SOLYNDRA SOLAR; THE FUTURE OF AMERICA

The Solyndra scandal has been getting a lot of coverage, mostly about whether there was special treatment from the Whitehouse because a principal investor, George Kaiser, was a big Obama donor and bundler. The deal was nixed by the Bush administration and revived almost immediately after Obama got in the Whitehouse.  Evidence has been steadily mounting showing that Obama Staff at the Whitehouse and the Vice President pressured DOE to reverse its decision to not fund Solyndra..

What I haven’t heard in the media is any reporting on why it went bankrupt.  Solyndra was not selling conventional solar panels that are essentially a flat rectangle with the surface covered with photovoltaic cells. Solyndra's idea was to put the photoelectric cells on rods inside glass tubes. The idea was that some portion of the cells would be pointed directly at the sun at all times. (photo of Solyndar panels at left).  The problem was that the idea did not work. Solyndra panels produce less electricity per unit area than conventional panels and not enough cost savings to make up the difference.

An employee with an alternative energy system installation company that had a contract with the US Forest Service to install systems in visitor centers and other buildings in the Rocky Mountain Region has reported that in the process of filling the contract his company considered Solyndra’s system.  They quickly concluded that it was inferior to conventional solar panels and moved on to other products.

The point is that the Solyndra bankruptcy was not caused because we just haven’t put enough subsidy. It was just an inferior product idea that should never have been put into mass production. Low level Solyndra employees have been on talk radio testifying that everyone at Solyndra knew during the construction of the massive factory subsidized by half a billion of our tax dollars that the product would not sell. We now know why; it was just a bad idea that never should have let the drawing room floor.

It appears that the Solyndra idea at first seemed reasonable,  but, after a lot of investment in product development, it became clear that the idea just was a bust. Edison tried thousands of light bulb ideas before he found the one that was cheap and easy to make and worked diffidently.   Edison had no government program to foist his bad ideas on and recoup his expenses.  He had to keep going at his own risk till he found the right combination.  Solyndra had a better idea.  make the government pay for their mistake.

So the investors did what any red blooded  socialist would do. Buy a politician. Then use the influence to get a bail  out and stick the tax payer with the loss. Immediately after Obama took office, internal memo’s show his staff members were telling DOE to fast rack the Solyndra loan that had previously been denied. A half billion dollars was shortly awarded.

No one knows if all the money actually went into the business or if some was funneled off to the investors in the form of big salaries, bonuses perks, overpriced insider contracts etc. So far there has been no public disclosure of any accounting of what happened to the money.  In any event Solyndra built a huge state of the art factory with government funding to build solar panels everyone knew were inferior to the standard product.

The key was that  shortly before it went belly up, Solyndara convinced  DOE to subordinate the public loan to the private investors' claims. That way, when the big factory and state of the art machinery, purchased with government funds are sold off in bankruptcy the money will go to pay back the original investors, i.e. big Democratic donors, and the American people will be left holding the bag.

Internal memos recently produced show Kaiser was musing to subordinates whether the public would notice his connection when the company eventually failed.  And who would notice a wasted half a billion out of 880 billion stimulus package?  Unfortunately for Kaiser,  it got noticed by Republican members of the House.  The point here is that everyone knew Solyndra was a scam and the loans were straight forward graft from the get go.

Other favors to big democratic donors have been coming to light.  Tesla motors, the maker of a pricey $100,000 electric sports car backed by  Al Gore got a half billion dollar loan guarantee.  Petrobras, the Brazillion state owned deep water oil drilling company heavily owned by George Soros, got a one billion dollar loan to conduct deep water drilling of Brazil's coast.   Fisker Motors, an electric car start up with no track record and Democratic donors, got a half billion dollar loan guarantee form DOE on the promise to build a factory in Delaware.  The manufacturing went to a factory in Finland.  Not to worry, they promise the  next factory will be in the US.  Don't hold your breath. 

Signa Technologies, owned by billionaire and big Democratic donor, won a no bid half a billion dollar contract to supply a  won a  new and untested vaccine for small pox for the government even though there is already a proven vaccine and the government has vast stock piles of it and worst of all, there hasn't been a reported case of small pox since 1978 in the US.

The list goes no.  This is the most transparant govenment in history we were promised.  Unfortunately,  all "transparant" means to Obama is that he doesn't even bother to hide the graft.

OWS Protesters Should Look ToThemselves For Cause of the Crash

Occupier apparently distraught over inability to find job or
government hand out or to find port-o-potty attempts
to defecate on NYPD car

It’s popular to say that the Occupy Wall Street  (OWS) people should be demonstrating in Washington. I don’t entirely agree. If the Occupy Wall Street  people want to protest the people who got us into this economic mess; they should be protesting themselves. The demonstrations have been organized by the same people who were in charge of the now defunct ACORN, as well as Moveon.org, unions and rest of the usual suspects: socialist, communist and anarchist organizations. These very organizations, particularly ACORN, are directly responsible for pushing for the liberalized lending standards that led to the real estate mortgage collapse which in turn caused the current recession that these OWS idiots are protesting.

The recession of 2008 was caused by a burst of the residential real estate bubble. This in turn was triggered by rising default rates among residential mortgage holders which collapsed the value of mortgage backed securities. Wall Street Banks and investment houses held much of this paper and they almost collapsed as a result. When these securities began to collapse, the default swaps, which were a kind of insurance for mortgage backed securities, also began to collapse. Apparently, the argument of the leftists occupying Wall Street is that the banks engaged in a devious and sinister plot to bankrupt themselves by lending to people who could not repay or by buying the crappy loans Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were making.  

This assumes that they were smart enough to realize that by bankrupting themselves they would convince the Congress and the President to give them a big bailout.   Very sneaky. Of course, the argument goes, the people who got these loans they could not afford were just duped by greedy bankers into borrowing a lot of money, with little or nothing down, and living in houses they could not afford. Poor unfortunates. It was the banks , who were left holding the bag when the loans went bad, who were the real crooks here.  The reality is that the banks were making poor loans because they were being required to do so by regulations passed as a result of pressure from the OWS organizers to make these loans to the "under served."

The collapse of the residential mortgage market was actually caused by too many loans to people who could not pay their mortgages. The OWS organizers, their mindless minions in the streets and their political cousins generally on the radical left, pushed for liberal lending rules which caused massive lending to people who would never otherwise have gotten a loan in the first  place. Incidentally, no one was more involved in pushing for this crazy scheme than our very own Barak Obama, initially as a lawyer for ACORN, and later as a State and then Federal Senator. Senator Barak Obama was the top recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.   

Barak has announced he agrees with OWS, but he's not just some powerless outsider.  He's in charge of the Justice Department.  Where are the investigations let alone charges against the banks and their executives?   There aren't any. Are OWS people protesting Barak's policies?  I don't think so.  Instead this is typical liberal behavior: No facts required.   Just pick out who has the most money and blame them.  Liberals are never at fault for their own situation.

The Community Reinvestment Act signed into law by Bill Clinton coupled with regulations passed under it, liberalized lending parameters of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to require low down payments and  no supporting document loans to minorities and the "under served". This was supposedly designed to overcome the unnecessarily conservative lending requirements of the greedy banks which were keeping these otherwise deserving people from getting housing loans. The liberalized  law and regulations led to a massive number of low down payment or no document loans.   Some of these loans were held by Fannie and Freddi and others were bundled and sold as securitized investments on Wall Street.   As a result, the big banks held much of this paper as a high yield supposedly low risk investment.  If the banks were so involved in a fraud, why were they holding so much of the bad paper?

Even now, Fannie and Freddie hold or guarantee 50% of the total outstanding 11 trillion dollars of residential home loans in the United States. The liberal lending requirements did not just apply to Fannie and Freddie. Strict quotas for low income and minority loans were imposed on private banks for home loans that they were required to make. All of this was supposed to eliminate the racism and prejudice allegedly built into the system and keeping minorities from getting enough home loans.  But, in reality it forced banks to make bad loans which were doomed to fail.

The leftists argue that, if there had been better oversight of these loans then bad loans would not have been given. This is nonsense. It was the government itself and the quasi-government entities Fannie and Freddie that were requiring these undocumented loans in the first place. Who in their right mind would not know that there would be fraud in no document loans? Who in their right mind did not know that a person on welfare or disability or workers comp for income would not be a good loan risk?  Government reg's required this type of loan to be made.  Internal correspondence since produced show that managers at Fannie and Freddie recognized that the new lending requirements would result in bad loans that could collapse the real estate market. These warnings were ignored.

George Bush introduced legislation to stop these ultra liberal lending requirements in 2006; but, by then, the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. Barnie Frank and Maxine Waters in the House and Chris Dodd and Barak Obama in the Senate, among others, squashed the effort. Barnie and Maxine famously claimed that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were sound and that the very suggestion that there might be a problem was irresponsible and causing unnecessary uncertainty in the market.

The OWS demonstrations are organized and staffed by the very individuals and organizations who were most responsible for the reckless lending policy that led to the crash. Thus, the perpetrators in a sense are righteously and indignantly protesting that their victims are not repentant enough.  This tactic is directly out of the Saul Alinski and Francis Fox Piven playbooks; i.e. overwhelm the system with more welfare claims than the system can sustain till it crashes and then blame the capitalist system and demand change. Similarly, it complies with the bottom up top down strategy announced by Van Jones, communist agitator and former Obama green jobs czar, to agitate from the bottom up so that the sympathetic people in power at the top can impose a top down solution, i.e. nationalization of industry.

 This is not a spontaneous movement, but a well planned strategy for government to ultimately take over the banking and financial sectors of the economy.  It is no surprise that Obama, Pelosi, Reid and a host of other powerful leftists promptly came out in support of the OWS movement right form the get go.
Amazingly, and sadly, it appears that the great mass of uninformed voters are falling for this deception. Polls show the public is sympathetic to OWS.  Look for increasing violence and ultimate government crack down on the banking and financial industries.  With Obama's popularity flagging and in danger of losing the election, look for this to happen before November 2012.

DEMOCRATS ADMIT THEY CAN'T BE TRUSTED ON SOCIAL SECURITY

Recently Obama made an incredible threat to the American people that he would possibly not make social security payments if the debt limit is not raise. Although many have criticized this in vague terms like “unethical” and “outrageous” and “a low blow”, few seem to be analyzing the obvious fact that this is a threat to do something that would be totally illegal.

The social security tax is fundamentally different that most federal taxes such as the income tax, the estate tax etc. These other taxes simply generate revenue for the federal government which is not tied to any required type of payment. The social Security tax, on the other hand, is part of a law that requires the withholding and also specifies the funds will be paid for old age pension payments and disability payments for qualifying persons.

Anyone who has ever had a job ( and I am by definition speaking to conservative here) knows that there is a line item on their paychecks for withholding for social security separate and apart form withholding for income tax . This is so because there is a separate law that requires the withholding for SS and the same law requires it to be paid to qualifying pensioners and disabled people. Obama has no authority to arbitrarily take this money and use if for other purposes because it is not a general revenue tax. To do so would be a direct violation of the enabling act of social Security and a serious breach of the public trust.

But wait! If the debt limit is not raised there may not be enough money to pay social security. How could this be true since Democrats have been caliming Social Security is physcially sound though 2037.  They claim Ongoing Social security withholding receipts are now and have always been greater than the ongoing claims.
Why then is Obama claiming that if the debt limit is not raised he may not pay social security checks onb time. 

There are only trwo possible expalantions.  First Obma is threatening to not pay claims when funds are actually avaialbe.  This would be a threat to violate the SS law and pay other typoes of govenment liabilities with funds desicgnated by law to be paid for SS bneficiaries only.  This would be a major violation ofthe public trust Democarts have insited for years they will never violate and it would be an outrigh ileegal act by the Presidnet.

The other explanation is even more sinsiter.  Is it possible that ongoing SS reciepts are in fact not enough to pay current claims?  Have Democrats beenpaying claims with borrowed money forcing thecounty into massive debt while lying to the puiblic that the program is sound.  Even worse have they been dmeogoging Republicans who claim the systme need so be reformed to blance the books just for political gain while knowing the porogarm is in the red and getting worse?
Pick the lie you wish to bleive.  Either way Democrats have been flushed out of the wood pile and their decipt regarding social Security is undeniable.

WHERE HAVE ALL THE PEACE NIC'S GONE?

The crooked Bush should have been impeached
when he went to war with an authorization
Who cares if Obama went to war
without authority on a Brazilian vacation

water boarding is so terrible
it made Barak Husein cry
But when he got the chance he told the SEAL's,
just shoot him in the eye.

Where have all the peace nic's gone?
Long time passing
They've got their big spending President
So who cares about the bombs crashing?

They railed against Guantanamo
they deserve to be civilly tried
in downtown New York no less
otherwise it's justice denied

But when Erick Holder ordered it
On second thought he better not
Now he's giving them tribunals
till then they sit in Gitmo and rot

Where have all the Peace nic's gone?
Long time passing
who cares about a couple silly wars?
when the unemployment and welfare checks are cashing

Where are the lawsuits
over photos of a flag draped coffin
Where's the weekly  list of dead
The fallen they've all but forgotten.

Where are the lawsuits
over foreign call eavesdropping
Where is outraged Senator Obama
Who under Bush voted for debt stopping

Where have all the Peace nics gone?
To war in Lybia for Freedom and Democracy
The dead were conservatives any way
and  "liberal" is code for "hypocrisy"

DID YOU EVER GET A CREEPY FEELING SOMETHING BAD IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN?

I do not pretend to be an economist, but when you're in a hurricane, you don't have to be a weather man to know which way the wind blows.  Am I the only one in the room that thinks there is a very real possibility of collapse of the US dollar?   We have been existing on past earned capital for a long time and time has run out.

In 2008, the Democrats were swept into power because Bush and the Republican Congress spent too much money and ran up the deficit, which they did. Since that time (January 09 though December 10) the Democrats have increased our federal Government by 25% and with it, the annual deficit four fold. This year’s deficit, the difference between what is brought in and what is spent, is projected at 1.6 trillion dollars. That’s 1,600 billion dollars of red ink in one year.   

The Case Shiller Real Estate Index last quarter showed real estate values fell across the entire country except one place, Washington, DC.   In other words,  while the private economy in the entire country is in free fall, the Federal Government is in such a huge expansion, pigging out at the public trough, expanding federal employees, government contracters and and lobbyists, that it has actually creating a mini real estate boom in Washington.  That is how the Democrats, "never let a crisis go to waste."

In order to raise the money to pay this staggering deficit, the government has been selling bonds at an alarming rate.  In 2009, Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke, testified under oath before Congress that the Fed would never “monetize the debt” which means "print money" to finance the deficit. Unfortunately, the deficit has become too big to cover with bond sales; so the government has had to resort to the last and most extreme option: printing money.  In fact the Fed has been doing just that since last year; and, now the Fed’s purchases of government bonds with newly printed money accounts for 70% of government bond sales.  This means that the government can not sell its bonds and is essentially simply printing money to stay afloat.  Democrats claim this invented money creates jobs and will kick start the economy.  That hasn't happened, inflation has.

In order to  keep the inevitable results of this reckless policy from public awareness, the government has resorted to changing the yard stick of how to measure the economy. By the method used in the 1980's, the CPI is increasing at a rate of 10%, not the 2% being reported. Measured by the yardstick used in the 1930’s, unemployment is now at 20% not the 8.9% reported, and so on.(see: http://www.shadowstats.com/)

We have been able to get away with this slight of hand because the dollar is the world’s standard or "reserve" currency.   The dollar is rapidly losing its favored status and, without change, a collapse is inevitable.  The biggest bond mutual fund in the world, PIMCO, has quit buying US Treasury bonds and has dumped all of its holdings of US bonds.  Our creditor nations have already stopped buying US bonds. When they decide to sell the huge cache of bonds they hold, and world financial markets choose to no longer make transactions in US dollars, the jig will be up. The buying power of the dollar will cataclysmicly tumble. Savings will lose value and the cost of commodities will sore well beyond what we see now.  The dollars we have will be unable to purchase what we have always taken for granted, bountiful basic consumer commodities at a cheap price. The average Americans’ standard of living could plummet virtually overnight.

Because the Democrats broke the promise they made to stop the spending  and instead embarked on a new and ever more irrational and reckless spending spree, they were swept out of the house and the Republicans were given a huge majority in 2011. But, this is only one arm of government. The Democrats still control the Senate and the Presidency.  The 38 billion in "cuts" recently approved after weeks of wrangling, was nothing more than a tiny reduction from the dream budget Obama had submitted, but the Democrats never voted on in 2010.  (They refused to vote on this massive porker when they had absolute power, not wanting to do so without someone to blame). 

Republicans will use the debt ceiling extension coming up in May to get more concessions.  But the Wall Street Journal has reported that bankers have privately told the GOP leaders that, if they actually push it to a shut down, debt markets could be destabilized, i.e., US bond sales could cease triggering a crisis in the already shaky dollar.   In addition, this may trigger the major holders of outstanding debt, the Chinese and the Japanese, to dump US bonds. China has already become a net seller of US bonds (it holds over one trillion in bonds).  Japan is still a buyer , but the earthquake disaster and a US government shut down could make them a net seller.   The dumping of bonds will cause anyone holding dollars to sell which in turn will cause the dollar, which is on thin ice, to crash in value.

A quick compromise by the Democrats and Republicans to get the government going again, which will include minimal cuts, will be too late to stop the world wide stampede out of the dollar. The lack of bond buyers will cause the fed to have to print that many more dollars, exacerbating the situation.  Making matters worse, the Democrats will blame the Republicans' tight money policy and they will increase spending. A hyperinflationary spiral will ensue and your wealth will go with it. Food riots and general unrest could occur prompting the government to impose emergency draconian measures including marshal law and  a government take over of banking and huge sectors of industry.

If this happens, the United States could go from the world's leading Democracy and economic power to a socialist regime with a low standard of living.   Huge swaths of power will be ceded to an allegedly necessary central world banking and regulatory body in the name of economic stablility. The one world socialist dream of those currently in power in the Whitehouse and behind them will be fulfilled.  George Soros, the person most influential in this government, is on record saying that the US has too much world power and is the only country standing in the way of one world government.  He specializes in crashing currencies.   There is a very real possibility of Soros accomplishing his goal regarding the Ameican dollar in the near future.

Crony Capitalist In Chief

George Soros as God Creating Obama by Makim Makimovich:  See his other great work at Flickr Photo

Candidate Obama ran on a platform of increasing taxes on the rich to close the deficit. He also promised to end Republican supported loopholes that allow big corporations to escape taxes on profits made over seas and motivate the exportation of American jobs.  He did neither.

General Electric CEO, Jeff Imelt, was one of the biggest corporate supporters of and big donors to Obama’s presidential bid.  Imelt devoted two "news" organizations full time to pro Obama propaganda.  No one (other than big labor leaders and George Soros) has been closer to President Obama than Jeff Imelt.

On the campaign trail, candidate Obama repeatedly called for a national computerized medical record keeping system. Who would have guessed that GE makes just such a system. And even more coincidentally, the new Health Care legislation requires doctors and hospitals to implement something like it by 2014. The new health care bill provides billions to pay for the required upgrades.  Now that's real imagineering!

And how about the massive subsidies Obama and the Democrats pushed though Congress for wind and biomass electric generation equipment, which GE just happens to manufacture, as well as the huge subsidies for electric cars that will need the new GE electric recharge stations. Guess who makes those new green light bulbs we’re now required to buy at four times as much as the old incandescent ones with four times the profit margin per unit. GE of course. And one other thing, most of this stuff is manufactured by GE over seas, meaning your tax subsidies are going to pay for low cost foreign workers and high profit margins for GE that are not subject to US taxes. GE paid no Federal Corporate Income tax on its $14.5 billion in profit last year, thanks to special loop holes Obama promised to get rid of but never did. Now Obama has appointed Imelt as head of his economic advisers on creating American jobs. And, I am looking forward to his advice, since no one seems to be better at getting special favors from the government than Jeffrey Imelt.

Yet Imelt is not the only wealthy tycoon whose getting big favors from Obama.  George Soros gave many millions to the Democratic party and its candidates and he gives hundreds millions more each year to liberal tax exempt charitable organizations that serve as unofficial cheerleaders for the party agenda.  Soros has claimed both Hillary and Obama are his personal proteges, a claim neither disputes.  

No one has been more anti oil drilling in US waters or more supportive of environmental causes that limit American energy exploration than Democratic party sugar daddy, George Soros.  Somehow, in spite of his incredibly sincere concern about the environmental hazards of deep water drilling, Soros invested over $900 million in the giant state run Brazilian oil company. Petrobras, engaged in deep water drilling more than three times as deep as the BP horizon well.  And, amazingly coincidentally, just after the stock purchase, Petrobras got a billion dollar loan guarantee from the US government run Import Export Bank to fund offshore deep water drilling operations.  In addition Petrobras is one of only five companies issued a drilling permit in the Gulf since the total ban was lifted.

Shortly after these incredibly lucky events for Petrobras, Soros sold his interest and made millions on the turnaround.  Much of that profit will make its way into Democrat campaign funds to fight the nasty American oil companies destroying our environment.  If that weren't enough, it turns out Soros has a huge stake in Interoil, a Papua, New Guinea company that has made a promising  new find in that country.  Inexplicably a number of US government engineers have been dispatched to give technical advice to Interoil at US taxpayer expense while American companies complain that there are not enough such engineers to approve permits for drilling in American waters.
 
The Democrats raked in far more Wall Street money than Republicans in the last two election cycles. Most CEO’s and other top officers in the biggest Wall Street firms are progressive Democrats and donate ot  Democrat candidates liberally. Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and a host of other corporate and Wall Street Bankers, investors and CEO”s are Democrats.  

Astonishingly, contrary to all the evidence, many persist in believing the myth that the Republican Party is controlled by big capitalists while the Democratic Party is the "party of the people."  The facts are clear that the cronyism going on in the Obama administration makes Bush look like a populist reformer by comparison.   Excuses will be made for Obama and liberals will latch on to the next "man of the people" to promise them hope, change and a bunch of new federal programs to impose fairness on the greedy capitalists, and they will be astonished all over again to find that he's just another puppet of the wealthy tycoons they so richously love to hate.

Unconstitutional Subsidies For Public Broadcasting Must GO!

Unconstitutional support oIn spite of the constant denials, Conservatives know that public broadcasting has a consistent left wing bias.The recently disclosed under cover dinner interview with NPR Senior VP Ron Shiller and Director of Giving, Betsy Lily, exposes the fraud of publicly supported media in America. There is an obvious reason why this is inherently true.

Any entity that gets its funding from public largess will invariably oppose any idea or group that believes that government largess should be limited. Thus we see Acorn for example, an allegedly non partisan tax exempt non profit, dedicated to increasing the voter roles, in reality was dedicated exclusively to signing up left wing voters, fraudulently if necessary, to perpetuate itself and big government programs in general. If the entity getting the public funding is a media organization then it will certainly use it’s megaphone to belittle those who believe government needs to be limited. It’s no coincidence that big government liberals, invariably love public media. Thus, PBS and PBR are by definition big government propaganda machines.

Regardless of whether the tape was edited, it can not be denied that Shiller, in the interview, criticizes Tea Partiers, who are Americans simply exercising their constitutional right to protest government expansion and excessive spending. In the interview Shiller goes farther than simply disagreeing by calling them “weird evangelicals” and “gun toting white people” who are “scary” and “racist”. Note to Shiller, PBS and NPR: the First Amendment guarantees free exercise of religion and the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. Although there is no proof that tea partiers are more “racist” than any other political group, the point is made that the government is disseminating through public broadcasting, disparaging opinions of those it sees as political opponents of its power. This is inherently unconstitutional.

It is not necessary to prove that public broadcasting has a bias. It is enough that some taxpayers do not agree with the information and opinions being expressed. Liberals argue that if the use of the word “God” offends one person at a high school, then it is unconstitutional. Then if one taxpayer feels his political beliefs are being belittled by his own governments publicly funded broadcasting “news” outlet and he is thus offended and even intimidated from expressing his own views, then this violates the first amendment as well.

Ironically, the most often advanced argument to support the funding of public broadcasting defeats its own point. The argument is that the private media is supported by big business so it is inherently biased in favor of big business, so public media is needed to present the unbiased view. However, if this is true then, then the opposite must also be true, that the government influences the public media message?

The problem is the former, private media, is constitutional, the latter, public media, is not. The government has no constitutional right to use the taxes of the people to chill anti government free speech. In fact this is prohibited by the very concept of a right of free speech in the citizens. The founders wanted the public discourse to be free from government influence. A public broadcasting system, disguised as fair minded reporting and opinion, that criticizes various groups and ideas has an inherently chilling influence on free speech and free press. When the government tries to control the message, it is, by definition, violating freedom of speech and of the press.

The argument that private media controls the message and therefore its monopoly must be broken, does not stand up to scrutiny. Michael Moore, an open communist, capitalist hating, big government liberal, for example, has no problem getting his movies shown in private theaters, nor is he having any difficulty getting interview time on the private media news shows. The fact that he charges the going movie ticket rate to his viewers instead of donating his movies to the good of the people, proving he’s a hypocritical phony,is beside the point. Moore still gets his message out all he wants and his dopey fans get to watch all they want, through the private, not public, media. The overarching point is that liberal views get plenty of air time through for profit outlets and there is no need for a public outlet.

Democrats who perennially fund public broadcasting know that their argument that it provides better programming than private enterprise is a ruse to cover the unconstitutional intent to provide pro government propaganda and chill freedom of speech and religion of political opponents. They try to hide behind Big Bird and Kermit the frog and masterpiece theater, when this is pointed out; but, have you ever watched “Democracy Now!”? The Shiller remarks support the existence of what has been obvious all along: the anti Christian, anti conservative agenda of public broadcasting.

And this is just the beginning if we do not get this stopped here and now. Our current big government administration is actually gearing up to do much more to control free speed and freedom of the press. Various of the Obama’s czars are considering public subsidies for dying left wing big city newspapers, prohibiting by law dissemination of any political ideas classified as “conspiracy theories”, reinstating the fairness doctrine and imposing net neutrality. The latter two ideas require the publication of contrary ideas to every expressed political opinion in the traditional broadcast media and links to contrary opinion sites in all opinions expressed on the net. Guess who decides what "contrary opinions" must be published or what links must be provided?

Liberals claim that the government needs to support this or that because it’s a good idea. So please fund it if you want it and leave my first amendment alone. The amount of money that goes to public broadcasting is not the issue. The constitution can not be a little violated. If it is violated at all, it is too much.

PUBLIC UNIONS CLAIM "RIGHTS"- TO OUR TAXES!

Photo: Michael Moore, well known communist, Castro and Chavez supporter, who claims all private wealth belongs to the people, spoke at a Wisconsin public union rally to huge cheers and applause from the assembled public union members.

Scott Walker's bid to curb public union power has focused a lot of discussion in the media recently on collective bargaining "rights.” This is a great step forward since, unions have been destroying American industries since the 1950’s with little public notice. They almost finished off the last major US manufacturing industry, the auto industry in 2009, and they would have, if our union puppet President hadn't stepped in, confiscated the common stock and the bonds and gave it to the unions.

Collective bargaining "rights" are not provided for in the United States Constitution, which preserves only individual rights, not collective rights. Collective bargaining is a privilege provided under some statutes. In fact, Federal employee unions do not have collective bargaining rights and most states prohibit or severely limit public employee collective bargaining. Union supporters argue that free association is guaranteed under the US constitution and that collective bargaining rights are therefore guaranteed under this provision. Actually the opposite is true. As with all "collective" Right, laws that establish collective bargaining rights, sacrifice the individuals' right of free association for the benefit of the collective.

Collective bargaining laws like the one just amended in Wisconsin, generally create a legal frame work for the establishment of a union. The employees decide to have a union represent them or not by an election. This means that, if the required percentage of employees vote for the union, the union then becomes the exclusive representative for all of the employees, including the percentage who did not vote for it. Once certified, all employees must become members of the union and they must pay union dues whether they like it or not. Any effort of the employer to go around the union is an unfair labor practice, which subjects the employer to severe sanctions.

The public collective bargaining law in Wisconsin attacked by Scott Walker, provided that the individual had no right to be employed by the state government, without being a member of the union. Once employed, the individual was prevented from negotiating or receiving a raise or other benefits based on individual merit or direct negotiation with the employer. The individual employees must accept what the union negotiates (although the members vote on the negotiated contract again, majority rules). If the employer does not agree to the union terms then there is required binding arbitration where a govenment employed and politically appointed "judge" imposes an "agreement". This system can hardly be described as preserving an individual right, but, rather it is a deprivation of personal rights to have a personal relationship with one’s employer in return for collective rights.

In the name of protecting workers and increasing union dues, the union has an interest in preventing any worker from being fired and to minimize the work done by any one worker. In actual practice, the unions serve to protect the less competent workers from being fired or disciplined for poor performance. Thus, it is axiomatic that the union fosters poor performance because inefficiency requires more employees which increases union dues. That minority of workers who are the best workers, by definition, must be held back to the same wages and the same benefits as other less competent workers. Thus, a collective system tends to enslave the best to work for the benefit of the worst. "Each according to his need," Carl Marx.


Statistics show that there are typically about a third to 35% of unionized workers including teachers and other public employees, who vote Republican and see themselves as "conservative." By definition these people do not like the union or they would not be voting for a party seen as pro employer and anti union. It stands to reason therefore that the better employees are generally also the 35% of union members who reliably vote Republican.

On the other hand, the poor workers who can’t be fired and are most responsible for Wisconsin being the 44th worst public school system in the country are almost certainly the same ones in the Wisconsin rotunda screaming, “Walker is another Hitler” and “don’t touch my collective bargaining rights.” Walker has stated that many thousands of public workers have sent him messages of support saying they want the right to opt out of the public union. These are the public employees who do not think being forced to join the union is a "right." Take a guess as to whether the teachers protesting are the good teachers or the ones you hope your child doesn't get next year. Anyone who is a hard worker by nature and likes to do a good job who ever worked in a closed union shop will tell you that the union promotes inefficiency, poor performance and holds back the best workers.

If that were all it would be bad enough, but it gets worse. Collective bargaining is rarely a genuine arm's length negotiation in the government sector because the politician negotiating, supposedly on behalf of the taxpayer, is typically beholden to the union that contributed the funds and votes that got him in to office in the first place. We can see this even at the Presidential level where national union bosses have more access to the President than cabinet members.

We are witnessing a classic battle between the collectivists and the people who are going to have to pay for their outrageous demands. Who will win depends in part on whether Walker and the Republicans in Wisconsin and governors around the nation can get the necessary information to the public to understand what is really at stake. Unfortunately, if we loose this battle, the last chance to to save our prosperity we all have come to expect will go with it.

COMMUNISTS/SOCIALISTS SIEZE THE DAY

Photo: Former Green Jobs Czar for President Obama, Van Jones, now with Soros funded Group, Center for American Progress, which sets policy for the Obama Administration.

The Communist Party USA and other socialist/communist groups are behind the American Dream Rallies that were staged all over America in support of the Wisconsin Union demonstrations this past February 26. According the Communist Party USA web site, under the banner heading of Saving the American Dream they claim:

"we are organizing rallies in front of every statehouse and in every major city to stand in solidarity with the people of Wisconsin. We demand an end to the attacks on worker's rights and public services across the country. We demand investment, to create decent jobs for the millions of people who desperately want to work. And we demand that the rich and powerful pay their fair share.”

The American Dream rallies were the brain child of Van Jones, now of the Center for American Progress, admitted violent communist revolutionary and former member of the Obama Administration. The International Socialist Brotherhood pulled the permit for the D.C. rally where Van Jones spoke. The rallies were extensively covered by the media, but the communist/socialist connection was largely ignored. Instead, they continued to characterize the demonstrations as evidence of a massive grass roots movement ordinary Americans in support of public labor unions.

Meanwhile, Democratic operatives were out in force in the media continuing to perpetuate the party line that the Tea Party (which is a true grass roots movement of ordinary Americans) as a "racist" inspired movement.

The Communist party USA is the oldest communist group in the country. It was organized in 1919, just after the Russian revolution, and is dedicated to establishing a Marxist /Leninist communism government in the US. It was directly linked to and controlled by Stalinist Communist Party n the soviet Union. This group worked tirelessly through out the twentieth century to bring poverty and enslavement to the United States similar to that in the Soviet Union prior to its defeat by Ronald Regan in the late 1980’s. In short, these people are enemies of freedom loving people everywhere.

In addition to the Communist Party USA and the International Socialist Party, a host of other far left communist/socialist organizations have been actively involved in organizing the demonstrations in Wisconsin and the sympathy demonstrations around the country. The Center for American Progress, which is funded and controlled by George Soros and headed by John Podesta former, Clinton Chief of Staff, has been intimately involved in the organization effort and is very influential i the Obama administration. Obama staffers have admitted the CFAP actually drafted the 800 billion dollar stimulus bill. In spite of this, the connection between these various groups, the President and the demonstrations has been totally ignored by the main stream press.

These organizations in conjunction with public union bosses are working together to foment revolution at this moment. They realize that having Obama in the White House is an historic opportunity to foment enough unrest that he will have the cover to clamp down hard on free enterprise and civil liberties in general. If they miss this opportunity, and Obama is voted out in 2012, it may not come again for many years, if ever. Thus, expect increasingly violent uprisings from the left in the next two years.

We are witnessing a struggle for the very soul of the United States between the anti-constitutionalists who believe in socialism and communism (represented by unions and a host of far left communist/socialist groups) and the constitutionalists, who believe in individual liberty and capitalism (represented by the Tea Party Movement). As the government protesters who have seized the capital of Wisconsin and shut down the schools show, we no longer have a government of the people, by the people for the people, but a government of the government, by the government and for the government. The battle has been joined over who will control this government, the govenment workers or the people they supposedly serve. If you believe in individual liberty you have to stand up and and be counted now or they will win this battle.

Holy Caliphate Mr. President!

At this moment there are several foreign and domestic events developing that deserve attention. None perhaps is more momentous than the developments in the Middle East and the disastrous U.S. response. Last year massive protests broke out after another in a long string of fraudulent elections in Iran. The Islamic government cracked down on the protesters violently. The beleaguered protesters begged for help from the US, but Obama said noting for days. Eventually he publicly stated that the US would not meddle in Iranian internal affairs, but meekly added a footnote that the protesters’ rights should be respected.

Since the first protests last year, hundreds of Iranian protesters have been executed. It has been estimated that a protester is being executed there every eight hours around the clock. Recent efforts to rekindle the protests in Tehran inspired by first Tunisia and then Egypt have been met with extreme counter violence, arrests and more executions. Again, the protesters have pleaded for US moral support. Obama has said nothing.

The situation in Iran cries out for a worldwide intensive diplomatic and public relations blitz by the US, led by the President, condemning the crack down and emphasizing the horrendous executions as human rights violations. This should include the US calling an emergency UN security counsel meeting and passing resolutions condemning the action. Instead the UN was busy this week condemning Israeli settlements and Obama has concentrated on supporting demonstrations first in Egypt and now Bahrain, another American Ally and criticising Wisconsin Governor, Scott Walker, over union policy, a matter (unlike US foreign policy) over which the President has no authority.

Meanwhile, it has come to light that the Egyptian revolution was inspired by Google executive, Wael Gohmin, who had been working with the US State Department last year on fomenting revolution in Egypt through the Internet. In an apparently coordinated effort with the US, the moment the demonstrations started in Egypt, Obama called press conferences supporting the protesters and demanding Mubarak step down. He claimed this was a democratic movement and called for the government to respect the will of the people. (Gohmin was arrested and abused but eventually released unharmed. contrast this with Iran's response to protests). Obama administrative minions were busy calming fears that Egypt might become a Muslim state under the Muslim Brotherhood. National Security Chief, James Clapper, testified last week to Congress that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is a secular, peaceful and charitable organization. The uproar over this false testimony was so immediate and severe that his employees were forced to retracted it the next day.

Now that Mubarak is gone, just this week the spiritual leader of the world wide Muslim Brotherhood, Imam Yusuf Al Qaradawi, who has been banned from Egypt for thirty years, was invited back by the new military junta and has spoken in Tahrir Square to more than a million onlookers. Wael Gohmin, who inspired the revolution and who has been sympathetic to the west (remember, the one we were working with) tried to speak at this weeks rally, but Muslim Brotherhood thugs intercepted him as he tried to take the podium and he was quietly ushered away. Although his speech that day was mild by comparison to his typical, Al Qaraawi is on record calling or the destruction of Israel and has recently prayed to Allah on Al jazeerah TV to grant him the satisfaction of killing Jews before he dies, even if its from his wheel chair (see top video on the bar to the left of this article).

Iran is the most dangerous regime in the world today. It sponsors terrorism against the western civilization and secular Arab countries world wide. It has taken over Lebanon establishing a radical Muslim state on Israel’s northern border. It has helped the resistance in both Afghanistan and Iraq. It is steadfastly working on a nuclear weapons program and a delivery system and it regularly calls for the elimination of Israel and the annihilation of the United States.

Obama, on the other hand, has said during his campaign that the US should “offer Iran an open hand instead of a fist”. His calls for negotiations with Iran and his refusal to help the internal Iranian resistance while actively undermining US allies in the region, only strengthens Iran and enables It’s quest for a world wide Islamic Caliphate (an Islamic sate governed by Sharia law).

Because of the President’s complete blank out on Iran, the protesters’ efforts there have been ignored by the press. Instead, reporting is mostly about Egypt and other allies of the US where protests have been dealt with less harshly, including Bahrain, home of the US 5th fleet in the Gulf. If Iran gains a powerful ally in Egypt via an Islamic state there, the rest of the dominoes could soon follow and the resulting Islamic Caliphate would threaten the very existence of western civilization.

There are only two rational options to deal with Iran: an overthrow of the government from within or a military strike. If the first fails the second is inevitable. Unfortunately neither option seems to be on the US agenda. Actively undermining US allies in the region while completely ignoring the opportunity to deal a death blow to Iran's Islamic dictatorship will have disastrous consequences for the US.

The point here is the inexplicable dichotomy between the President's position on Iran and his position on other middle eastern regimes. In regard to Egypt, formerly an American ally, the US has been working behind the scenes to foment revolution and the President has been intensely involved in supporting the revolution publicly from the start. On the other hand, in regard to Iran, a deadly enemy and threat to the entire world order, he has a hands off attitude. The President's lack of concern for the establishment of Islamic states and his ambivalence towards Iran, coupled with his affinity for open US borders and his quest to eliminate the US nuclear arsenal does not bode well for US security in the future.

COUNTY SHERIFF DAMAGES STATE’S CASE AND VIOLATES CONSTITUTION

Pima County Arizona Sheriff, Clarance Dupnik, has been seriously incompetent in his conduct of the investigation into the Loughner shootings and has probably committed civil rights violations as well as serious defamation of people and groups wholly unconnected with the crime.

When a law enforcement officer is investigating a crime he is not free to simply discuss the facts of the case or render off hand opinions. The public has a right to know as much as possible about such matters, but as we see regularly, law enforcement officers are very loath to give any information they are not absolutely sure is correct and even then they are tight fisted with information about the case. There is a very good reason for this. When they are publicly discussing a pending investigation, law enforcement personnel on the case are representing the State. By saying too much or saying something not true they could compromise the state’s case against the suspect and thereby possibly allow the guilty to go free, or even worse, they can easily implicate an innocent person without adequate just cause. The Pima County Sheriff has done both.

First, in official press conferences and interviews about the case, he claimed that Loughner was motivated to mass murder by heated right wing political rhetoric. This was helping the defense of the case. Although this is not a traditional legal defense to homicide, when the head law enforcement officer investigating the case repeatedly states publicly that the perpetrator was improperly agitated by political leaders’ hate speech he is essentially saying the perpetrator is not totally responsible for his actions and he may be creating a defense to first degree murder. It will be difficult if not impossible for the district attorney to argue such a defense is not valid without discrediting his own investigation on which he relies to prove quilt. Our legal system is an adversarial system. When the opposition says something damaging to its case, it’s taken as an admitted fact by the Judge and the jury. The Sheriff was literally sabotaging the states’ case for the purpose of scoring points against his political opponents. This is totally improper conduct for a law enforcement officer.

Second, the Sheriff repeatedly stated that right wing commentators and politicians had contributed to the murders by unreasonably inciting violence with hate speech. He has identified Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin by name. He clarified in at least one interview that he believed Rush Limbaugh contributed to the murders. Again, he had no specific proof of any of this. He could not prove that the perpetrator was a right wing radio or Rush Limbaugh fan. In fact he was neither. The accusation by a law enforcement officer investigating a mass murder that a specific person contributed to that mass murder is a serious breach of duty and a violation of the civil rights of the person so accused. A public officer clothed with the authority of the state who wrongfully accuses a person of a crime without probable cause violates that person’s right to the presumption of innocence and right to be free from charge of a crime without probable cause. Even more egregious in this case is the fact that the crime Dupnik is accusing Limbaugh and Palin of is their political speech. Thus Dupnik has accused these individuals of violation the law by exercising their right to free speech. This is an attempt by a government officer to chill free speech. The constitution prohibits this and Federal law provides for damages for this type of violation by Dupnik.

Further, suggesting a person was a contributor to murder is defamation per se under the law. Damage from such defamation is presumed, but no presumption his necessary here. The comments have touched off a firestorm of baseless criticism of Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin. A left wing web Face Book page has been recently established replete with threats on the life of Plain directly motivated by the Dupnik’s accusations and the following chorus of extremist leftists chiming in to agree. The sheriff is not clothed with any protection in my opinion in this regard. He is not a member of the news media. Although he was speaking to the press on a matter of public importance, He went well beyond the well recognized boundaries of what is allowed by such an official spokesman under the law and no protection is provided for such abuse of his position.

Accusation of a crime is not a political opinion that is protected speech. This is why all legitimate news outlets refer to an accused as “alleged” perpetrators no matter how clear their guilt. Accusation of committing a crime or contributing to a crime is an accusation of a fact, not an opinion. In this case Dupnik admitted he had no facts to support his statement. In the law this is the sine qua non of reckless indifference evidencing malice. In addition, the malicious intent is inferred from the presence of an inappropriate motive. Dupnik is a Democrat. He was accusing political commentators from the opposing political party of a crime for political gain and without proof. Dupnik is a sheriff who is charged with knowing what is fact and what is not regarding criminal activity Lastly, his department in fact had numerous contacts with Lougner over the years before the incident and had ample opportunity and the duty to initiate involuntary commitment proceedings but did nothing. In addition he failed to have any deputy at the event leaving the congresswoman without protection. He knew his department and therefore he was negligent in this case and shifting the blame was important.

The most brutal dictators in history suppressed opposition speech based on the argument that criticism of the government was too extreme and dangerous and likely to foment violence. This was Hitler’s, Stalin’s, and Chairman Mao’s excuse and the excuse of countless lesser dictators who repress free speech to maintain their hegemony. Sheriff Dupnik and the many radical liberals who have rushed to his support have taken a huge step toward fascism in this country. This incident will be offered as proof of the need for more governmental control of free speech over the Internet and cable television. Is this coordinated vilification of conservative speech by the left part of a large planned movement to crush opposition on the way to a progressive dictatorship in this country?