An Open Letter to All Celebutards!!!

Dear Celebutards: (And you KNOW who you are)

Have any of you ever heard the phrase "biting off the hand that's feeding you?" Well, that is exactly what you're doing when you consistently attack this country's free market capital economy, for it is only THAT economy that makes your pampered, privileged, and overindulgent lifestyles possible. At the risk of breaching that dreaded "separation of church and state" you have been endowed by your creator with a gift. Whether that gift is a talent, athletic ability, the ability to string words together, or even just the vicissitude of good genes that makes you look good in jeans or a bikini, that "gift" together with some action on your part, enables you to live the lifetstyle and have the fame and adulation you now enjoy. It is that adulation that enables you to command attention when you speak. Sadly, most people don't actually LISTEN when you speak because they are too busy either mentally undressing you, or wishing that they WERE you to hear what you're saying. That enraptured state means that whatever you say will permeate the brains of your fans without any critical thinking intervention on their part so they will parrot what you say as if it were some kind of gospel.

To quote one of your own, the great Stan Lee, "with great power comes great responsibility" In case you don't recognize it, that was the sage Uncle Ben to the young Peter Parker, aka Spiderman. I realize that many of you did not ASK to be role models, and that you would probably rather NOT have gaggles of teenaged boys and girls aping your every move and hanging on your every word. In a perfect world that would not happen, but in THIS one, alas, it DOES. In a PERFECT world your drug and booze fueled exploits wouldn't get found the clock attention from tabloid press and the networks whose sole reason for existence is to expose us to what you do when you're not doing your so-called JOBS, bur without the Lindsey Lohan's of the world, where would the tabloids, the paparazzi, and shows like Entertainment Tonight, Access Hollywood, or the entire E network be? But, because of the aforementioned entities, things you do and say are exposed to young and old alike so for God's sake please THINK before you speak.

Then there are the real hypocrites, like Michael Moore and Al Gore, who reap for themselves the benefits of free market capitalism while advocating for a form of governance that will effectively deny those same benefits to those who come after them. Michael Moore is the worst for he KNOWS that if he achieves the world he claims to want, he will have no place in it. It is only through free market capitalism and free enterprise that he enjoys the lifestyle and menu choices that he has clearly enjoyed with great relish. Hypocrites like these who talk the talk, but don't walk the walk make me ill. Though I totally disagree with the "greenies" like Leonardo DiCaprio, Ed Begley, Jr, Darryl Hannah, Matthew Modine, etc. I can at least respect them because unlike Moore and Gore, they PRACTICE what they preach. But Leo, you can only drive that Tessla sportscar and live in that green condo because people are willing to invest their hard-earnred GREEN so the studios can make your movies and people can buy tickets to SEE those movies. Again, I applaud you for your commitment to the environment, but remember that not everyone can AFFORD to do what you do. Same with Brad and Angie and all the other celebs that have helped out in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina and again in Haiti. I applaud your generosity and your selflessness. But again remember that you could only DO those things because of the free market and capitalism.


The reason I chose the Sean Penn/Harvey Milk caricature as the illustration for this essay was that he and others in hollywood LIKE him bring to mind the old commercial that starts out with a soap opera actor saying "I'm not a Doctor, but I play one on TV" and then proceeds to advise us to buy some over the counter antacid.  What does he know?  He flat out said he's NOT a Doctor. At least that commercial was honest enough to give you a disclaimer so you could take the "doctor's" advice for what it was worth.  Sadly, actors like Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, Natalie Potman, etc. do NOT give you that disclaimer before they proceed to give political advice or speeches but c'mon, this is Jeff Spicoli we're talkin' about.  Just cuz he's PLAYED politicians doesn't he he KNOWS politics.  In fact he and his ilk are so far removed from the real world consequences of politics they have no business EVER getting involved in them, but thanks to Frank Sinatra and the Rat Pack and their involvement the Kennedy campaign, there's been an unholy alliance between the fantasy merchants of Hollywood, and the political fantasies of Washington, DC.  Problem is that WE in the REAL world have to LIVE with those politics, Hollywood is, for the most part, insulated by layers of wealth and privilege and therefore do NOT experience the horrors they inflict on us by virtue of helping elect "Stuart Smalley" to the United States Senate.


It's not at all surprising to me that more and more celebrity types seem to embrace the "total government" concept of Marxism.  If they're under the age of 40 and attended public school, they've been indoctrinated by left leaning teachers and school administrators since pre-school.  If they went on to attend college, as many actors and athletes did, the indoctrination went into overdrive.  If they never got out of the protected bubble envicornment of academia and into the REAL world prior to achieving their "celebrity" status, they've never had a chance to learn the way th world REALLY works for themselves.  I had the same public school education.indoctrination and also attended a very liberal univeristy, but it was my military service and business entrepreneurial  adventures that taught me (the HARD way) that everything I had been taught to believe in was a crock of SAND.  Today's youg people are having the same realizations I did, but sadly, thanks to liberal thinking a social experimentation, the lack the coping mechanisms to deal with their disappointments.  This is the reason for the phenomenon known as the "quarter life crisis."  In Hollywood, it's what happens when a child star can't make the transition to adult actor cuz he's no longer the cherubic cutie pie he was when he was six.  In sports, it's when an athlete peaks in high school or college and never quite makes it to the big game.  In business, it's when you realize there's no such thing as a participation triphy, and that if you mess up, you don't see a purple pen mark, you grt a PINK SLIP!  If you've never been allowed to fail before, how can you be expected to handle a failure in later life?


The older hollywood liberal/radical types like Sean Penn are the product of indoctrination both in schools, and in their day to day acting experiences.  They were first the protegees of actors from the Boomer generation, many of whom were the drug addled hippies of Woodstock, and they've become drug and alcohol addled themselves.  Add to that a steady diet of memorizing lines written by writers who are (for the most part) to the left of Nikiti Sruschev going back to the days of the early twentieth century when Communism and Progressivism were hip, slick, and cool and attracted the likes of playwright Eugene O'Neil and Hollywood Ten writer, Ring Landner, Jr. and you can see how the post boomers come to think as they do.  As many actors become producers, again due to the beuefit of free market capitalism, the cycle is perpetuated from mentors to protegees.  Notwithstanding all the foregoing, Hollywood is a BIG Union controlled town, and all know where UNIONS come from.  I'm sure that most of this is new information to you, and it's an arrogant person indeed that doesn't think he or she still has much to learn in this life.   The reason the celebutards do not know these things is because they have not been permitted to LEARN them.  Our history and the true nature of what it means to be an AMERICAN has been stolen from several generations of our citizens and it is only NOW that we're starting to realize this and seeking to regain that knowledge for ourselves.


"The problem with socialism is that sooner or later, you run out of OTHER people's money."  That's a quote from the "Iron Lady"  herself, Britain's Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher.  So my dear celebutard, if yiou think your lifestyle will not be affected if the government you champion gets the total control it's craving, think again.  If we are no longer a free marked capitalist economy, where will the money come from for YOU?  There will only be ONE patron left that can afford you, and that patron will be the government.  Evern wonder what it was like to be an enetertainment or sports celebrity in Nazi Germany?  Wonder what it was like for Max Schmelling to return to Gernmany and face the likes of Hermann Goering and Adolf Hitler after getting his butt beat by a black man?  I sure it was NOT a pleasant experience for him.  And I have first hand knowledge of what it was like to be a dancer in the Moscow Ballet back in the days of Leonid Brezhnev cuz I met a woman who used to be one and subsequently became the mistress of the said Leonid Breznev, a man who was about as attractive to her as a bullfrog, but who was able to give her a nicer apartnment, better clothes, jewelry, etc. until he tired of her and moved on to a younger woman.  She fell from grace almost as quickly and found herself in her middle aged years working in a factory that produced parts for tanks.  It was NOT a glorious existence.  Think it can't happen to you?  You're too young to remember the days of the studio bosses, but how about the child stars of Different Strokes?  Their fortunes were stolen out from under them and they turned to lives of prostitution, pornography and crime.  They all DIED well before their time, too.  Think it can't happen to you?  If we get a Totalitarian government that craves money, how long do you think it'll be fore it wans YOURS?  After all, when asked why he robbed banks, famed bank robber Willie Sutton replied, "cuz that's where the money is."


As a small business entrepreneur and free market capitalist, I don't begrudge you your success.  I understand that your pretty face, hot body, talent pool, ability to punt, hit, or catch a ball, are your stock in trade.  Unlike the President you so giddily supported in the last election, I don't think there ever comes a time that "You've made enough money." because I understand that as long as people are willing to buy what you sell, you're entitled to be paid.  If you likeness sells tickets, DVDs, sports drinks, cereal, sneakers, etc., you're entitled to a share in that revenue and it should only be the free market itself that places a cap upon your earnings, not a governmental entity.  I'm sure you see it the same way now that we're talking about YOUR money don't you?  But if that government you champion takes away OURS, then we won't be able to hire people so neither we nor they will be able to buy those things, or tickets to see your movies, concerts, or sporting events.  Should that happen, you won't have the millions to party with, either.  And if that government chooses to increase the taxes you pay, how many of you will keep company with Wesley Snipes in federal court trying to protect what is YOURS from a greedy, grapsing, intrusive federal government.  How long do you think it will be before that same government tells you what kind of content you can produce, or how much skin you can show, etc.  Where does it end?  The reality is, that it DOESN'T end.  Power and control only create a desire for MORE power and control.  If you think your parents and coaches are bad, try a nanny state GOVERNMENT on for size.  I've SEEN what kind of government can do, and it's not pretty.  I've walked in the ruins of the former Soviet Union and belive me, you don't want THAT here.


So, in conclusion, Dear Celebutard, SHUT UP and sing, act, dance, and hit, bounce, or kick that ball, or do whatever it is that you do to deserve your celebrity and notoriety (and believe me when I say for MANY of you, I have no CLUE what that is) secure in the knowledge that, unless we actually GET the government you champion, life will be wonderful for you.  But leave the politics to those of us who live the REAL world and do the things that make your fairytale existence possible.  If you continue to bite the hands that are feeding you, one day there might not be anyone left to do so.  Can you imagine Michael Moore on a DIET?  Unless you want to go back to waiting tables, digging ditches, or flipping burgers, be careful what you wish for because in the words of Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, "that government that is big enough to give you anything you want is also strong enough to take away EVERYTHING you have."



Sincerely,




Silence Dewgoode (GOOGLE HER)
Flyover Country,(what the glitteratti refer to as the land between Hollywood and New York or Washington, DC)  USA

The "Myth" and "Reality"of Health Care Reform

Yesterday I, like many of my fellow Americans, lost several hours of my life that I will NEVER get back watching the "Blair House Dog n' Pony" show that was the Health Care Summit. The purported idea behind the "summit" was for Republican and Democratic congressmen to engage in a free and open exchange of ideas for reforming our health care delivery system with the President and members of his administration. On the surface this is what appears to have occurred, but as we're all too well aware, appearances can be deceiving. Since this Administration and Congress took power, that seems to have become the RULE itself, not the exception it was once thought to be. What became readily apparent to me, however, was that what was happening had absolutely NOTHING to do with health care reform at all. What health care "reform" is, and has ALWAYS been, is a naked power grab by the federal government of the United States. It is the latest in a SERIES of grabs, by this government for federal control of private businesses and industries with the SOLE aim of increasing the POWER of the federal government. This is FASCISM by definition.

When the Democrats initiated healthcare "reform" their stated goal was to bring down the cost curve, to allow for portability of insurance, to eliminate the pre-existing condition exclusion, and to ensure that the however many millions of uninsured Americans there REALLY are (since the number varies in each politician's speech) could obtain affordable healthcare coverage. Then the Democratic controlled houses of Congress managed to put together and pass two bills that accomplish few if ANY of their stated goals (according to a panoply of non-political business, economic, and insurance experts), expand the size and authority of the federal government, and cost the taxpayers approximately a TRILLION dollars above and beyond the current budget.

While the public had voiced it's disapproval at the directions the Democrats were taking their legislation at Town Hall meetings and tea party rallies, the Democrats chose to ignore their constituents and press ahead. But when word of the veritable "bribery" of Senators Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson became public knowledge, voter anger exploded and the Democrats lost their veto proof super majority in the senate as Massachusetts elected Scott Brown to the Senate head long held by the late democratic Senator, Edward M. Kennedy. This turnover of a once secure seat to a republican in the very democratic state of Massachusetts, together with rising public disapproval for their legislation, and the fact that all house democrats and several prominent senators have to face re-election in less than a year put the legislation on a very shaky footing. While the separate bills had passed in their respective houses, there were substantial differences between the two bills that would make reconciliation difficult if not impossible. To many, myself included, it appeared as though the push for health care reform was effectively stalled, if not dead.

Then, out of nowhere, it's back and now the Democrats realize they are going to need republican support to get health care legislation passed. Additionally, because of the upcoming election, they WANT the political cover of having republicans on board with this legislation. To this end, they have been courting the more progressive republicans in both the Senate and House and getting nowhere. For this reason, President Obama convened the Health Care Summit at Blair House so that prominent congressional democrats and republicans could get together with him and key members of his administration to try to arrive at a workable compromise legislation that could garner true bi-partisan support. To their credit, Republican legislators showed up and presented a variety of time tested and proven free market solutions which, if implemented, would likely produce the results the democrats claim to want, and without the trillion dollar price tag or need to expand federal bureaucracy. If the Democrats really wanted to fix the system, they would take the Republican's ideas, put them in the bill, and if they worked, take credit for fixing health care in the next election and, if they didn't, blame the Republicans in the next election. All this is merely academic at this point as health care reform is only the magician's assistant. The REAL "trick" in these pieces of legislation is the creation of an American replication of Great Britain's National Health Service.

The National Health Service of Great Britain is the largest single employer on that tiny island. One out of every three working adult Britains is employed by this agency. Of these only one out of three is a medical professional such as a doctor or a nurse. The rest are paper pushing bureaucrats. If you take into account all the workers of other British governmental agencies, nearly forty-five percent of all adult workers in England work for the government and one HUNDRED percent depend on that government for health care. This creates a large and LOYAL voting constituency for the Labor party resulting in that party's veritable stranglehold on political power for the majority of the past thirty years. A great French writer by the name of Alexis De Tocqueville once stated that "Democracy will endure until the day politicians discover that they can bribe the people with public funds." That is EXACTLY what has kept the Labor party in power, and this lesson has NOT gone unheeded by our own democratic politicians.

In addition to the INTENT of the health care "reform" legislation, there is a far more dire and (I HOPE) unintended consequence that can occur if this legislation is signed into law in it's present forms. The net effect of this budgetary nightmare might very well bring to fruition the Cloward-Piven Stragety, especially when combined with the unravelling of the Ponzii schemes that the Social Security and Medicare entitlement programs have become. Thanks in no small part to the Babt Boomer's free love and unfettered abortion policies there are not enough working adults in the private sector of the economy paying into the system to keep pace with the benefits that will have to paid out, esp if no new manufacturing or other capital producing jobs are created in the next ten years. To understand what the net effect of Cloward-Piven will be, you have only to look at what happened to the former Soviet Union, and what's happening in Greece today. Thst is Cloward-Piven in ACTION.

The total economic, political, and social upheaval in this country that would result is the revolution that many progressive Baby Boomers have been dreaming about and creaming their flower appliqued bell-bottomed jeans over since they were teenagers fornicating in the mud at Woodstock. The destruction of America as it has always been, and the remaking of it as a socialist UTOPIA is and has ALWAYS been the goal of the boomer progressives, and with this one piece of legislation, they may well be able to achieve that goal and put the final nail in the coffin that was once the United States of America.What Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground could not accomplish with their bombs, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid may be able to do with their two thousand page bills.

Woith the election of Republican Scott Brown and the loss of the democrats filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, we the PEOPLE thought we had ended this very existential threat. Sadly, healthcare reform seems to have had a "Lazarus" moment and is once again alive and well. Actually, the legislation is more like Michael Myers in the "Halloween" movies and we all know that you can't kill the boogeyman. But like the boogeyman, if you don't kill this legislation now and for all time, it will rise up again and kill you and yours, fiscally speaking.

If the Democrats are allowed to succeed in this, when we go on to our great reward, or punishment, as the case may be, we may very well have to face the Founding Fathers and account for the mess we made of their once noble experiment. Remember, these guys settled their differences with canes, swords, and pistols, and we may very well deserve the thrashing we will receive at their hands for what we have allowed to happen to what THEY bequeathed us. In less than fifty years time, these elitist idiotswill have rolled back every reform of humanism since the Renaissance, and the Enlightenment. We think it no good thing that Islamic terrorists want to take us back to the Dark Ages, but in reality it's our own progressive elites that want to return us to the Dark Ages and feudal serfdom. I truly hope there is a special corner in the hottest part of hell for progressive politicians in BOTH parties for the part they have played in systematically destroying the last, best, hope for mankind and freedom in this world.

You MIGHT be a PATRIOT If: . .

You MIGHT be a PATRIOT if:

1. You can say the Pledge of Allegiance with pride swelling your chest instead of a queasy feeling in the pit of your stomach and the inate desire to remove the words "under God" from the last part of the final statement.

2. You believe that the FAMILY is the best environment for raising children, not the collective public schools, and that it is the FAMILY that should provide children with a moral, spiritual, and political foundation, not the SCHOOL and certainly not any individual TEACHER.

3. You think the United States Constitution should be READ and not read INTO by those office holders who have sworn the oath to support, protect, and DEFEND that said Constitution, not obliterate it with a series of laws designed solely to achieve or maintain their own political power and prestige.

4. You believe that man's rights come from GOD and Natures and not from any elected legislature, and further that that rights of life, liberty and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS do not include a guarantee that one will BE happy, nor can any GOVERNMENT guarantee one's happiness by the passing of any law.

5. You believe that ones elected legislators are elected to REPRESENT their constituents not to RULE over them, and that a formal education, while necessary in preparing one for certain career pursuits, in no way renders one more intelligent or more entitled to power than one not so formally educated.

6. You believe that the right to vote is sacrosanct and should only be exercised by LIVING, BREATHING American citizens, properly IDENITIFIED as such.

7. You believe that the words "career" and "politician" should never rest together in the same sentence and be used to describe any one man or woman in his or her lifetime. Politicians should be more in the vein of the ancient Roman Cincinnatus, not CAESAR or for a more contemporary example, George Washington who not ONCE, but TWICE voluntarily relinquished power when he could have had absolute power for LIFE, nor Franklin Roosevelt who thought he should be President for LIFE, prompting our elected officials to pass a constitutional amendment ensuring there would be no more such ambitions realized in this country.

8. You believe in American exceptionalism and the power of the individual, and believe that we are citizens of the United States of America, NOT citizens of the WORLD at large.

9. You believe that the individual citizen cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without DUE PROCESS OF LAW, which means following the LAW, not DOING whatever the heck the government wants under COLOR of law.

10. You believe that your freedoms are rights are worth fighting to preserve AT ALL COSTS because like Patrick Henry and our forefathers, we are resolved to live and DIE as free men rather than to submit to slavery and tyranny, even from our OWN GOVERNMENT!

Where Have All Our JOBS Gone?

In the days of the Hippies, and the Vietnam era protests there was a song frequently sung by the protesters called "Where Have All the Flowers Gone?" It was a hit for the group "The Kingston Trio" and the trio, Peter, Paul, and Mary, and was based on a Russian poem called "And Quietly Flows the Don." The gist of both the song and the poem were that all things have both a cause and an effect and are cyclical in nature. 

In the song lyrics,the first question posed was "Where have all the flowers gone?" Answer:"Young girls picked them everyone." The next question was "where have all the young girls gone?" Answer" Gone to young men, everyone" followed by men to soldiers, soldiers to graveyards, and graveyards to flowers illustrating both the futility of war and the cyclical nature of all things using the flower as a metaphor for life. Makes sense, doesn't it? However, when the same question is posed about American jobs, too often the political ideology kicks in and the blame game begins. 

If you're a conservative, you blame the UNIONS. If you're a liberal or Marxist,you blame big business and Wall Street. In either case, you'd be both wrong and RIGHT. To blame either faction as the sole cause of the eradication of the manufacturing sector of our economy would be an oversimplification and misinterpretation of the events that transpired to bring it about. 

From the beginning of the period that followed the end of World War II to about the mid 1970's, roughly two thirds of the finished manufactured goods sold all over the world were made in the United States.During this boom period, we had relatively non-existent unemployment because anyone willing to WORK could find a job. Not only could one FIND a job with relatively little education or experience but onecould support himself and his family in a respectable manner on what he earned from working at such a job. It was also possible to work that same job for twenty years or so and retire from it with a gold watch and a pension that, together with accumulated social security benefits, would allow one to live a relatively secure and comfortable retirement. To understand how we went from being the world's largest producer of finished goods to one of the world's largest consumers, you have to look at organized labor, progressive politicians, the legal profession (creators of the litigation INDUSTRY), and the "wolves of Wall Street."

I'm not writing this solely for the purpose of bashing labor unions. Unions have done a lot of good things for the American worker. Without Unions, there would be no 40 hour work week, sick days, maternity leave,worker's compensation, child labor laws, and a variety of other laws we take for granted in the modern workplace. At their inception, Unions were comprised of men who WORKED in the industry whose workers they represented. They were true peers of their fellow union brethren, and as such, represented their interests with diligence and empathy against corporate executives and managers. By the late 1950s however, unions had been corrupted by both organized crime, and union management that had no relationship to or understanding of its' members as they had been hired directly out of colleges and LAW schools without having EVER done a hard day's work in their lives.

In the late 1930s, the unions were infiltrated by organized crime families following the loss of their Prohibition revenues, and who used the Union's dues pools and retirement pensions as slush funds to build casinos in Havana and Las Vegas. In the election of 1960, Kennedy family patriarch Joseph P. Kennedy used this relationship to help securetheelection of his son, John F. Kennedy, to the presidency, which resulted in the "quid pro quo" exdecutive order legalizing (for the FIRST time in U.S. History) collective bargaining rights for FEDERAL employees. This provided the model that ultimately institutionalized PUBLIC Sector Unions and gave them the stranglehold they now hold on our states and municipalities. Even the uber progressive Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt knew that doing THAT would lead to econonic DISASTER, but Kennedy paid his father's BILL with OUR money.

From that time on, Union leaders saw the power and profit potential inherent in political activism and became more concerned with their personal and political ambitions than the welfare of their members. It was ALSO around this time that labor unions become the targets of infiltration by the Communist Party of the USA, whose agenda had been set forth in its "45 Stated GOALS for the TAKEOVER of America." 

Unions used their new found legislative clout to get laws passed the strengthened their position in one sided collective bargaining (especially in the PUBLIC sector) and to extort higher wages and greater benefits including "cadillac" health care benefits, unrealistic pensions and stock options for their workers. This went on for a time until the cheaper imported manufactured goods began entering the country and finding their way ontostore shelves. Free market forces put the American manufacturers in an untenable position between a rock and a hard place and they realized they could not continue in business if they couldn't be competitive in pricing their products. However, due to their high labor costs and union contracts, they could do nothing to bring down their manufacturing costs so they were hemorrhaging market share to the cheaper imports. This resulted in deminishing sales, declining profits, and lower share values. More than one manufacturer was run out of business altogether, but some found a way to shake the union yoke once and for all and still remain profitable and this is when the "Wolves" of Wall Street started to howl.

In the Reagan era the 1980s, wall streeters coined a new term for America's financial lexicon. This term was "maximizing shareholder value." It was this concept that gave rise to the corporate raider portrayed to perfection by Michael Douglas in the character of Gordon Gekko from Oliver Stone's classic movie "Wall Street." What the corporate raider did was seek out companies that had been declining in profits and share prices, but still had sufficient cash and assets to make the acquisition worthwhile. These raiders however had no intention of running the business once they bought it. Their purpose was to dismantle these corporations and sell off their assets because the companies were more valuable for their parts than for the corporation as a whole and functioning business. They would "maximize the shareholder value by buying the shares at or above market price thereby removing the shareholders from the business model. They would then either work with the existing boardof directors or a new one they inserted to liquidate the assets of the corporation like its real property, inventory, fixtures and equipment or replace them with a slate of officers chosen by the liquidator specifically for this purpose. Employees would be immediately terminated because the board only has a fiduciary duty to shareholders not to employees, and the equipment would be sold off, normally to an overseas concern. 

The dirty little secret to this whole process is that before the takeover, the boards of directors would often organize another company or corporation overseas in a country that was more hospitable to business and when the equipment and fixtures was sold, it would be that company, secretly owned and operated by the same board of directors, that would purchase the equipment and fixtures at a bargain price. The company would then set up a new company to import and sell to retail the products now manufactured overseas, and it's profit would come from the wholesale to retail sales model now inplace. By this slight-of-hand, the corporations effectively reorganized, removed the union and the high labor and operating costs they would have paid in this country, and with a more streamlined business model in place, could realize greater profits than were realized prior to the "liquidation." New corporate name and no manufacturing facilities or employees meansno more UNION obligations. This process was repeated throughout the 1980s and 90s until the manufacturing sector of the American economy was all but EXTINCT, and it's not limited to manufacturing either. Try calling customer service for your credit card to airline today and you'll probably be talking to someone in New Dehli, India. Apparently it's cheaper to pay the long distance charges and the Indian wage than it is to pay Union scale wages and benefits in the customer service industry. 

The loss of these jobs was not the goal of either the unions or the progressives in government. The INTENT of the unions was to use government power that they bought and paid for to effectively wrest (aka STEAL) control of the corporations and their profits from their rightful owners, the shareholders, as we saw in the rape of GM and Chrysler shareholders (aka the rightful OWNERS) by both the UAW and the US Governmentacting in concert. 

The LOSS of the manufacturing jobs and resulting boom-bubble-BUST economic cycles was an "unintended consequence" of the progressive political and social agenda. Seems, however, that most, if not ALL of those progressive political and social agendas are fraught with the damages from the "unintended consequences" on progressives who don't think past the end of their upturned noses when implementing their ideologically driven, but poorly reasoned, agendas. Ironically, we're NOW supposed to believe that CHANGE will come from doing the EXACT same THING only with the GOVERNMENT doing the manipulating instead of the wolves of wall street. 

At the beginning of this piece I referenced the song "Where Have All the Flowers Gone" I chose that song not only to illustrate the cyclicalnature of events, but because it has a most appropriate tag line for our current economic and political situation. That line is "When will we EVER learn?" And the sad ANSWER to the question is, apparently, WE will NEVER learn.

Terrorists, Freedom Fighters, and PSYCHOPATHS, Oh MY!

It has often been said that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." Certainly this statement has been proven true at various times in recorded history. Few could argue that the Jewish patriots who died in the mountain fortress of Massada were freedom fighters, yet to their Roman overlords they were undoubtedly thought of as terrorists, and criminals. One of the earliest and more heroic of the "freedom fighter" genre, is Robin of Loxley, aka Robin Hood. This "outlaw" is still considered by many to be the protoypical freedom fighter and folk hero, but to the political establishment under the Regency of Prince John, he was undoubtedly considered an outlaw and a terrorist. But we need not look so far back in history or so far away as there have been more than a few notable examples of the Terrorist/Freedom Fighter dichotomy right here in the good old USA.

The first American example of the terrorist/freedom fighter dichotomy is the organization founded by Sam Adams prior to the start of the American Revolution, the Sons of Liberty. While to most patriotic Americans, these men were the original freedom fighters in our nation's history, to the Tory politicians and British loyalists as well as today's more liberal historical textbook authors, this was a terrorist organization. In the strictly esoteric definition of the word, the Sons of Liberty WERE terrorists. They often employed mob tactics and they did indeed terrorize the targets of their political disagreements. Sometimes this was simple intimidation done by vandalizing property or the more extreme measure of hanging the target in effigy or burning the effigy in front of the intended victim and his family. When the "simple" method failed, they sometimes resorted to the more "personal" attack on the unfortunate person manifesting in either simply assaulting the unfortunate individual, or the more cruel and extremely humiliating act of "tarring and feathering." In this practice, the hapless politician or government official would be overwhelmed physically, restrained, stripped to the waist, and his skin would be coated in hot tar and before the tar cooled, a feather pillow would be opened and the individual would be covered in a layer of chicken or goose feathers.

Now one can only imagine how painful being captured, assaulted, stripped, and painted with hot tar might be. Surely it resulted in second if not third degree burns to the skin as just as likely resulted in loss of a layer or two of skin as it was removed. Then, factor in the humiliation of being paraded around town to be seen by friend and foe alike in this most embarassing condition. Given that these barbarities were more often than not perpetrated as a result of political disagreements, you could easily conclude that the Sons of Liberty were indeed terrorists AND psychopaths, but they were "fighting" for the freedom of the American colonies from the tyranny of the British monarchy which makes them freedom fighters. And since we are the beneficiaries of that liberty they fought for, we should never think of them as anything BUT freedom fighters and patriots for that is EXACTLY what they were.

Another example of this dichotomy can be found in the person of John Brown. John Brown raised a civilian militia to fight to keep the then lawful institution of slavery out of Kansas, and ultimately to abolish the institution altogether and free the thousands of African slaves from bondage. His tactics included mob violence, vandalism, assault, arson, rape, and murder so in that regard he is both a terrorist and a psychopath. He was unapologetic about any acts and atrocities committed by him or his followers because he believed his cause justified his actions. This makes him a psychopath, but since he was fighting for the liberties of thousands of people who were in fact enslaved, he is also a freedom fighter. He met his end when he attempted to invade a federal arsenal to steal weapons to arm slaves so they would fight in rebellion against the lawful authority of the United States and when he was captured by then Colonel Robert E. Lee, he was charged with sedition and treason and executed as a criminal. To his victims he was a psychopath and a terrorist, but to history and to the descendents of those slaves, and to many other Americans today, he was a freedom fighter and a hero. Strangely the same can be said of Robert E. Lee as well.

To my possibly oversimplified way of thinking, to be labeled a "freedom fighter" you must FIRST be fighting for FREEDOM, either your own, or someone else's. The examples I've given thus far surely meet that test. However, there are those on the LEFT, especially the Hollywood Left, that want to consider the likes of Fidel Castro and Che Guevara (shown above), as the POSTER CHILDREN of freedom fighters. Sadly, I think the many Cuban expatriates who daily brave 90 miles of shark infested ocean in the flimsiest of homemade water craft for a chance at the REAL freedom of the United States, might tend to disagree with that characterization. Indeed, Fidel Castro WON his fight, so where's the FREEDOM he ostensibly fought for? It's nowhere to be found on the whole island of Cuba, if you believe the accounts of any resident of Miami's "Little Havana" district. The same can be said for any leftist country in the WORLD today, yet those on the LEFT side of our own political system continue to sing the praises of the likes of Karl Marx, Chairman Mao, Fidel Castro and now that latest liberal fantasy leader, Hugo Chavez. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that there are those on the LEFT that have NO understanding of what freedom actually IS. How else can you account for their embrace of totalitarian DICTATORS as freedom fighters.

Another example the LEFT frequently get WRONG is the Islamic extremist/Terrorist. While celebrities like Roise O'Donnell proclaim that the muslim terrorists are just like we are, fighting for their home and family, you have to wonder what she's been smoking. First of all, most suicide bombers and terrorists HAVE no immediate families. Second, they represent no sovereign state, and what they are actually fighting FOR is to force the world into a state of total submission to a way of life not seen on this earth since the centuries were measured in single digits. What THEY are fighting for is the total antithesis of FREEDOM. And the WOMEN who champion their cause, would be the first to be killed by them. Rosie O'Donnell would certainly not enjoy a celebrity lifestyle under sharia extremism. She would even be KILLED for refusing to submit herself to a MAN as her husband. Her own FATHER would likely have killed her the moment she revealed her homosexuality to him because under sharia law, homosexuality by EITHER sex is a sin and therefore a CRIME. Look at how many muslim fathers are killing their daughters just for wearing makeup and tight jeans? Those guys are just so TOLERANT, aren't they?

Why the political and social LEFT in this country can't seen to grasp the simple FACT that there are people both in and outside this country who want to KILL us for no reason other than we EXIST, is beyond me. They want to deny civil rights and protections to AMERICAN citizens with whom they have a political disagreement on a daily basis, but they can't give our civil liberties to people who are neither entitled to nor deserving of them, fast enough. They want to deprive Americans of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, but they want TERRORISTS and KILLERS to have the full protections of our judicial system and our overall way of life, which these terrorists and killers want to wipe from the face of the earth. Does that make sense to anyone?

Last, but certainly not least, why is it that so many of the LEFT and extremists in both our country and the countries that spawn the most terrorism come from parents who have succeeded in thier lives allowing their children to have the best of everything at little to no effort on their part? Classic examples of this are Usama Bin Laden himself, Ayman Al Zawahiri, and even the "knicker-bomber" who tried to blow up the flight to Detroit on Christmas Day. These were all men who came from privileged and sucessful families. The most liberal men and women in this country come from country club backgrounds and ivy league educations. Even the "Mad Major" Nadal Hassan got the best education this country could offer for FREE, and look how he expressed his gratitude. Likewise with President Barak Obama himself, and William Ayers, Bernadine Dorn, Cass Sunstein, and Van Jones, too. The only exception to this is the hollywood celebrities, many of who came from middle class backgrounds or worse. THEY are liberals out of a sense of guilt, because that's the classic recruitment issue for liberals. They are apologetic and feel guilty for their success, just as they are ashamed of and apologetic for the stature of the United States in relation to the rest of the world. This perhaps accounts for their willingness, even EAGERNESS, to bring it to economic and social RUIN. Fairness is all, after all, if you're a liberal. To bad they don't feel the need to extend that "fairness" to the people that actually WORK for and EARN their success.

The thing the liberals just don't seem to get is that if they weaken this country, the people who will overrun it and want to kill us will make NO distinction between them and the rest of us. They may be USED, much as the "sonderkommandos" were used by the Nazis in the concentration camps to help control and exterminate their fellow Jews, but they will only be buying time, because their turn will come. I wonder how Susan Sarandon and Lindsey Lohan would like living in Usama Bin Laden's world? My guess is not very much, but if we get overrun by these extremists, that's EXACTLY the world we'll be living in. Do YOU want to see Megan Fox in a birkha r rather than a bikini on the cover of Maxim? I don't want to see her PERIOD, but if I did, I would want to SEE her cuz the visual is all there is from what I can tell.

As for psychopaths all terrorists are psychopaths, and SOME freedom fighters have a touch of psychopathy in their constitution as well. Anyone who can take human lives without regret, remorse, or even sympathy is a psychopath. As for politicians, there's some pathology at play there, too. There HAS to be to convert elected representatives into dictatorial rulers. And the way our current crop feel that their judgment is superior to the vast majority of their constituents can only lead one to the conclusion that they no longer feel any obligation to respect the will of the people they purport to represent. Thomas Jefferson, the founding father that founded the Democratic Party, once said: "When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is TYRANNY." That makes THEM tyrants, and the enforcement of their fiats is likely to make them terrorists as well. Whether it is arrogance, hubris, or chutzpah on their parts, our elected representatives have decided to use their political gang to hijack much of this country's economy and they are doing so without concern for political or judicial challenges that may ensue, To me, THAT'S terrorism on par with anything the Islamic extremists are doing. If Usama Bin Laden wants to destroy our way of life, he may already be too late because Barak Hussein Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid are beating him to it.

Rage, Politics, and the Barrel of a GUN!

In the past several days, indeed over the past several YEARS, we've seen more than a few people attempt to vent their frustrations and assuage their rage with loaded guns and a body count. I can personally recall the mass shootings at The post office, Columbine High School, The Atlanta brokerage office, Virginia Tech, and the college in northern Illinois. Just this week we've seen two back-to-back yet unrelated incidents at Fort Hood,Texas and an office in Orlando, Florida. While there is no definitive connection between any of these incidences, there ARE similarities in the motivation and causation of each. In every case just named, the shooter was a male who felt he was the victim of an injustice or injury that he felt powerless to resolve or ameliorate. His frustration builds , along with despair and rage in equal proportion until they reach critical mass and he decides his life is no longer worth living. However, instead of merely committing suicide, these shooters resolve to reclaim the power they feel has been taken from them, to go out in the proverbial "blaze of glory," and (in a poetic measure of "justice") take the people they feel are responsible for their miseries (no matter how inaccurate their perceptions) out with them. Though there are subtle variations to this basic architecture in each of these cases, the underlying foundations are uniform. Sadly, with our recessive economy, these incidents of sporadic violence are on the rise. This is nothing new as we've frequently seen upticks of violence in down economic cycles. During the depression we saw the rise of cold-blooded killer gangsters like "Baby Face" Nelson, "Pretty Boy" Floyd and Bonnie and Clyde. These people loved violence for the sake of violence and happily sprayed lethal streams of lead wherever they went. However, since their most frequent victims were banks and bankers, the "schaddenfreude" aspect of human nature kicked in, and we took a perverse pleasure at the violence directed at the banks, which many Americans perceived to be the cause of their miseries, and these thugs were turned into Robin Hood like folk heroes. In the economic miseries of the 1970s it was the radiical and violent groups like the Black Panthers, and The Weather Underground that were turned into the folk heroes of the leftists who wanted government collapse, anarchy, and power to the people. Sadly, some of these people survived, escaped the prosecution and imprisonment they so richly deserved, and mainstreamed back into society where their higher education was used to corrupt students and further their radical agendas by inflicting their radical ideologies on the youth of America. This campaign of indoctrination begins as early as preschool and kindergarten and continues right on through high school and college. It is no accident that the overwhelming majority of new voters register and support not only Democrats, but the most RADICAL and MARXIST of democratic politicians in every election cycle in which they can be counted upon to participate. Typically (and THANKFULLY) this is only a Presidential election, and even then only when a Presidential candidate actually appeals to them. This is why John Kerry did NOT get the same level of support from younger voters that Barak Obama did. Now, as for the political element in all of this, today we are faced with a very real existential threat to our American way of life and that threat does not come from a foreign power as in the days when the Soviet Union was the source of all evil in the world, but from our very own elected government. We have empowered the most radical slate of elected officials in our history, and every item on its legislative agenda is purposely designed to deprive American citizens of their freedom and rights to private property and personal wealth. Now the same was said of Franklin Roosevelt's administration and rightly so, but the difference between the Roosevelt government, and the current administration and congress is like the difference between the softer European socialism of France and Germany, and the hardline socialism of the former Soviet Union, China, and North Korea. We have empowered a cabal of elitist politicians that want to "fundamentally transform the United States of America" as if the present model which has taken us from horseback to space ships in less than 200 years isn't good enough anymore. This slate of politicians got elected by deceiving the majority of voters into believing that they were moderates with only the best interests of the American people at heart, when in reality they are firmly committed Marxist idealogues with only the maintenance and spreading of their own power and ideology at the root of every item on their toxic legislative agenda. We the PEOPLE know that if the Marxist/Democrats succeed in passing their slate of legislation, it will result in the greatest confiscation of property and restraint of personal liberty this country has ever seen and more than a simple majority of the people of this country want NOTHING to do with it. When we typically have a disagreement with our elected officials, there are several forms of political activity available to us to try to change their behavior. In ordinary circumstances we write letters to our congressmen to inform them of how we feel about their legislation or support and if enough people send enough letters, they get the message and alter their behavior. If letters aren't enough, we call them. If that doesn't work, we show up at their offices and make our feelings known, and if all that fails, we vote them out of office in the next election cycle. Today, much to our frustration and dismay, NONE of those measures seems to have any effect on these politicians. They are so driven and committed to their ideology, that they are not responsive to the wishes of the people they purport to represent. They seem to have forgotten that THEY work for US and not the other way around, although most of us typically have to work more than six months out of every year just to pay our taxes and fees, so that doesn't always seem to be the case anymore. The last and most extreme political measure available to people to protest against the policies of their government is the ballot. Though there was no election on a national scale, people who wanted to change the direction of our current government put their energies and money behind two gubenatorial elections to oust the democratic incumbent and candidate and elect conservative republican candidates. Though many Americans could not legally VOTE in either the Virginia or New Jersey elections (unless of course they belonged to ACORN), conservatives and republicans across the country gave financial and political support to the conservative republican candidates and these efforts succeeded in ousting the democratic incumbents and candidates in states that previously been solidly for democrats in hopes of sending these democrats on capitol hill a clear and unambiguous message to stop what they're doing or the same fate could befall them in 2010. This action was ignored, minimized as "state politics" and indeed, the democrats have even spun these elections as a political victory. So now we have anger at what our elitist politicians are trying to do to us, and a growing sense of frustration because we don't seem to be able to do anything about it. We HAVE written letters and even sent e-mails and tea bags only to be ignored. We've made phone calls only to speak to a third tier flunky who gives us a canned platitude in response to our concerns. We've also shown up and protested, first at town halls, then at tea parties, only to be ignored or worse, ridiculed and insulted. Tea Party protesters have been called everything from racists to nazis and branded as unpatriotic and un-American. Funny how the dissenters to government were heroes and patriots when it was democratic protesters against a republican controlled government. This hypocrisy, as well as the heaping of insult on top of injury only adds to the growing sense of frustration and rage building across this country. This elitist cabal of politicians, together with its' willing accomplices in the media and academia is now poised to ultimately destroy the American way of life as we've known it. They further intend to cede American sovereignty to the United Nations by signing its' Climate Control Treaty which amounts to nothing more than Cap n' Trade on a global scale. However, unlike Cap n' Trade which will merely cost lower and middle class citizens far more than they are likely to be able to afford in utility costs, as well as to cause every manufactured product still made in this country to cost more, the global version will permit an international government to further regulate our behavior and confiscate yet more of our personal property and freedom. This will devastate an economy already in peril, and will likely make the economic miseries of the 1970s seem like the "Happy Days" of the 1950s by comparison. The politicians elected to make things better are only amplifying the damage and committing generational theft by running up a tab that our great grandchildren may still be paying when they are senior citizens. So there is a great deal of fear and despair among free-thinking Americans who don't believe everything they see on TV, read in the New York Times, or have lived through the 1970s. Since no political solution has seemed to get the attention of these committed Marxist Democrats, what is left? When you have a large part of the population gripped in the fear of economic uncertainty and the TERROR of the intent of our elected officials and seemingly no way to effect their intention to radically alter or destroy the things we hold dear, you get that very volatile combination of despair and rage that can lead to violence against those perceived to be the cause of that suffering. Sadly, our congressmen and women seem to be oblivious to the growing danger that faces them as they proceed hell-bent on ramming their legislative agenda down our throats regardless of our wishes to the contrary. In that regard they are like a team of horses with blinders running at break-neck speed along the side of a steep cliff with us riding in the carriage being pulled along behind them. If they go right, they live and so we. If they go LEFT, they plunge off the cliff to their destruction taking US with them. Given those considerations, it wouldn't be unreasonable for someone to conclude that if they are successful, we might prefer death to life in the AmeriKa they would create. One of our most famous Founding Fathers, Patrick Henry, said "Is life so dear as to 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!" Given that mindset, what is to prevent someone from reaching that critical mass and taking his guns and directing their fire at members of Congress? After all, they do not have the protection that the President has, and they don't stay in Washington all the time, either. If someone takes out congressmen between now and 2010, depending on the laws in their states, such an act can force special elections in which conservatives can band together and get conservatives elected to replace the deceased Marxists thereby sending a CLEAR and unambiguous message that even the most committed Marxist demon-CRATS can only ignore at their own peril. Sadly, I fear there are those out there in what the coastal elites of Hollywood, New York, and Washington DC refer to as "flyover country" namely the rest of the United States in which REAL people live, that may be starting to think along these lines. I only PRAY this does not happen, for the result would be anything but the desired one and would more likely result in the total suppression of freedom of speech and assembly, the imposition of martial law, and the confiscation of all privately held firearms by the government and its' local, state, and federal police agencies. Just as John Wilkes Booth miscalculated the consequences of assassinating Abraham Lincoln, any conservative who undertakes this extreme action will likely do far more harm than good to his cause. The only real HOPE for CHANGE will come in the elections of 2010 and 2012. In the meantime, keep writing and calling your elected officials, and keep showing up at the tea parties and rallies. Despite the lies told by the media, these actions ARE having an effect because if they were not, health care legislation would have been passed by the Democrats a long time ago. No, my fellow Americans, we still have our rights to free speech, free assembly, and free (if not always FAIR) elections, and we can take heart that even ACORN can't steal an election if it's not close. We need to work together to get honest conservative candidates running in the primary process and supporting those candidates to secure their election to the House and Senate in 2010, and 2012! The BALLOT is still more mighty than the BULLET and we need to keep it that way if we are to remain the United States of America!

Throw Mama From the Train . . and Under the BUS!

"Golden Years" is more than a song by David Bowie. It is the term that described the time that elapses from when a person retires from his or her chosen profession to the time that he or she "shuffles loose this mortal coil." Thanks in no small part to the rock-solid alliance between America's senior demographic and the Democratic Party, those "golden" years have heretofore been golden indeed. Senior citizens have routinely seen increases in their Social Security and Medicare entitlements over that past thirty to forty years, and they in turn have given their loyalty and support to democratic politicians. However, in the time since the near market collapse of September, 2008, senior citizens have seen thier "golden" years turn to lead painted with gold paint. Most seniors have seen their life's savings evaporate, whether in the stock market decline or in the real estate collapse, and they have seen their costs of living rising steadily. Now, thanks to the legislative agenda of the Democratic Party, they are looking as substantially higher costs on every single product and service they rely upon.

One would think that the old adage "dance with the one that brung 'ya" would serve to protect the senior population from the democrats' reckless and proflagate spending agenda, but the sad reality is that you would be wrong. In nearly EVERY version of the so-called "health care reform" bills, democrats in Congress are proposing paying for the new entitlement at the expense of the already troubled Medicare program. If you're a senior citizen on a fixed income, you can't help but wonder how the government is going to cut half a billion dollars from a program that's nearly bankrupt as things NOW stand, without severely curtailing your benefits, thereby increasing your COSTS. At a time in life when seniors HAVE to live on a fixed income and a tight budget, if their out of pocket costs go up, their quality of life MUST go down.

Today's senior citizens have been sacrificing their entire lives. This is the generation that saw us through the Great Depression, that fought and WON World War II, that fought and WON the Cold War, and that has worked hard all their lives to give themselves and their families the highest standard of living in the world. Now, in their twilight years, the democrats are demanding further sacrifices from our seniors because in passing any or all of its' legislative agenda, senior citizens are going to find themselves with health care expenses they can't afford to pay, utility bills they can't afford, and a social security check that will not get them from one month to anther without substantially reducing their expenses, thereby diminishing the quality of of their lives and severely diminishing the enjoyment of those lives. Just as it was before the Republican party passed the prescription drug benefit, seniors are once again looking at having to choose between healthcare, utilities, and food. They have been through too much to have to shop for their food in the pet food aisle at the local supermarket.

The reason I chose the title I did, was that in addition to incorporating a movie title, I have a seventy year old "mama" that will be very negatively affected by nearly every one of the democrat's proposed pieces of legislations. My mother has been through a LOT in the preceding decade or so of her life. She had a major stroke which left her left side completely paralyzed, a second minor stroke, open heart surgery to replace her heart valves, and last February she fell in or bathroom shattering her kneecap and requiring two surgeries, an extensive convalescence at a convalescent home which she had to pay for out of her own pocket because neither Medicare, nor her Medicare Advantage plan covered that particular expense. It came to more than $25,000.00 our of her pocket In the legislation now pending, a government bureaucrat might have concluded she was not worth all that expense and she might have had to languish in a nursing home for the remainder of her life wtih painful pins holding her leg together.

I also know that my mother's social security and pension benefits are barely enough to pay her bills as they are NOW. Imagine if Congress succeeds in passing Cap n' Trade and her power bills DOUBLE what they are now? If the proflagate government spending continues, inflation will make the dollar worth less and everything will cost more. How is someone on a fixed income who's not even confident in a cost-of-living adjustment to social security supposed to absorb this? Something will have to give, and that something will diminish the quality of enjoyment of life for most if not ALL senior citizens. And, for the record, it's not just ME saying these things. I heard all this and more when I took my mother to the local senior center earlier this week. The prospect of the looming health care reform bills is something that is TERRIFYING local seniors as well as anyone that has a health care issue.

So why would an organization as politically astute as the Democratic Party has proven itself to be in the past six years risk alienating its' largest and most reliable constituency? No single answer to that query makes any sense, but if you look at a variety of consequences, either intentional or unintentional, you begin to see a pattern emerging. Whatever politically esoteric label you want to put on democratic (and sadly, SOME republican as well) politicians, they are about ONE thing, and one thing only, POWER! They have something in their DNA that makes them think they are entitled to it. They forget that they work for US, not the other way around. They forget that they are representatives, NOT rulers.

Democrats in particular are infected with this disease of arrogance. When they lost Congress in 1994 and were related to the "cheap" seats for nearly twelve years, they SEETHED with rage and did everything they could do to undermine the republicans, and attempt to sabotage every program and policy regardless of the consequences to national security or public safety. Their attack dogs in the press virtually committed TREASON exposing our national defense policies on the front pages of ther papers and magazines. Any challenge of this nature, however, was met with the rhetoric about dissent being patriotic, and we should ALWAYS question our government. Funny how that seems to NOT be the case now that THEY control that government and they want to make certain that they never LOSE that control again. That's the only way you can explain the "double standard" democrats insist on hiding behind. So , assuming all this is true, you're probably asking "If democrats are all about keeping power, why would they risk alienating their most reliable constituency?"

The answer is simple and can be given in one word, MONEY. It takes a LOT of money to mount effective political campaigns, and senior citizens live mostly on fixed incomes. As the "baby boomer" generation retires, they go from being producers to being consumers and will be less likely to make the kinds of contributions to the democratic party coffers that they did as working people. The younger voting demographic, however, will be earning, paying taxes, and thanks in part to twelve or more years of liberal political indoctrination in schools, will be more likely to make their contributions to the democratic party. So the democrats are gambling that the money and votes they net from the younger demographic will be enough to offset the votes they MIGHT lose from the senior citizens. When it comes to the "boomer generation" the democrats know that more of those are lifelong liberals and believe that they will be far more likely to remain loyal to the democratic party regardless of its' policies.

Nevertheless, if is a real risk the democrats are taking. Younger people are notoriously unreliable when it comes to actually VOTING, esp in mid-term and more local elections. Another disadvantage of counting on the young is then they tend to get older, and with age some wisdom also sets in. In the words of the immortal Sir Winston Churchill, "If you're not liberal when you're twenty you have no heart, but if you're not conservative when you're forty, you have no brain." It's never too late to reform a liberal. If you doubt this, just look at Dick Morris. Last point is, that with senior citizens living longer, and being far more reliable voters, this ploy of catering to the younger demographic at the EXPENSE of the senior one, may very well backfire on the democrats. Only TIME will tell, and the time most telling will be in November of 2010 and November of 2012! As Rush Limbaugh so aptly put it, "I hope they FAIL!"

A Faded Label

Several years ago following the passing of my father, my mother gave me the task of going through his closet, first to see if there was anything I wanted to keep for myself, second to determine which clothes were suitable for donating to AmVets and finally, which were beyond any further use. As my father and I were of different sizes, and our tastes rarely coincided, going through his closet was emotionally difficult, but the destination of most of it's contents was already pre-determined. I kept only a couple of coats, and the rest went straight to charity. However, what was up in his closet was only PART of the job. In the basement were several large trunks that, judging by the layers of dust on them, and the dirt around them, had not been moved or opened for at least a decade.

When I opened the first trunk, I was greeted wtih the scents of mothballs and mustiness that one would expect to find in a trunk that hadn't been opened since it was packed decades earlier. The first trunk contained women's clothing that I recognized as having been worm by my mother when I was a child. When I opened the second trunk, in addition to the smells, I was greeted by the sight of my father's naval uniforms and as I went through them, I could see his career progression from his days as a third class petty officer to that of a Master Chief Petty Officer. I saw his blues and whites, but I also found another very different uniform in that trunk, that of a Sergeant in the United States Marine Corps. My father was never a Marine, but HIS father was and what I was looking at was my grandfather's uniform from World War II. He was highly decorated for service in the Pacific theatre, including Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa, and had achieved the rank of Sergeant at the time of his discharge. I knew I was looking at a real piece of American history and I felt a true sense of pride in the contributions my grandfather, my father, and to a lesser extent, myself have made to the safety and security of this country.

That "pride" all but evaporated when I opened the next trunk and saw, neatly folded and pressed, my father's favorite slate blue leisure suit from the decade of disco. I knew this garment very well as my father wore it everywhere he couldn't wear jeans or chinos. Suddenly I was a child again riding in the back seat of our 1969 Pontiac Catalina staring at the back of that suit, complete with a brightly colored silk shirt with a large spread collar that covered the jacket's collar, breathing in the plumes of cigarette smoke that wafted back from the front seat as disco tunes blared on the radio. Although he had a few leisure suits of varying colors, that slate blue one was his favorite so I had ample opportunity to commit it to to memory.

Further exploration of the contents of trunk found those brightly colored silk shirts with the spread collars, some sportcoats with very wide lapels, and ties as wide as lobster bibs reminiscent of the ones I saw in a "Kojak" rerun on late night cable television. Just as I was about to give up and consign the whole lot to AmVets, I found the piece de rsistance, a faded pair of Levi's blue jeans. They were clearly worn, but far from worn out. They were very stiff and smelled of mothballs, but were otherwise in good condition. I unfolded them carefully, half expecting to see a garish bell bottomed leg, but was pleasantly surprised to see the same standard boot cut jean that was in my own closet. The only thing left was to check the size to make sure I could actually wear them and next to the size tag, was a faded label that said simply "Made in the U.S.A." Like the jeans themselves, the label was faded from the many washings these jeans had no doubt been subjected to. As previously stated, my father practically lived in his jeans which means they were frequently washed, so I figured that one more such washing would take out the mothball aroma and a dose of fabric softener would make them wearable once more.

True to form, my father's Levis jeans did not disappoint. In the space of two hours, they emerged from the dryer virtually indistinguishable from any other pair of Levis or other jeans in my closet with one major exception. They were the ONLY pair to have the "Made in America" label. All the other denim jeans in my closet, inlcuding my other Levis bore labels that said they were made in such exotic places as Malyasia, Singapore, or the Phillipines. How could that happen to this most uniquely American item of clothing, created to fill a need expressed by the rugged miners of the California Gold Rush by a jewish immigrant tailor named Levi Strauss. In true American entreprenurial spirit, he saw a need, and created a product to fill that need, and in the process added a new term to the American lexicon, and created garments that not only covered the miners, but very soon covered the cowboy, the farmer, and every child from the streets of Brooklyn, New York to the beaches of California. It is nothing less than a stain on our national honor that this most American of products is now made in predominately third-world countries.

Sadly this stain is not limited to Levis. Indeed, most of the major brands I remember from my childhood are either no longer in existence, or are no longer made in the USA. In 1941 when my grandfather shipped out to fight the Japanese, everything he and his fellow Marines had with them was made here in the USA. This included the clothes on their backs, and the gear in their packs, the guns and ammo they carried, and the vehicles they rode in or marched behind. Sadly, the troops today wear or carry many items, including UNIFORM items, that are not made in the USA. They carry Chinese made knives, shovels, forks, canteens, etc. Their sidearms are made by Baretta, and even their UNIFORMS have labels indicating foreign manufacture. How, in the space of half a century, did we go from being the predominant manufacturer of finished goods that were desired by the world, to being the world's largest consumer of imported products?

The answer to this question is complex, and there are four actors that share responsibility for the fact that the manufacturing sector of the American economy is on life support. They are the labor unions, the government, the lawyers; and last, but not least, Wall Street. These four actors, individually, and in combination of one or more with the other have destroyed the business of manufacturing finished goods in this country. To understand how, you have to understand the basics of how a business works. There have been libraries full of books on this subject but, to put it simply, a business has to make a PROFIT to survive, let alone thrive.

In a manufacturing business the goal is to produce a finished product made from raw material and to sell that product for more than it costs you to make it. Sounds simple enough, right? Well, what does it really COST to make a product. You have to factor in three things. They are the tools of manufacture, the raw materials needed for the product itself, and the cost of labor. The tools includes the overhead required including machinery, computers, desks, chairs, office space, vehicles, etc. The raw materials are the components of the product itself such as plastic, metal, glue, staples, etc. The labor includes not only the factory workers, but also the secretaries, janitors, security guards, etc. All these elements factor into the per unit cost of the item manufactured. If one or more of these elements increases, then the cost of the finished item also increases. Accordingly, the more a manufacturer has to expend to produce each item, the more he has to charge the consumer to maintain an acceptable profit margin. Contrary to the popular belief of those on the ideological left, profit is NOT a dirty word.

Enter the labor unions, the government, and the trial lawyers all of whom add artificial cost to the manufacturing process and consequently the finished product. Labor unions focus their efforts on the labor side by extorting companies to pay higher wages and generous benefits, regardless of market conditions and other economic factors; and, (when they don't get their way) throwing child-like tantrums and shutting down businesses with strikes, sick-outs, and other such tactics. Ordinarily in business, labor would be the most fungible part of the manufacturing process as one worker can be replaced with either another more reasonable worker. When the union gets involved, however, replacement of workers is no longer an option. After all, the manufacturers are under contract with the unions, and (at least in THIS regard) contracts must be honored. If a company tries to evade the contract and bring in non-union laborers, enter the trial lawyers and pile on more cost. The only other option for a manufacturer is to employ technology to reduce the number of workers needed and thereby reduce his labor costs.

Labor unions served a need when they were first created. Before the unions came into being there was no forty hour work week, minimum wage, child labor laws, maternity leave, etc. These are things today's workers take for granted and they wouldn't exist without the labor unions, but these are Marxist organizations, and with all their initial reforms now codified into federal and state law, they are now only concerned with their own self-preservation. They insure this with political alliances forged with huge campaign contributions using their members dues and pension funds. They have long since outlived their purpose and in extorting companies the way they have, they have caused more than a few of them to close their doors permanently, or in the alternative, to cease manufacturing their products, and to buy them from a foreign source to re-sell them to wholesalers and retailers to realize the needed profit. When the unions were shown to be in league with organized crime, and were themselves exposed as criminal or quasi-criminal organizations, they should have been disbanded once and for all. We would ALL be better off today, especially in Detroit, had that happened.

In addition to the unions themselves, enter the government and it's onerous burden of rules and regulations which range from how many gallons of water your toilet can flush, to the precise angle a computer keyboard should be positioned to avoid carpal tunnel syndrome. Whether federal or state, compliance with these regulations adds enormous costs to the manufacturing process which must then be passed on to the purchaser of the finished product. Additionally, the United States has the second HIGHEST corporate tax rate of the industrialized nations, second only to Japan. As a result of this, it is difficult (if not impossible) to attract new business from foreign manufacturers. Exceptions to this are found in the automobile industry which has set up manufacturing plants in southern non-union, right-to-work states. These companies employ thousands, but if government passes the "cardcheck" bill and the UAW is able to invade these organizations and coerce workers to join the union, these foreign auto makers will more likely than not close these plants and take their business back to their own domestic facilities. They do NOT want to fall victim to the same forces that have all but destroyed General/Government Motors, and Chrysler/Fiat.

If all that weren't enough to run a manufacturer out of business, enter the LAWYERS. With lawsuits for everything from product liability, worker's compensation, employment discrimination and sexual harassment, many of which are dubious at best and fraudulent at worst, businesses are forced to pay out thousands in legal fees or increased insurance premiums, all of which must be passed on to customer of the finished product. Notwithstanding the actual costs of legal actions, there is also the TIME element invested in attending meetings, depositions, and trials.

As a result of these "artificial" costs, the cost of manufacturing a single finished product can more than TRIPLE the actual COST of manufacturing such a product. This forces a manufacturer to sell his product at a minimum cost to a wholesaler, who then sells it at a markup to a retailer, who then sells it at a markup to the final consumer. This means a "widget" that costs about $2.50 in raw materials has to be sold wholesale for $15, and ends up on a store shelf at $24.99. However, if sitting on the shelf right next to it is another "widget" that appears identical in every way to the domestic one, but is made in China, for $9.99, which one is the consumer going to buy? It's a no-brainer and this results in a drastic reduction in demand for the higher priced domestically manufactured products. Decreasing sales mean diminishing profits, which sends a corporation's stock prices plummeting downward.

Enter the fourth villain, Wall Street, and more specifically, the corporate raider. In the 1980's the financial geniuses on Wall Street coined the term "maximizing shareholder value." This innocuous phrase basically translates into the hostile takeover of a business enterprise by a Wall Street raider like the fictional Gordon Gecko in the Oliver Stone movie "Wall Street." the raider, sometimes known as "Larry the Liquidator" makes a stock tender offer to shareholders to pay them more than the stock's current par value so he can acquire a minimum of fifty percent plus one. When he has a majority of the company's stock, the Liquidator will elect himself and his employees or agents to the corporations board of directors and, in short order, he will close all the facilities, liquidate the assets of the corporation, and pay remaining shareholders their share of the profits from these sales. When the corporation is liquidated, it will be dissolved and fade away into the pages of history. This is only possible because the labor unions, government, and lawyers have made it difficult, if not impossible, for a corporation to manufacture a product domestically, and remain a profitable enterprise. Without profit, there is no business and a corporation is worth more dead and in pieces than it would be alive and functioning.

Sadly for the employees of a corporation, the board of directors is only beholden to shareholders, not employees and their unions seem to fail to mention this to them when pushing for a strike. Unions have driven more than one company out of business in my lifetime. Names like Pan-Am and Eastern Airlines come to mind, as do the other brands from my childhood like Quasar and Admiral. Toys that once filled my toybox like Matchbox, Hot Wheels, G.I. Joe, Tonka, etc. are still in existence but are today made in China or some other third world country, like the Levis I purchase today.

In those carefree days of the 70's when I was in elementary school, I'd come home in the afternoon, do my homework, and then plop in front of the TV set and watch reruns of "Lost in Space," "Star Trek," "The Brady Bunch," and other classic shows. During these viewings there would come a commercial jingle that started out with the phrase "Look for the union label when you are buying a shirt, coat, or blouse." This commercial was intended to persuade viewers to purchase only garments made by union workers from the International Ladies Garment Worker's Union and not clothing made in sweat shops by non-union illegal immigrant workers. The tag line of the jingle was "it says we're able to make it in the USA." This line implied that these workers were able to make things here in the USA, and that by purchasing these garments, the workers would be able to realize their share of the American dream. Sadly, this union, like the "Made in the USA" label seems to have gone the way of the dinosaur and the Dodo Bird. I can't recall seeing that IGLWU label on anything outside of my mother's closet in many a year.

The American economy was built on a free market capitalist system of enterprise. but that economy must have a REAL foundation. The economy is rated and valued by our level of production. The letter "P" in the GDP stands for "product." The problem with our economy these days is there is very little "product" in the American economy. We no longer make things in this country. For the reasons set forth earlier, our corporate function has shifted from the manufacturing model, to the import, wholesale, and retail model. Instead of "product", the economy floats on a sea of paper, and even the paper isn't always real when you consider futures and options. An economy built on paper cannot be strong. It is an illusion, at best. This has resulted in our boom, bubble, and bust economic cycles and the recessions are becoming more frequent and longer lasting, especially when the government tries to "help."

Anyone who has started or run a business in this country knows that you only succeed in SPITE of government, not BECAUSE of it. Trying to start or grow a business with a democratically controlled government is like trying to plant a vegetable garden in wet CEMENT. It's not gonna grow without the fertile soil, water, and careful tending. Consequently, in a country rife with union tyranny, high taxes, onerous regulation, and a lawyer's feeding frenzy, who in their right mind would start a manufacturing business in this country? Without such new businesses, where are the unemployed blue-collar workers supposed to find jobs?

We need to become a nation that makes things once more if we are ever going to rebuild our economy with a solid foundation and thus end the boom, bubble, and bust cycles that have wreaked such havoc. This can't happen until we start graduating more scientists, archictects, engineers, etc and fewer lawyers, stockbrokers, and political scientists which is what our colleges and universities seem to turning out in record numbers these days. Even President Obama has repeatedly said we have to start making things in this country. But his idea for how to accomplish this goal is to put unions in charge of growing business in this country. That's like putting a mortician in charge of a hospital. It's a conflict of interest at the very least, and a prescription for economic DISASTER.

The few new businesses that have come to this country from abroad have ALL set up their operations in right-to-work states because they know that runaway labor costs destroy profits and lose share values. The workers that are employed by these companies receive a fair wage, enjoy good working conditions, and have good benefits all without having to fork over a percentage of their hard-earned paychecks to unions. Don't plant your seeds in concrete if you want a garden to grow, and don't put unions into the business if you want them to thrive.

If you look at the union's track record, most of the manufacturing unions, like the companies they worked for, are GONE. With the exception of the United Auto Worker's Union, the strongest remaining unions are SERVICE unions. The reason for this is simple, you can't outsource a "service" oriented job. The same holds true for public employees unions like the ones in California. There are exceptions to this, and you can hear them for yourself when you call up your credit card company or Delta Airlines looking for customer service. You'll likely find yourself talking to someone with a distinct Indian accent, because these companies have decided its cheaper to pay long distance charges for foreign phone workers than it is to pay union scale to American ones, and there go more jobs.

Looking at things as they stand today, you have to wonder if we're ever going to be able recapture our glory days of the 1950s and pre-Vietnam 1960s. In the years following the end of World War II, Americans led the world in the manufacture of finished goods, technology, innovation, and we enjoyed a market share of more than 80% of the world's automobile purchases. Given the current state of that industry in this country, and the improving quality and affordability of foreign competition, it's far from certain we could ever recapture that market share. One thing is for certain, however, and that is that until the "Made in the USA" label becomes something other than an exhibit in a museum, we're not going to be able to "make it in the USA."