or judicial activist as they are sometimes called.  This is the contrast between what liberal democrats want in a Supreme Court Justice and what conservative republicans want in a Supreme Court Justice.  Clearlly there are maked differences between the two, and it is those differences that need to be fully exposed during the confirmation hearings. 

Barak Obama is a liberal democrat, and notwithstanding the fact that his is himself a constitutional scholar, clearly favors the liberal activist judge model.  He would not have nominated Judge Sotomayor if he did not belive she shares his belief that it is the role of the judge to make law from the bench, a function NOT intended for judges by our founding fathers when they penned the Constitution.   The founding fathers built in a system of checks and balances to keep any one branch of the government from becoming more powerful than any other.  The founding fathers intended for elected legistlators ALONE to write laws, and for the President alone to be able to approve or veto them.  This is because these officials are the only ones accountable to the voting public. 

 The role of the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary is to safeguard the Constiution and ensure that neither legislators nor Presidents would enact laws that were contrary to the tenets of the Constitution.   They did this to ensure that neither political expedience or popular prejudices would upset the balance of power and emperil the rights of American citizens.  The founding fathers intended the rule of law to be sacrosanct and for the government to honor contracts and respect private property rights and individual freedoms of all citizens, except under such circumstances as conviction of a crime or enforcement of a civil judgment.  The conduct of this administration flys in the face of these protections and clearly warrants a judicial review.

In the hearing for Judge Sotomayor, you will not hear a peep from the democratic senators about the role of the judge, judicial activism, or anything else that could be perceived as a negative against this Judge.  Just like President Obama, the liberal democrats in the Senate believe this nominee is EXACTLY what they want, an activist judge who legislates from the bench, and they will do NOTHING to expose this and emperil their nominee.  It is left to the republicans in the senate to actually do their jobs and show the American people what kind of judge this nominee actually is, and to further illustrate to the American public the contrast between what democrats want in judges and what republicans want in judges so that the people can decide for themselves who best represents their interests in these and and other matters.

It is these distinctions between republicans and democrats that have been sorely lacking in the past eight years.  Ive often posed the question: "Are congressional republicans transvestite or transsexuals?"  Now before the gay rights types go nuts on me, it should be clearly understood that the vast majority of transvestites are HETEROSEXUALS, so there is no homophobic intent here.  I merely pose the metaphor because I can't decide if congressional republicans are merely dressing and acting like democrats, e.g. transvestite, or if they've had full gender reassignment surgery to become democrats, e.g. transsexuals.  In the case of Senator Arlen Specter, this is no longer a question.  He's CLEARLY a post-op democrat.  The jury's still out on Senators Susan Collins, and Olympia Snow.  I'm reasonably secure in declaring John McCain a transvestite in this metaphor.

While the republicans clearly must distinguish themselves from their democratic counterparts and actually DO their jobs vetting this candidate, they must also beware and avoid falling into the trap set for them by those very democrats.  To do this, they need to avoid the Rush Limbaugh example of comparing Judge Sotomayor to David Duke.  To be fair, Rush never actually did this, but the facts are irrelevant to the liberal media and he's been widely reported as having done this.  While Rush can defend himself, quite ably, the example is very real.  Republican Senators and political pundits alike must avoid the race issue altogether.  In the first place, it's irrelevant.  Nobody, including Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, thinks that Judge Sonya Sotomayor is anything like David Duke.  The comparison is ludicrous at best and to make it puts the republican party at real risk of coming off to the Hispanic voters as being either racist or xenophobic.   

The way to avoid this trap is simple.  Treat Judge Sotomayor first and foremost as a qualified judge with an inspirational American story and an equally impressive ciriculum vitae, as well as a seventeen year history that reveals how she interprets and applies existing laws to the fact patterns of her various cases.  Use the facts and judgments in these cases to show clearly how she interprets the role of a judge in constitutional questions and bring out facts that support her comment that it is actually the appellate court judge that makes law and sets policy.  Also, bring out the fact that she has been reversed three out of her six times on appeal to higher courts, including the Supreme Court to which she now apires to sit.  Lastly, show her the deference and respect you would show any woman in her position.  Do that and you will not antagonize or alienate the Hispanic community,  Most importantly, you must give people a choice if you wish them to make one so the differences between senate republicans and democrats must be clearly illustrated.

The worst thing republican senators can do is try to play to the media.  This is a losing proposition from the very start.  For a republican, you will be about as successful in appeasing the press as Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain was in trying to appease Adolf Hitler.  It's NOT gonna happen, because neither Hitler, nor the press, come to the table with honest intent.  No matter what republicans do, they're gonna be shredded in the press.  If they go soft on Judge Sotomayor, theyre going to be portrayed as weak and innefectual, a judgment that will be SHARED by their voting constituents.  If they do their jobs and bring out the truth about the judge, they will be portrayed as racist, sexist, and mean spirited for sure, but this is irrelevant because regardless of any spin applied by reporters or pundits, the viewing public will also see the tape of the hearings themselves and no one will doubt the evidence of their own eyes, especially if the press reports to the contrary.  No one trusts the media anymore, so don't worry about that audience.

As for the Hispanic community, if you don't disrespect the judge personally or make any derrogatory statements about her race or anything personal to her as a woman, you won't have a problem there, either.  Trust that our fellow Americans are not blind to liberal hypocrisy, which is about the only thing that is transparent about them.  In this, they are as transparent as Saran Wrap.  Contrary to the liberals world view, Hispanics are a proud and diverse group.  They do not see themselves as "victims" and will not forgive the liberals for their condescension and hypocrisy when it comes to their treatment of minorites.  It is pure hubris on the part of the liberal democrats to think that any minority group "needs" their largesse in this day and age.  No one, least of all Hispanic Americans, wants to dine on government cheese.   We tried that for the three decades between the 1960s and the 1990s.  It was called welfare and it was a liberal democrat named Bill Clinton that ended it.  

In summation, the gauntlet has been thrown down by the evil Sir Charles of Schumer. Republican senators must now do what medievil knights have always done in this situation.  They must pick up the gauntlet, slap the said Sir Charles of Schumer across the face, forcefully (figuratively speaking, of course), draw their swords, and engage the challanger in combat.  Retreat is not an option, because then as now, if you retreat, you will lose your honor, integrity, and in all likelihood, your jobs.  Accordingly, I say this to the senate republicans: "DO your jobs and vet this judicial nominee thoroughly and respectfully if you want to KEEP your jobs in the next elections; and, most of all, do not PANIC,

The Devil-lution of the Modern Liberal!

My conservative friends are fond of tossing around the statement that "the only GOOD liberal is a DEAD liberal." When I hear this phrase, I'm often heard retorting that they should "bite their tounge" because without political liberalism, there would be no United States of America today. The truth of the matter is that our founding fathers were ALL political liberals. But as another old saying goes, "the devil is in the details."

The concept of "innocent" political liberalism can best be exemplified in a quote by Robert F. Kennedy which said something to the effect of "Some men see the way things are and ask Why? I see things as they never were and ask Why Not?" The "innocent" liberal honestly wants to do the most good for the most people and is not about his own self-aggrondisement. Likewise, he or she wants to make a better world, but unlike the not-so-innocent idealogues, does not come from a place of hate, especially when it comes to America. The "innocent" liberal is aware that we have less than pleasant chapters in our long and diverse history, but can also appreciate all the good that this country has done in and for the other nations of our world. Then there are the not-so-innocent politicians like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, etc. who are all about their own wealth and power. Then, last but not least, are the committed idealogues like Rosie O'Donnell and Janeane Garafalo who genuinely HATE this country and all it stands for but probably have no rational foundation for this hatred or any conscious knowledge of WHY they have such rage and hatred in them.

Thus the modern liberals can be broken into 3 types. The first of these is the "innocent" liberal. This type of liberal can be summed up in the Three Musketeers motto, "all for one and one for all." Personalities that represent this type would be George Cloobey, Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Oprah Winfrey, Leonardo DiCaprio, Darryl Hannah, Matthew Modine, etc. These are people that put their money where their mouths are and actually WALK the walk, not just talk the talk. While I may disagree with them politically, I respect them personally and they do a lot of good in the world.

The second type is the "not-so-innocent" type. This would include the career politicians such as Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, etc. These can be summed up by altering the Three Musketeers motto as follows: "all for one and that ONE is ME." Celebrities can also fall into this type as well. These are the ones that put their names and faces out front of any political or social cause they get involved in, but that involvement is more about self-promotion than doing anything for anyone else. I'm not going to name any specific celebrities here, but you know who they are. These are the types that run around the globe taking smiling photos with some of the world's worst dictators and happily take starring roles in movies that are going to bomb at the box office to bolster their political bona fides. Also included in this category would be hypocrites like Al Gore and John Edwards. Al Gore espouses environmental causes like Global Warming but puts down one of the biggest carbon footprints attributable to any single human being on the planet. Likewise, John Edwards runs for President espousing family values and concerns for the poor when he is unfaithful to his wife, and lives like a Roman Emperor.

The last type is the commited idealogue. This type hates all things American, and spends all his or her time telling anyone that will listen what a horrible country this is and what awful people we Americans are. This is the category I reserve for Al Franken, Rosie O'Donnell, and Janeanne Garafalo. These people cannot love this country and knowingly say and do the things they do on a daily basis. Several leading Democratic politicians fall into this category as well, but I'll not feed their egos anymore by mentioning them here.

The ancient oriental general/philosopher Sun Tzu made two statements in his treatise "The Art of War" that were eerily prophetic to our current political situation. The first statement is paraphrased as: "The closer the enemy is, the harder he is to see." The second statement is paraphrased as: "In order to defeat an enemy you must first be able to identify him." When Howard Dean succeeded Terry McAuliffe as head of the Democratic National Committee, I remember reading and hearing statements from various political pundits that the Democratic Party had been hijacked by its' liberal wing and that it was no longer Grandpa's Democratic Party. Like most things reported in the press, some is true, and some is innacurate.

The Democratic party is no longer Grandpa's Democratic party, that's for sure. To clarify, only ONE of my grandfathers was EVER a Democrat but he would have ripped up his membership card if he could see them today. The media's deception is in the identity of the hijackers themselves and this is largely because the media has been complicit in the hijacking process. The hijackers of the Democratic party of Thomas Jefferson and dear old Grandpa are neither liberals, nor Democrats. They are the resurgents of the American Communist Movement and Party.

Now, before you go relegating me to the status of that crazy old uncle that every family has and doesn't claim, let me clarify a couple of points. I am well aware of the negative visceral reaction most Americans have to the words "communist," "marxist," and "socialist. Like most things we base on emotion, the facts tend to get lost in the feelings and more times than not, we get it wrong. When I refer Communism, I'm not talking about the former Soviet Union, North Korea, China, Cuba, Nicaragua, or Venezuela. The sad truth is that the actual practice of communism as defined by Karl Marx in his book "A Communist Manifesto" occurs in only one country that I'm aware of and that country is Israel. True communism is not the central form of government in Isreal, but it is the form of government in the agrarian kibbutz comminites. There, the maxim "from each according to his means, to each according to his needs is actually put into practice effectively.

The countries that purport to be communist countries have about as much to do with Marx's philosophy as the Islamic terrorists have to do with the Quoran. The Soviet, Cuban, and North Korean governments are totalitarian dictatorships and not communist despite their usurpation of the title. I could call myself Hercules, too, but it does not mean I can bench press half a ton. Still, so as to remain on point, the communism I will be talking about here is the philosophy as defined in the Manifesto of Karl Marx.

The book "A Communist Manifesto" was first published in Germany in 1848 as a work of philosophy, not a political writing. As such, it was embraced by the universities and colleges in Europe and The United States. It was so embraced because at the time the words had not been tainted by the bloody deeds of the Bolsheviks in the Russian Revolution. The book itself speaks of nothing resembling the totalitarian dictorships of Russia, Cuba, and North Korea, but rather of a socialist Utopia in which all are equal and no man is richer or more important than any other. It is this last concept that makes the work appealing to the liberal minds of college students to this very day. The difference is that the students who began class after the 1920s were not aware of what it was they were studying or by whom they were being indocrinated. The reason for this is that by the mid 1920s the deeds of the Bolsheviks were well known and words like "communism," "marxism," and "socialism" had taken on the more sinister connotations we have of them to this day.

As to how all of this ties today's liberal Democrats with the American Communist Party, the string that tied the bow for me came in this quote from Norman Thomas, the last man to run for President in 1948 on the American Socialist Party ticket. He said, "The American People will never knowlingly accept Socialism, but under the label of "liberalism" they will accept every fragment of the Socialist progam until one day America will be a Socialist nation without ever knowning how it happened." This idea a socialism-by-stealth fits perfectly with the program of indoctrination disguised as education adopted by the Communists that became university and college professors following the demise of the American Communist Party in the aftermath of the "red scares" of the 1920s.

The American Communist Party as a political organization came into being in 1919, even though Communism as a philosophy had been generally accepted and embraced by academia since the 1850s. American Communists, emboldened by the Russian Revolution and the establishment of a communist state, decided the time was right to bring similar change to the American way of life. Unfortunately for the founders of this party, the atrocities of the Bolsheviks in Russia came to light causing the public to react violently against all things communist. To see how dangerous it was to be a communist in America in the 1920s, watch the movie "Reds" starring Warren Beatty and Diane Keaton. Given that declaring oneself to be communist could result in anything from arrest to assault and battery, most American Communists felt that discretion was indeed the better part of valor and abandoned the party opting for safety over ideology.

Americans thought they had seen the last of the Communists in this country, but like the cockroach, communists don't go away. They hide out of sight and flourish in the shadows. Like the cockroaches who scatter when you turn on a light as a survival instinct, so the communist hid from the light of public scrutiny, but they were committed more than ever to their goals of making America a utopian state. To accomplish this, they needed to be able to get their message to people open-minded enough to receive it and what better place can this be accomplished than in colleges and universities. Students are by their very nature open to new ideas and what better way to get a message to young, eager, and captive minds than from the bully pulpit of the university classroom.

Now if you walk up to a liberal democrat and call him or her a communist, they will probably respond to you by calling you something very insulting. They may deny the allegation outright, but more often than not, they'll just attack you. The degree and nature of the attack will depend largely upon whom you attach the communist label. If you choose a minority female like Shelia Jackson-Lee or Maxine Waters, you'll be called racist, sexist, and stupid. If you choose a minority male like Jesse Jackson, Jr., you'll be called racist, and stupid. If you choose a caucasion female like Hillary Clinton, you'll be called sexist (although she'll probably use "mysogenist" because she did go to Wellesley and Yale after all). Finally, if you choose a caucasion male like John Kerry, you won't be called anything. He'll just look down his nose, his upper lip will make a snarling gesture demonstrating utter contempt for you as he opines that you don't understand what you're talking about (elitist for "stupid"). This was seen many times in his presidential campaign, especially when the press actually did its' job and asked him tough questions or questions that clearly made him uncomfortable.

The sad reality is that many of today's liberal communists don't realize that they are, in fact, the idealogical successors of the original communist movement because their indocrination was most likely done without revealing to them either that they were being indocrinated or by whom. I doubt seriously that in the wake of the red scares, a communist professor would stand in front of his class on the first day of the semester and announce that he was a communist and he was going to make communists out of them. If he didn't get beaten to death by his students, he would certainly have been out of job when one of them reported him to the dean. So it's most likely that this indocrination would have been by stealth. Likewise, I doubt any college professor in the 1920s would have whipped out a copy of "The Communist Manifesto" and lectured from it openly. More likely, the professors would have started with Plato and the importance of the State over the individual and progressed from there. Still, if today's liberals don't realize they are indocrinated communists, it's only because they don't WANT to know, or better still, they don't want YOU to know. Another juicy little secret is that the indoctrinated ones are not just on the the Democrat side because, contrary to popular belief, Republicans go to college, too.

In spite of what I just said about the Republicans, it is in the Democratic constituency that you see a veritable rogues gallery of American Communist legacy organizations. First among these is the American Civil Liberties Union, often jokingly referred to as the Amercian Communist Lawyers Union. As with most jokes, we laugh because they're funny, but they're funny in part because there's some truth in the humor. The same holds true here because even though the letter C in ACLU doesn't stand for Communist, in many ways it really IS the American Communist Lawyers Union. The initial director, Roger Baldwin, as well as initial members like Crystal Eastman, and William Z, Foster were purported to be card carrying members of the American Communist Party. This is not to say that the ACLU hasn't done some good for our citizens in its history, but in the time since the Vietnam era, the ACLU has been more about attacking our American values and way of life than anything good it may have done before. This makes sense when you consider that in order for the Communist ideas to succeed, you first have to remove morality from the American psyche and the best way to do that is to attack the foundation of that morality, our Christian values. Regrettably, they have succeeded in this endeavor all too well.

Next up in the communist cavalcade are the unions. While they will strenously object to any links between unions and communism, the fact of the matter is that the labor movement did not exist in this country until the communinsts came together. Unions will argue this point by saying that the labor union goes back to the guilds that have been around since Egypt was building pyramids. This is true, in part, but the fact remains that there was no organized labor union in this country until 1875, well AFTER Karl Marx published his Communist Manifesto. Unions also point to the Upton Sinclair novel "The Jungle" which served as an expose on the conditions for the workers in an industrial manufacturing plant and called for workers to organize to protect themselves from corporate abuses. While it's true that "The Jungle" was published in 1906, well before the American Communist party came into being in 1919, its' writer, Upton Sinclair, studied Marxism in college and was an avowed Socialist, which was the same as a Communist, especially after the "red scare" of the 1920s. That the letter "U" stands for Union in the ACLU is NOT a coincidence. Unions owe their existence to the efforts of the American Communist Party, whether they want to admit it, or not.

Last, but certainly not least, is the group, ACORN. This body of community organizations owes its' existence and sustenance to Saul Alinski, author of "Rules for Radicals" and a hero to the likes of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Alinski was himself a community organizer dedicated to the proposition that communities should organize and use their organization to bring down both the goverment and business structures of the United States. His "rules" combined with the lessons of Nicolo Machiavelli provide the blueprint by which the Democrats, led by Bill Clinton, our first Communist President, ushered in the "politics of total destruction," a practice honed, perfected, and used with deadly precision by the modern communists of the Democratic party and their supporters to date; and, "political correctness," an insidious form of censorship and thought control and prevents us from speaking our minds in most situations.

Ironically, all these organizations, the ACLU, labor unions, community organizers, and communism itself all come from the latin word "unum" meaning "one." The word is featured in our own national motto "E Pluirbus Unum," meaning "from the many - ONE. Our founding fathers interpreted this to mean from the many, i.e. the 13 colonies, come the ONE, the United States of America. Our current liberal communist democrats interpret this to mean: "from the many, our private wealth and property, to the ONE, the Federal Government. Like a swarm of termites, these liberal communists have infected and infested both the super structure and infrastructure of the great House that is the United States of America. Like a large Victorian mansion so infected, that house is today buckling under its own weight and in serious danger of a total collapse. Now that we have, in fact, become the Socialist country we have so long feared, somewhere in the vast reaches of the infinite universe, Norman Thomas is smiling.

THIS 70's Show

When I think of the 70's a myriad of images comes to my mind.  On the one hand there's the fashions, like the leisure suit, platform shoes, spread-collared shirts unbuttoned to the waist with layers of gold chains handing down onto hairy chests, the smell of Aqua Velva, Brut, Hai Karate, and other best selling fragrances, etc.   There's also the images of John Travolta in his white polyester suit and black shirt disco dancing across the screen or bopping down the streets of Brooklyn in his leather jacket and long hair, movie s like Jaws, Star Wars, and more.  And who could forget Charlie's Angels and that poster of Farrah Fawcett in the swimsuit?  But, not all the images I recall from the 70's were as good.  I also recall the long lines at gas pumps, double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, and events like Watergate, The Iranian Revolution and Hostage Crisis, etc.

I can't decide which images disgust or frighten me more.  There is the image of my parents decked out in the fashions of the day practicing their disco moves in our basement with their friends, or the ones that showed up on the television night after night on ABC's "The Iran Crisis: America Held Hostage" which propelled Ted Koppel to stardom and served to create the long running "Nightline" series on ABC News.  There were the conversations about the latest fashion trends, esp the ones that took place at my house when Dad put on his first leisure suit, and the ones I remember about how they were going to pay the bills this month because everything seemed to cost so much more than it had a few short weeks ago.  I remember the discussions about whether my Mom should take extra shifts at the hospital or whether Dad should get a part-time second job.  I also remember my grandparents talking about what became of their money as well, and they were what I considered "rich" at the time.

As you can see, the 70's was not as it is shown in the popular sitcom "That 70's Show."  Sure the hairstyles and clothing are somewhat accurate, but there seems to be no mention of the economic and social malaise that plagued the country from the late 60's until the early 80's.  Notwithstanding the fact the the show at issue is a sitcom, still you would think there would have been some allusion to the realities of that decade.  If I had to guess a reason for these critical omissions, I would imagine it had something to do with the fact that the writers of that show were either not alive or not old enough to really REMEMBER the 70's. 

The same must be true of the writers of textbooks used by middle and high school students today, because I find the same lack of historical accuracy present in those tomes.   But this is not by accident.  After all, if you distort history when teaching it to those too young to have experienced it first hand, eventually those young people will outlive the ones that actually lived the history, so the only recollections to survive will be the distorted ones learned through the schools effectively re-writing and thus changing history.  If those who cannot remember the past are truly condemned to repeat it, then we're in for a nightmare of epic proportions.  

In all the reasearch I've done on the history of the 70's I can find any number of references to Watergate, Nixon, the evil Republicans, the Vietnam War Protests, Kent State, etc.  What is surprisingly absent from these historical references is any mention of the double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, out of control drug and sexual behaviors, the anarchy of groups like The Black Panthers and even The Weather Underground (Bill Ayers, ring a bell?).   Also missing is any suggestion as to the CAUSE of the economic miseries endured throughout the 70's.  It is our own "lost decade" and this fact seems to have been "lost" to the liberal writers of history.

Fortunately for me, I don't have to rely in these libral historians for my recollection.  When the 70's began, I was a student in elementary school.  When they ended, I was graduating high school.  I was too young to get into the discos and lose myself in the cocaine and casual sex of the disco era.  I didn't get my first fake ID card until after I had graduated from high school and was on active duty in the US Navy so I actually REMEMBER the 70's quite well.  I also had the good fortune to take one of the only economics courses in college I was able to stay awake in  from a professor who was so hell bent on discrediting Ronald Reagan's economic policies, that he was forced to look honestly at the economic misery of the 70's and at it's root cause.  That root cause, in a nutshell, was the rampant overspending by the US Government in the 1960s.

Now let's disect that statement a bit because I realize it is a loaded one.   That said, look at what was taking place during the 1960s.  At the beginning of the 60s, Kenendy was President and in the first year of his term we had the Bay of Pigs debacle, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the beginnings of the Vietnam Conflict.  You also had the beginning of the Civil Rights Movement, and other such societal changes.  After Kennedy's assasination in 1963,  Lyndon Johnson took over the Presidency and in relatively short order, the conflict in Vietman was escalated to a full blown war, necessitating great increases in spending, and at the same time, you had the creation of the welfare state, ironically referred to as "The Great Society."  Wars are expensive, as we've just had a recent remider of, and social engineering is, likewise, very expensive.

Ironically, it was the latter, the welfare state, that so bloated the federal budget that we were in deep deficit spending before the end of Johnson's first term of office.  The argument for the Great Society was that with the new found freedoms earned as a reasult of the civil rights movement, the US had a duty to help care for and support minorities as they were integrated into our society.  While this sounds good, as most liberal social engineering programs do, it was a LIE.  Lyndon Johnson, like Andrew Johnson (no relation) before him, was a rabid racist.  He did not want minorities integrated into society, but rather wanted to keep them segregated on their side of town without using the "S" word and offending his liberal constituents. 

The whole premise of the welfare state was to say to minority citizens that if they would agree to live where the government told them to, and vote the way the government told them to, that the government would see to it that they would have everything they needed to live comfortably, if not well, and that all they had to do was to behave and stay out of everyone else's way.  Rather than integrating minorities into our society it had just the opposite effect, as most social engineering programs do.  It created a welfare dependent class that contributed nothing but debt, illigitimate children, and drugs to our culture.  This resulted in increases in welfare recipients and the prison population all of which were spiralling out of control until the system was finally reformed by one William Jefferson Clinton.  But the evils of welfare is the subject for a whole different article altogether.

The point of the comparison was that the spending of the 60's was what caused the double digit inflation and unemployment of the 70's.  Now the difference between the spending then, and the spending now is that in 60's we were spending our own money.   We weren't borrowing it from the Chinese or anybody else.  Also, the social security trust fund was still intact and not a Ponzi scheme like it is now.  Add to that, the amount of spending then pales in comparison to the amount of spending now, even after you adjust for inflation, cost of living increases, etc.   If spending our own money caused us to lose a decade, what do you think spending borrowed money will do? 

%o put it in the form a model everyone can relate to, this would be the equivalent of attempting to save money by not paying your monthly bills with your salary, but rather by taking out a credit card for each such bill, paying the bill with the credit card, and making the minimum interst payment on each card every month.  In the beginning you would save money by making only those minimum payments instead of paying the full amount of the bill, but how long would it take for you to max out that card and have the minimum payment ballon to where it exceeded your regulary monthly bill payment?  Now imagine doing that for every bill you have each month.  Eventually the minimum payments would exceed your bills, your cards would be maxed out, and the bills would keep on coming.  No one in their right mind would do that, would they?

Well, you might think that, but in my 10 plus years working as a bankruptcy paralegal I saw exactly that same scenario over and over again.  This is exactly what our own government is doing as we speak.  If spending REAL money caused us to lose a decade, imagine what we're looking at with what's happening today? 

Every time I hear some politician or political pundit talking about today's economy being the worst since the Great Depression, I want to scream at my TV "What about the 70's you Moron?" Sometimes I even DO, because most the politicians and pundits ARE old enough to have some memories of that "lost" decade, even if they were too busy doing coke and having rampant casual sex in the local disco to remember ALL of it.    But for those of whose only reference to the 70's is the sitcom "That 70's Show," or the distortions of liberal historians, THIS 70's show is not going to be a sitcom and it's going to last a lot longer than half an hour.

Thanks in no small part to this admininistration's unrealistic attitudes towards the production of domestic energy, we're likely to see a repeat of another familiar icon from the 1969s. I remember very well the long lines at the local gas station or the sign "Sorry, Out of Gas" that appeared at the most inopportune of times.  Like it or not, gasoline is the life blood of this country and as long as alternative energy is not in our foreseeable fugure, we're going to have to provide the oil we need domestically which would help solve the unemployment problem to some extent, pr we're going to have to continue to transfer massive asmounts of our wealth to nations that do not have our best interests at heart.  We can no more stop using gasoline than we can stop using oxygen and if you think the French went wild over lack of bread, wait til you see Americans without affordable gasoline or other energy.   Exploiting the tragedy of the gulf  rig explosion  to artificially reduce the supply and increase the cost of energy to the average citizen is reprehensible at best. Likewise, closing down offshore oil rigs will only lose many more jobs, result in the rigs being dismantled and taken to a more user friendly location, and the oil that should be ours will be lost to the Chinese now drilling off the cuban coast in SHALLOW waters.  Where's the sense in any of THAT?

Unlike the REAL 70's which we got through in discos, snorting coke, and boffing our brains out with any partner that would stand still and let us, this generation is not going to have such pleasant diversions.   But, for the benefit of those that missed the original "lost decade", thanks to our failed war on drugs, the coke supply is still up to meeting the demand, and thanks to liberal social engineering in our schools, casusal sex is as plentiful today as it was then.  Finally, thanks to "Mama Mia" you can still hear ABBA on the radio, in FM stereo instead of AM mono this time. Who says you can't improve on an original?

The French Revolution: Not So Long Ago and Not So Far Away.

Lately there have been many comparisons made of current events with troubling historical events such as Ancient Roman times, the Dark Ages, the Spanish Inquisition, or any number of historical events in which a supposedly civilized society lost its conscience or sense of morality. No historical event illustrates this more than the French Revolution. While it began with the noblest of motives, it quickly degenerated into one of the bloodiest and most reprehensible events in human history. Sadly, what’s happening in our modern and enlightened society seems to bring to mind events that transpired in France in the year 1789.

Then as now, the people were taxed mercilessly by a government that was all about
rewarding the privileged few at the expense of the majority of the population. In 1789 France, this privileged few were the aristocrats that ruled France. The taxes that supported their lavish lifestyles were borne by the majority of citizens that did not enjoy these lifestyles, nor could they enjoy much of the fruits of their own labors as most of what they earned was confiscated by tax collectors. Add to that, the national economy was in shambles due to rampant overspending by the King and the ruling classes in supporting not only their lavish lifestyles, but also in supporting and funding our own revolutionary war against Great Britain.

Then, as now, reports of lavish lifestyles and wasteful spending by the privileged
aristocracy angered and enraged the population. While they starved in the streets, the Royals and aristocrats lived well, dined gluttonously, spent lavishly, and average citizens were paying for it with their taxes. Add to that frustration, a famine that devastated the country’s grain crop resulting in extremely inflated prices for the most basic staple of the common french man’s diet, bread, and you have a powder keg of pent up rage and frustration ready to blow. That’s exactly what happened on July 14, 1789 when the enraged citizens of Paris stormed the Bastille prison fortress, overpowered the few guards on the premises, slaughtered them and the governor of the prison, freed the prisoners, and demolished the structure with their bare hands.

To be fair, the French Revolution started out like ours did, with noble intentions to make life better for all French citizens, not just the privileged few in the aristocracy or clergy. When the French Assembly convened in the tennis courts of Versailles and took the now famous “tennis courts oath” resolving not to disband until France had a Constitution and Bill of Rights of its own, they could not have foreseen the carnage that was to follow in the name of the new France. Likewise, they could not know that their experiment with liberty, equality and fraternity would end in utter failure, and with a return to oppressive dictatorship under a gent named Napoleon Bonaparte. If they had, maybe the whole revolution would not have taken place, for who in their right mind would consent to such bloodshed and brutality if there were nothing to be gained on the other side of it?

How then did the noble experiment spin so wildly out of control and become the horror
show we know today as “The French Revolution?” The answer is not a simple one, but
it can be explained as follows: A select cabal of elitist ideologues seized control of a country from the elected legislature by creating a climate of crisis, fear, panic, and blind anger and used the “will of the people” excuse to justify tyrannical behavior. This same elitist cabal then used a complicit media to keep the people in a frenzied “lynch-mob state” and used that mob to enforce its will on an entire population. Sound familiar? It should because it’s happening right in front of our very eyes. Thankfully, we haven’t yet regressed to the mob violence or the class genocide, but we’re moving in that direction at a frightening pace.

In eighteenth century France, the populace driver was an underground newspaper
called ironically enough, “L’Amie de Peuple” (translation: The Friend of the People).
This paper was run by a professional malcontent by the name of Jean Paul Marat. Mr.
Marat had been living in the sewers of Paris before the revolution as he had failed at every commercial endeavor he had undertaken. To be fair, it wasn’t always possible to rise on one’s own merit in the feudalistic social order of pre-revolutionary France, but this man was nothing more than an angry, hate-filled, zealot who saw his opportunity for personal power and glory in the climate of the revolution. He was like the Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken of his day and he rose to national pre-eminence like Andy Griffith’s character in “A Face In The Crowd.”

He used his new found power to wreak havoc on the french population. His rants
resulted in multiple acts of barbarism, including murder, rape, pillage, and other crimes which would have met with severe punishment in a civilized, law abiding society. His word alone was enough to send hundreds of innocent people to the guillotine. As a direct result of one of his rants, the citizens of Paris raided a french prison where there were prisoners awaiting their so-called “trials” and executions, and basically committed wholesale rape, robbery, torture, and murder in the name of the revolution. Ironically, the barbarism was conducted in a large cell that had a mural of “The Rights of Man” as codified by the French Assembly at the beginning of the revolution. As if in homage to the term “poetic justice,” Marat was murdered by a woman who concluded that the country she loved would be better off without him. She paid for her crime gladly, and today she’s considered a hero in France. Her name is Charlotte Corday.

Contrast that to the way the modern media, both the so-called “legitimate” press, and
the less revered blogosphere has been ginning up anger and hatred against the
executives and employees of AIG. I remember just a few short years ago that AIG ran
an ad campaign touting themselves as “the biggest insurance company in the world you
never heard of.” In many ways, I wish that were still a true statement. How then do a
bunch of homeless, disheveled malcontents end up protesting on the front lawns of AIG
executives’ homes in Connecticut? Answer, the media, in conjunction with self-serving
politicians, ginned up a mob mentality that not only led to such protests in the streets, but also empowered unscrupulous congressmen to pass a law designed solely to
confiscate wealth. This law is a violation of the very Constitution they took an oath to support, but they were bolstered in this effort by the lynch mob mentality that boosts its’ approval ratings (albeit temporarily), and if the law is later struck down as unconstitutional, they can tell the voters that it’s not their fault.

This makes the very real (unfortunately) Barney Frank more like the character of
Madame DeFarge from Charles Dickens’ “A Tale of Two Cities.” He sits at the foot of
the guillotine knitting while his victims lose their heads and complains when the mob
makes too much noise causing him to drop a stitch messing up his knitting. Never mind
he is one of the causes of this misery, he’s’ only TOO happy to lead the charge against those he can point the finger of blame towards keeping it away from himself and othersof his ilk.

The bloodiest carnage of the French Revolution, the Reign of Terror, was the brainchild of an Avatar class of elitists led by Maximilian Robespierre, and they had the audacity to call themselves “The Committee for Public Safety.” Using the pretexts of a looming war with other European monarchies, together with the economic crisis that was threatening to topple the fragile government, these committee members effectively suspended the new constitution and took absolute power unto themselves, ostensibly just until the crises had abated. Ironically, this committee saw to it that most of its former colleagues in the full assembly were declared enemies of the new republic and sent them straight to the guillotine. In point of fact, very few of the men that took the “Tennis Court Oaths” lived to see the government they had envisioned become a reality.

I would hate to have been one of those French politicians that had to stroll the streets of downtown Paris and see all the blood soaked into the street stones from the guillotine scaffold only to realize that he was responsible for that. I would hate to have a been a French politician that had to look into the faces of children in the orphanage in Paris and realize that he was responsible for making those children orphans.

So maybe you politicians in Washington can take a lesson from what happened in
France those many years ago. When you pander to the mob, you empower and
unleash that mob, and then you bear responsibility for the consequences of that
decision and of the mob’s actions. A mob is not a sentient body. It does not think, it does not reason, it runs on pure unadulterated emotion, usually anger or fear. Once unleashed it cannot be controlled effectively and very often turns against those who unleashed it in the first place. Such was the case in the French Revolution. Every member of the Committee for Public Safety met an unnatural end, most on the
guillotine to which they had consigned so many others.

Likewise, the members of the media, both the “legitimate” press, and the blogosphere
might want to consider their responsibilities as well. It’s easy to spew venom and vitriol from the virtual safety of the internet and then disavow all responsibility for what ensues. But just as we enjoy the privilege of freedom of speech (for now, anyway), we also have a responsibility to use that speech judiciously. We cannot legally scream “Fire” in a crowded theater and escape the consequences of that action. Yet that is what many so-called journalists and bloggers do every day. What happens when the wife or child of one of these AIG executives gets hurt by a protestor? Even if the harm is not intended, how are we going to feel if it happens? I would like to think we’re all human enough to say that we would feel terrible if someone actually got hurt. If that is the case, then we need to think before we write. If that is not the case, then keep doing what you’re doing and cheer loudly when the guillotine gets erected in Times Square.

Was Our Economy Murdered? A Grand Jury Case for Indictment On a PREMEDITATED MURDER Charge!

The following article is being presented as if it were a criminal case being presented to a Grand Jury to secure and indictment against the defendants believed by the police and prosecuting attorney to have committed that crime.  When a crime is suspected or has occurred, most citizens react by calling this police. Police work and crime detection are as much about luck and hunches as they are about actual physical evidence and the proverbial “smoking gun.”  It is no wonder they sometimes get it wrong.  That said, I firmly believe that MOST police officers and honest well-intentioned public protectors, but like any other human group, you got good ones, and corrupt ones.  This is exactly why it takes more than a cop hunch to put someone in prison or to death.  That’s what jury trials are for. But before you can get to a jury trial, a charge has to be filed with the court.  That charge can be based on a prosecutor’s affidavit or an indictment by a Grand Jury which means that a panel of ordinary citizens has concluded that a crime was committed, and that the accused defendant probably committed it.  It is that proceeding that I’m going to replicate today.  I will be the prosecutor, and you Dear readers will be my Grand Jury.


My burden will be to prove that our economy was, in fact, the victim of a crime and that>the crime charged is attempted murder.  It is only attempted murder at this time because our economy is not dead, contrary to liberal media opinion.  It has been grievously injured and could possibly die, but as of now it’s very much alive if not well.  Most states define attempted murder as the commission of an act with the unlawful intent to deprive the victim of his life.  It would also be desirable for the accused to have failed in that attempt so that the does not get increased to murder in either the first or second degree.  


My subsequent burden will be to show that the person or persons against whom this indictment is sought had to motive, opportunity, and criminal intent to commit the crime charged, and to present evidence to show that they, in fact, did commit the crime charged.  In assessing culpability, the grand jury *you, the readers) are not required to find guilt or innocence, only probable cause that the crime was committed and that the accused could have committed it.  


Could the economy have been Murdered, or was the economic decline just a result ofnatural market forces?  There are compelling arguments to be made for both sides, but one of the more compelling arguments supporting foul play is the overwhelming benefit to one of the accused from the economic tsunami.  The ONLY beneficiary in all of this is the Democratic Party.  No private enterprise, private citizen, or public entity other than theDemocratic Party and its candidates benefit from this economic malaise.  But the Democrats are not the only ones accused here.                      


To understand why both Republicans and Democrats stand accused, you have to first understand how the economy was injured.  We can all agree the tsunami, for lack of a better term, occurred in mid September of 2008, but that wasn’t the first potentially fatal blow.  The first potentially fatal blow to this economy occurred shortly after the election of the Democrats to majority in the House and Senate.  They passed a law that reinstated the mark-to-market accounting rule that had been removed ironically by the Roosevelt administration to help bring about recovery from the Great Depression.  This was done in response to the Enron collapse, but it had the unintended (or intended) consequence of setting up the financial sector of are economy for fiscal Armageddon.


The longest occurring and most lingering assault on the economy has been a verbal one by Democratic politicians and their allies in the media.  Democrats or their surrogates and sympathizers have been trying to talk down the economy since before the 2006 midterm elections.  They first tried a frontal assault on the economy, telling us that the economy was not good.  This flew in the face of record high indices, free-flowing credit, and all appearances to the contrary so it failed.  Not to be discouraged, the Democrats resorted to a classic from their play book, class warfare.  They changed the premise from a bad economy to an unfair one in which only the rich were benefitting.  Even this failed and the Democrats were left with no other strategy than to lie to the voting public and promise that if they were put in power they would end the war in Iraq.


This was disingenuous at best, and an outright LIE at worst.  Any one who was taken a high school civics course knows that only the President of the United States to order our armed forces to engage in or withdraw from combat.  The Democrats knew, and hoped the voting public didn’t, that the most they could do with withdraw funding from the Defense Department which would essentially leave our troops naked in the field.  No clear thinking politician would dare attach his or her name to such a bill.  Only the most committed ideologues would even consider such a thing, and then only because they knew it wouldn’t pass.  This makes the promise they made to the voting public a false one, and true to form, they failed which infuriated the far left but not the majority of Democratic voters.


To make matters worse for the Democrats, our troops (aided by the surge of new forces) started winning in Iraq despite the best efforts of the Democrats to convince us otherwise that the war was, in fact, lost.  No matter how they proclaimed the statistics were wrong, and that General David Petraeus was a liar (i.e., the “suspension of disbelief” comment by then Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton) the facts spoke for themselves.  Casualties were down, elections were held, Iraqi troops were taking the field and taking control, and all evidence showed we were winning the war.  The Democrats knew they would not be able to win in 2008 on that issue.  They had lost credibility promising to end the war, and now that we were winning it, the war rage vote would not be enough. 


Enter once more, the economy.  It was still at record highs and the Democrats knew that unless something changed dramatically, they might not be able to take the White House or keep their control of Congress.  Shortly after January of 2007, Democratic supporters on the blogs began a “whisper” campaign about the economy.  This time instead of a frontal assault, the bloggers started reporting that the economy was not sound.  It was not “real.”  Words like “illusion,” “smoke and mirrors,” “house of cards,” etc. started appearing in the texts and it wasn’t long before these sentiments started finding their way into the mainstream media coverage of economic news.  


Not surprising, as the rumors grew and spread, the stock market traders reacted by short-selling financial stocks, driving their prices and perceived values downward.  Not long after this started, credit rating agencies like Moodys and Standard & Poores announced that they were lowering the credit rating of investment banks like Bear-Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Goldman-Sachs, and any other bank that traded in mortgage security instruments backed by sub-prime and conventional loans.  The decision of the rating agencies was made across the board and did not take into account the fact that most of the mortgage loans were paying.


Once the credit ratings were lowered, the investment banks found themselves in the unenviable position of going from having balanced books with cash reserves to being insolvent overnight.  They did the only thing they could do, which was to scramble to sell assets to raise capital.  Under the newly reenacted mark-to-market rules, however, the value of the assets had so fallen that it was impossible to raise capital in a timely manner.  For Bear-Stearns, this meant a shotgun wedding with our government holding the shotgun, but for Lehman Brothers, there was no relief and it was forced into bankruptcy.


The bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers was the second domino to fall, and set off a chain reaction that is still going on Wall Street.  Had the government known of the events to follow, it would likely have reversed its decision not to save Lehman Brothers but, as in all things, hindsight is 20-20.  The identity of the person that made the decision to allow Lehman Brothers to fail is not known, but it is certain he or she was an employee or officer in the previous administration.  As to what happened after Lehman Brothers, we have only to look at our 401K statements and the Dow Jones Industrial Average to answer that.




The final question to answer is the why of it all.  To answer that, you simply have to look for the answer to one question: who benefitted?  Who is the sole beneficiary to all of this economic chaos and misery?  The only beneficiary I can find is the Democratic Party and its political operatives and supporters such as the media.  AT the time of the economic collapse in September of 2008, John McCain was ahead in the polls, and the Republican’s “Joe the Plumber” anti-socialism message was beginning to resonate.  Add to that the resurrection of the Reverend Wright ads and controversy and Obama was flailing and losing ground.  Then, the economy collapsed and this single event followed by the serio-comic response of John McCain and the government as a whole in passing the Trouble Asset Recovery Program, put the Republicans on the mat never to return.


Had it not been for the economic meltdown, John McCain might well have won the presidency and even if he did not, it is relatively certain that the Democrats would not likely be enjoying their hold on absolute power in Congress right now.  Now, I’m not saying that the politicians in the Democratic Party intentionally visited this much misery on the country merely to win an election.   Politicians, whatever their ideology, go into public service to help people and I’m not yet jaded enough to say otherwise.  You may think me a Pollyanna for this belief, but until the evidence to the contrary is more than anecdotal, I remain a true believer. This nobility is reserved solely for elected politicians.  However, for every politician you see on stage, there’s an unseen force of a few to thousands of nameless, faceless political operatives and supporters you do not see, and these people will stop at nothing short of criminal behavior to get their candidate elected.  It seems that, given the
evidence of this last election cycle, that we can no longer exclude criminal behavior, especially on the Democratic side of the aisle.  After all, it was democratic supporters like ACORN and the preppie college students in Ohio that committed countless cases of voter registration and outright voter fraud, and it was democrats that refused to install any credit card security software on their sites resulting in numerous allegations of credit card fraud.   


The last item I wish to present is that the Democratic Party is the only party whose membership consists of a core of ideologues that believe no one is entitled to private wealth and that such wealth should be confiscated by the government and redistributed evenly to all citizens regardless of whether they had anything to do with its’ creation in the first place.  This constituency would think nothing of wiping out the wealth and retirement savings of millions of American because they do not believe anyone is entitled to private wealth in the first place and that the temporary misery is justified by the liberal utopia they hope to create.  It’s like my parents used to tell me as they were spanking me with a paddle, “its for your own good and you’ll thank me for it someday.” 


So in conclusion ladies and gentlemen of the Grand Jury, I submit that I have established more than enough evidence to conclude that our free market economy was and IS the victim of the crime of attempted murder and that said crime is ongoing to this day.  Now that Obama and the Democrats are the doctors charged with saving this economy, they continue the assault against it every time they open their mouths.  It is almost as if, rather than employing heroic measures such as CPR, defibrillation, administering medicines like epinephrine, etc, they are putting a pillow over the face of the economy to hasten demise.  Fortunately, they are just as much a failure at that as they have been about everything else thus far because our economy is not dead.




This concludes my presentation to you, the members of my grand jury, and I now charge you to return a True Bill of Indictment for the crime of attempted murder against the following defendants: The United States Governments for the years 2006 to the present, including former President George W. Bush and current President Barack Obama, the Democratic Party and its political operatives and supporters from the last election cycle, including the main stream media coalition, and last but not least, the greedy and unscrupulous wall street traders that orchestrated the demolition and devaluation of the financial stocks by short selling and other strategies designed to force stock prices down for their own personal enrichment regardless of the consequences to others.  This case is respectfully submitted for your consideration.  Thank you for your attention.