While you were busy fighting, thieves stole America

I've suggested divisive infighting has been a useful distraction that enables corporatism.  Much evidence of that in social conversations I read on facebook.

There's plenty of common ground among the wage earners, but folks in the cheap seats are paired into political and social subsets, provoked to attack each other instead of directing their energy at restraining Washington.

We're the useful idiots perpetuating the crime by doing...nothing but bickering and name-calling.

The political parties have become bastardized versions of their former selves, directed by operatives who have but one common interest: to suck from the enormous teet of the federal government.

OWS and Teaparty movements are symptomatic of common unrest by the populous, yet the perception is sold to us that their forces oppose one another.

Seeing a thread here?

We're never allowed to forget the fights. The black/white issue keeps popping up in the media. But ask yourself who is advancing these conversations. It's either those on the dole or unwitting shills for said cause.

You know the message permeates the American psychie when the talking points of group X are exalted in man-on-the-street stand-ups.

I don't know who's responsible for provoking, nor would it be useful to argue over it, but I do know the left-right, black-white, rich-poor battles are playing out in all forms of TV, talk radio, blogosphere and social media.

Whether the ones we see on TV have anything to gain personally is less important than transcending the rhetoric altogether and working as a people in this and every election, firing incumbants of all stripes until Washington is rid of the bug that sucks the life blood from this republic.

We can break down immorality into its most basic form by relating it to something as primal as suffering, something most of us can relate to on varying levels and degrees.

Abortion is subject usually presented as a polar issue, either hard-left or hard-right position.  But attitudes change when you present it this way: "How about an abortion today?"  In its most basic form, no one wants one or thinks it's a suffer-free zone.  From that common ground, we can begin a thoughtful conversation.

Voters need a class in American Government

I have a hard time understanding how such large numbers of citizens of this country don't understand what it means that states are sovereign entities.  That means the federal government is restricted to power specifically enumerated in the Constitution, and all other powers of governance belong to the states and citizens.  Put another way, it is required by law to stay out of the business of drug policy, marriage, education, abortion and host of other issues because these are not under the purview of the job of President of the United States, and candidates for the office thereof.

Many think of the US as a single assemblage of people under one governing body and that the President is sort of like a King commanding an army.  I imagine some are just used to the fact that the federal government often comes along and tries to impose laws on all of us, even though our state-run schools are charged with the responsibility of teaching this stuff to every kid.

It is this very misguided assumption that is at the center of the confusion caused when candidates accuse Ron Paul of somehow being a proponent of drug abuse.  Trust me when I say the candidates are banking on your ignorance regarding states' rights.  Prove them wrong!  Let them know you're more informed than they think you are.

You see this every day.  The government is into everything it's not supposed to be into…and fails miserably at the very few fundamental things it is required to do, like regulate commerce, borders and currency.  It's the ignorance that seems to enable the rhetoric candidates and pundits are using to describe Ron Paul, suggesting he's some sort of radical nut-job.  But when you take more than a cursory look, you recognize he's the only candidate that really understands how this country is supposed to operate.  He knows this stuff by heart, and he stands firmly for these principles, even against a wall of opposition.  Ask yourself what might inspire opposition to what we know to be right and decent.

I feel sorry for all Dr. Paul has had to deal with and I'm truly sad so many people misunderstand such basic issues.  I'm glad he's out there, that more people are beginning to figure out that he's exactly correct in his assessments, but I do fear it's too late to reach enough people to make a difference.  The country's an airplane already on a steep downward spiral and any chance to pull the nose up is fleeting fast.

When I was younger I would never have guessed this country would take the very same hard-line stance in world affairs that our staunch enemies had once taken -- before their demise.  Through our perpetual war footing, aggression toward innocent people, occupations and operations in other sovereign nations, we have now become the thing we once despised.  All we have to do is ask the USSR how this will end for the USA.  How has East Germany fared?  What up North Korea?  Ask Rome and Britain how their empires are doing now.

One moment you abhor Washington for their distance from Constitutional rule of law and the next you reject the most valuable morals purportedly guaranteed by that document, which was once thought to be a sacred promise to its citizens.  You spout off about how our service members fight for our liberties, but you so easily dismiss those same liberties out of some irrational fear for your safety.  This is disgraceful behavior and pure injustice to our military heroes.  America is akin to Germany as the Reishtag burned and brought about the fear that enabled a monster to scorch the European landscape, leaving a stench that shocked the planet.

He who swears an oath to the Constitution and then so radically violates it should be exiled from this land.  Yet he remains here and stands in judgment of another who committed his life to upholding those standards, calling him dangerous and out-of-touch.  It is detestable these people are given any notoriety in the media.  Dare I say Washington ought to be pushed into the Atlantic?

You are either for or against the principles of our Constitution.  One of the very few reasons I believe it's proper to question someone's patriotism is on this point.  If you want to be part of a civilized society that believes with it's heart and soul in freedom and liberty, then you should stand for that and not waiver.  If, on the other hand, you wave your flag despite your ineptitude, and choose instead to advance a police state, virtual martial law, and don't mind forcing citizens to subsidize corporations and fellow politicians with hard-fought earnings, then perhaps you don't belong here, in the places where our ancestors willingly shed their blood so that their people could thereafter live unencumbered from such things.

If you can stand against man because he prefers we promote non-intervention over unjustified aggressions against other peoples, or that the federal government get out of the states' business, then you align yourself with the criminals and enemies of this nation.  There might be a place for you at the axis of evil.

At some point it's time to stop blaming Congress for the shortcomings of our nation and take some responsibility for our own weaknesses; our failing to hold our elected leaders' feet to the fire.  There is a proper remedy, but it takes people who will exorcise the strength and decency to cast out the corruption and greed.  That means even America's most passive citizens must stop sitting on the sidelines saying, "it's not my job; my vote doesn't count."

We must ignore the electability rhetoric and vote with integrity and our brains for a leader who has spent more than forty years fighting for the same values that made America the land of the free and the home of the brave.  There is only one person who has, without fail, come down on the side of Constitutional principles, even when it caused great conflict with his colleagues.  One single member of Congress has stood out above the rest in defense of this nation.  And this nation desperately needs him on that wall to defend the rule of law.

But true change will only occur if we dramatically change the way we think and act about our responsibilities as citizens.  Every able-bodied person should get out and make commanding choices this election.  By pressing Ron Paul to lead the executive branch of government, you will cause shock & awe among the corrupt and inept elements.  You will horrify Washington lobbies, corporations and the media.  But you will flex your muscles as a strong citizen and cause sweeping improvements in the future of our country.

Endorsements

It seems like everyone has an endorsement proclamation to share, so I decided I wanted one too.

Mine is simple and based on something rational, for a change, like the rule of law.  And in order to restore the rule of law, we need leaders focused on limiting government to only the powers permitted under this nation's charter.

We have been drawn so far from these core American values that they seem radical, naive, dangerous and idealistic by today's standards. But returning to these standards must be our aim if we are to preserve this republic.

Foreign Policy
It was never the founders' conception that the US government would intervene in matters of other sovereign nations.  We know that doing so causes unintended blowback.  One example came to us in 1967 during the six day war, when Israel blasted the USS Liberty, a ship sent to the Sinai  Peninsula on a listening mission.  Candidates who demonize non-interventionism, characterizing it as isolationism, either don't understand history or they fully understand, but count on your ignorance to get away with it.  Wanting to withdraw standing armies deployed overseas is not naive or dangerous, but necessary to restore America's dignity in world affairs.  Denying foreign countries' access to our earnings is not disrespectful toward our supposed foreign allies, but an equitable human rights policy inside our borders.

Domestic Policy
Rejecting federal interference in states' sovereignty is completely proper.  Restoring sanity in monetary policy is critical to America's common welfare and failing to do so is a national security crisis.  It's immoral for the US to embark on policies that cause suffering on entire segments of our population.  To create laws that are tantamount to racist is repulsive.  Federal regulation of marriage and medicine is an indignity on families and individuals that cannot be allowed to persist.

There's only one candidate that will resist entering the homes and pocketbooks of American families, whose aim is to put a leash on federal reach, and seek to bring costs of government back to a rational level.

The only candidate with the integrity and honor to hold the office of President of the United States of America is Dr. Ron Paul, the Republican Representative from Texas.  I urge you to help me restore America to its former prestige by participating in caucusing and voting for candidates for all elected offices in this country that hold firm the principles I've outlined above, beginning with Dr. Paul.

Beware of detractors like Newt Gingrich who use inflammatory tactics to paint Dr. Paul in a poor light.  They say he will not be the nominee because he is for the legalization of drugs; he blames 9/11 on America; he thinks it doesn't matter if Iran gets nuclear weapons; he seems totally unwilling to defend Israel; he basically came out for the abolition of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security; he can't defend and won't take responsibility for his own newsletter, even when they have very negative, very destructive things in them.  Newt is conning people into voting for him.  It doesn't take much research to see through each of these cheap tactics he is using.

Let's face it, if you say you believe in the federal government staying out of states' rights, then you will be accused of supporting the legalization of whatever the federal government had been improperly regulating.  If you say the government should not intervene in certain foreign matters, then you are for the destruction of our allies.  If you criticize a popular government program whose very existence is unconstitutional, then you're too radical.  The irony here is that every other candidate will spit on the very doctrine many of them have already sworn to uphold.  That tells me that in American politics today, if you truly honor America, you'll be vilified by the establishment.

I would love to see Mr. Gingrich to lay his finger on that part of the Constitution that properly lays down the power for our government to legally prevent Iran from developing weapons of its choosing.  I want to know where Newt thinks the federal government gets its authority to supersede a state's right to regulate plant-life.

In reality the Republican Party has become a bastardized version of itself.  Its members used to purport to want to stop overreaching policies that facilitated welfare programs aimed at subsidizing individuals or subsets of society, and instead encouraged volunteerism, philanthropy and the good will of fellow citizens.  This compulsory charity is now so engrained in our system that it takes radical thinkers to remind us what the charter we celebrate every Fourth of July actually says.  This new version of American politics preys on the ignorance of its citizens to leverage personal gain and advance illegal policies that cause suffering within its populous.

We should ignore pundits who try to replace your intelligence with their propaganda, polling data and social engineering efforts.  We should be less concerned about who is electable and more proactive about what this country needs most right now.  Let's get together and start coming up with similar answers to the most important questions facing America today.  Let's fire the establishment and bring equitable change to this beloved republic.  We must not sit on the sidelines for yet another election cycle.

Go to Washington. Get rich.

One of the reasons I enjoy working in the media is the perks.  At a large outdoor concert we put on, members of the staff and clients were shielded from long lines and the general filth that the "regular" goers endured.  We were treated to a better class of faire and impressive access backstage and the performers.

It's all perfectly legal, but if I were a standard ticketholder, I might not have the same appreciation for such perks, especially as I'm being herded like cattle.

The Wall Street Journal reported numerous examples where members of Congress, their staff, friends and family were able to enrich themselves through insider trading.  This elite class of folks can come to Washington with only a few bucks, but leave with millions more.

Is that fair?  Is it true that Congress is exempt from insider trading rules imposed on us "regular" folk?

Ron Paul recently spoke on the issue after 60 Minutes did an expose on how Nancy Pelosi and others were getting rich from this kind of criminal activity.

How the media distracts us from real issues

I'm often insulted when I see in the media that the most important issues are brushed under the rug and petty bickering makes the headlines.

On MSNBC's Martin Bashir program Friday (Oct. 27), Democratic analyst Karen Finney said of the white Republican base, "They think [Cain is] a black man who knows his place."



A cohort of mine subsequently shared a link to a Weekly Standard web page featuring the exchange and remarked, "Left wing racism rears it's ugly head again. Disgusting!"

Putting aside for a moment his misuse of the contraction, my friend uses circular reasoning to arrive at a conclusion that the Democratic analyst is racist for accusing the white Republican base of holding a racist viewpoint.

This is also a classic example of feigning dismay in order to arouse the right-wing base and distract them from the truly important issues of the day, like the poor economy and the high unemployment.  Anyone that's paying attention should recognize that Finney was exhibiting GOPism and not left-wing racism.

Finney's remarks are reminiscent of Rush Limbaugh's racial overtones when he made disparaging remarks about Philly quarterback Donovan McNabb:

"Sorry to say this, I don't think he's been that good from the get-go," Limbaugh said. "I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."

Was Limbaugh the racist here?  Or was he accusing the media of using race as a criteria for their desire to see McNabb do well?  I don't often come to the big guy's defense, but in this case, his statement was not racist.

Now onto a lesson on the use of its and it's in American English writing.

Spotify

In this rant: Why I dislike Spotify.

It's spyware and malware and junkware all wrapped up in one cute package.  Plus it incessantly announces to which song certain friends are listening, further advancing the wholesale distribution of useless information.

Join me next time as I rail against multiple entities reposting the same information to dozens of walls.

Fundamental Restructuring of the Tax Code

Michele Bachmann, John Huntsman and Sarah Palin are all saying how they'd help businesses create new jobs by lowering or eliminating corporate taxes, which would shift more of the federal revenue burden on the individuals.  They all mention a fundamental restructuring of the tax code.  I agree.

But how is shifting the responsibility for generating government revenue to the individuals good for the American people?

I'm running for president and I have my own plan.  It comes in two easy steps.

Individual income tax came about within the last century and it's resulted in a power and wealth shift toward big business and an explosive growth of government.

The fact is, the earners in this country that have the biggest need and the most to gain from lowering the federal overhead, but are the ones with the least power to influence a change, which creates a fundamental (some say fatal) flaw in the system.

Money flows in a circular fashion, from manufacturers to individuals to retailers and back to manufacturers. Government taps its revenue from various spigots to varying degrees. But because of special interests and corporate lobbies, the demand for more federal revenue is exploding because more of the money flows back to them from the tax coffers (through subsidies, loophole exemptions & reductions and bailouts). So the only way to reduce the governments appetite for money is to give big business incentive to encourage a more efficient government. And they will under my plan.

Step 1.  End individual taxes.

Since all government tax money is coming from the same stream, we're simply proposing that the corporate spigots be the only ones turned on...essentially pushing the taps upstream.

Initially business will shoulder a larger tax burden because government is top heavy. But as the heat is felt in Washington, new policies will be proposed that will shrink the size and scope of government and thereby lowering the overall tax burden on society.

• End all taxes levied on individuals (not including capital gains from investments like stock, bonds, commodities, etc.)
• End all corporate taxes on foreign business.
• Uniformly tax all revenues derived from the US market without regard for the country of companies' headquarters.
• Fairly assess a sustainable road use tax on all commercial vehicles based on objective road wear studies.
• Insist on local community ownership of businesses where ever possible. This should not affect manufacturing, distribution, communications network backbone providers and the like.
• End federal drug laws.
• Criminally punish business owners for hiring illegal aliens and deceptive pricing and advertising practices.

Taxes include all money any government agency assesses on individuals, their purchases and property, including fuel, property & sales taxes, licensing & registration fees, telecommunications fees, etc.

Step 2.  Restore backed currency.

Rick Perry on the issues

Payroll taxes and partisan rhetoric

When a political party identifies itself as a champion against taxes, insisting on extending ten-year tax cuts that benefit rich folks indefinitely, then says it's OK to allow certain other tax cuts to expire (a payroll tax cut that would help low income earners), it becomes clear what the goal is.

The 6.2% Social Security payroll tax on employees that was temporarily reduced to 4.6% by Democrats is ending on schedule, thanks to Republicans, who want that particular tax to expire.

The tax cut only applies to the first $100,000 in earnings, meaning that a maximum of $2,000 will be gained by any earner.  That is to say, for millionaires it's not that significant of a cut to be concerned with.  Millionaires will forgive their Congress for such a petty loss.

But the gains for the federal coffers could be $120B.  So even if it is a tough chunk for earners to swallow, Republicans really have to show fiscal responsibility at this point in time.  They're running for the White House, afterall.

On the other hand, is this just a negotiating tactic?  For those of us that earn less than $100,000, are we going to have to give up something enormous just to gain back the 2% of the money we worked hard to earn?

Oh, the games people play with other people's money.

OPEN LETTER TO THE GOVERNMENT:

I think what Warren Buffet is saying is that we-the-people have failed the nation in regulating the money flow into the hands of the power class, that it's time to start taxing capital gains and commerce in a meaningful way and stop penalizing the hard work of the earners in America.  It's time to shift the purse strings from the individuals to the revenue generators -- the power class -- in this country.

So from all American earners, I say we are sincerely sorry for our weaknesses.  We thought we could hold their feet to the fire, to keep the power class honest, but through some misguided choices on our part, we have failed America.

Please help us and our nation by taking the purse strings back.

PS -- we're also returning the currency to you.  It's a little dinged up, so you'll have to fix that, too.  Please don't be too mad at us.

Does the Iowa Straw Poll mean anything?

While most of the local media is focused on the Butter Cow at the Iowa State Fair, the national press is counting down the days before the year's largest republican fundraiser.

You might think, judging by the media frenzy surrounding this early presidential contest, the GOP gathering at Hilton Coliseum is a critical badge to earn in order to become a US president; candidates who don't participate are hurting themselves.

Not so fast, pundit breath.

Only once in thirty years has the Iowa Straw Poll in Ames predicted a presidential election, when in August of 1999, George W. Bush walked away with seemingly all the honors: Iowa Straw Poll, Iowa caucuses, other US primaries and the general election itself.

John McCain, who eventually won his party's nod in '08, earned only a tenth-place showing at the money gala.

Needless to say, as a measuring stick, it has little meaning.  Only Bush 41 & 43 have eventually gone on to win the presidency after an Ames Straw Poll win -- and not necessarily in the same campaign year.

Even the early caucus and primary referendums don't indicate a winner in the general, so it makes you wonder what the fuss is all about.

National media coverage aside, the Iowa Straw Poll is a pointless exercise in the big campaign, so it's no wonder GOP frontrunners like Mitt Romney would choose to skip this particular dance.  Besides, Romney has already achieved what other candidates would hope to gain from the event, so why risk potential landmines (like this video and this issue) along the Iowa trail?