The Other Side of the AIG Bonus Story

NYT Op-Ed

The following is a letter sent on Tuesday by Jake DeSantis, an executive vice president of the American International Group’s financial products unit, to Edward M. Liddy, the chief executive of A.I.G.

DEAR Mr. Liddy,

It is with deep regret that I submit my notice of resignation from A.I.G. Financial Products. I hope you take the time to read this entire letter. Before describing the details of my decision, I want to offer some context:

I am proud of everything I have done for the commodity and equity divisions of A.I.G.-F.P. I was in no way involved in — or responsible for — the credit default swap transactions that have hamstrung A.I.G. Nor were more than a handful of the 400 current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. Most of those responsible have left the company and have conspicuously escaped the public outrage.

After 12 months of hard work dismantling the company — during which A.I.G. reassured us many times we would be rewarded in March 2009 — we in the financial products unit have been betrayed by A.I.G. and are being unfairly persecuted by elected officials. In response to this, I will now leave the company and donate my entire post-tax retention payment to those suffering from the global economic downturn. My intent is to keep none of the money myself.

I take this action after 11 years of dedicated, honorable service to A.I.G. I can no longer effectively perform my duties in this dysfunctional environment, nor am I being paid to do so. Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid. Having now been let down by both, I can no longer justify spending 10, 12, 14 hours a day away from my family for the benefit of those who have let me down.


You and I have never met or spoken to each other, so I’d like to tell you about myself. I was raised by schoolteachers working multiple jobs in a world of closing steel mills. My hard work earned me acceptance to M.I.T., and the institute’s generous financial aid enabled me to attend. I had fulfilled my American dream.

I started at this company in 1998 as an equity trader, became the head of equity and commodity trading and, a couple of years before A.I.G.’s meltdown last September, was named the head of business development for commodities. Over this period the equity and commodity units were consistently profitable — in most years generating net profits of well over $100 million. Most recently, during the dismantling of A.I.G.-F.P., I was an integral player in the pending sale of its well-regarded commodity index business to UBS. As you know, business unit sales like this are crucial to A.I.G.’s effort to repay the American taxpayer.

The profitability of the businesses with which I was associated clearly supported my compensation. I never received any pay resulting from the credit default swaps that are now losing so much money. I did, however, like many others here, lose a significant portion of my life savings in the form of deferred compensation invested in the capital of A.I.G.-F.P. because of those losses. In this way I have personally suffered from this controversial activity — directly as well as indirectly with the rest of the taxpayers.

I have the utmost respect for the civic duty that you are now performing at A.I.G. You are as blameless for these credit default swap losses as I am. You answered your country’s call and you are taking a tremendous beating for it.

But you also are aware that most of the employees of your financial products unit had nothing to do with the large losses. And I am disappointed and frustrated over your lack of support for us. I and many others in the unit feel betrayed that you failed to stand up for us in the face of untrue and unfair accusations from certain members of Congress last Wednesday and from the press over our retention payments, and that you didn’t defend us against the baseless and reckless comments made by the attorneys general of New York and Connecticut.

My guess is that in October, when you learned of these retention contracts, you realized that the employees of the financial products unit needed some incentive to stay and that the contracts, being both ethical and useful, should be left to stand. That’s probably why A.I.G. management assured us on three occasions during that month that the company would “live up to its commitment” to honor the contract guarantees.

That may be why you decided to accelerate by three months more than a quarter of the amounts due under the contracts. That action signified to us your support, and was hardly something that one would do if he truly found the contracts “distasteful.”
That may also be why you authorized the balance of the payments on March 13.

At no time during the past six months that you have been leading A.I.G. did you ask us to revise, renegotiate or break these contracts — until several hours before your appearance last week before Congress.

I think your initial decision to honor the contracts was both ethical and financially astute, but it seems to have been politically unwise. It’s now apparent that you either misunderstood the agreements that you had made — tacit or otherwise — with the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, various members of Congress and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo of New York, or were not strong enough to withstand the shifting political winds.

You’ve now asked the current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. to repay these earnings. As you can imagine, there has been a tremendous amount of serious thought and heated discussion about how we should respond to this breach of trust.

As most of us have done nothing wrong, guilt is not a motivation to surrender our earnings. We have worked 12 long months under these contracts and now deserve to be paid as promised. None of us should be cheated of our payments any more than a plumber should be cheated after he has fixed the pipes but a careless electrician causes a fire that burns down the house.

Many of the employees have, in the past six months, turned down job offers from more stable employers, based on A.I.G.’s assurances that the contracts would be honored. They are now angry about having been misled by A.I.G.’s promises and are not inclined to return the money as a favor to you.

The only real motivation that anyone at A.I.G.-F.P. now has is fear. Mr. Cuomo has threatened to “name and shame,” and his counterpart in Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, has made similar threats — even though attorneys general are supposed to stand for due process, to conduct trials in courts and not the press.

So what am I to do? There’s no easy answer. I know that because of hard work I have benefited more than most during the economic boom and have saved enough that my family is unlikely to suffer devastating losses during the current bust. Some might argue that members of my profession have been overpaid, and I wouldn’t disagree.

That is why I have decided to donate 100 percent of the effective after-tax proceeds of my retention payment directly to organizations that are helping people who are suffering from the global downturn. This is not a tax-deduction gimmick; I simply believe that I at least deserve to dictate how my earnings are spent, and do not want to see them disappear back into the obscurity of A.I.G.’s or the federal government’s budget. Our earnings have caused such a distraction for so many from the more pressing issues our country faces, and I would like to see my share of it benefit those truly in need.

On March 16 I received a payment from A.I.G. amounting to $742,006.40, after taxes. In light of the uncertainty over the ultimate taxation and legal status of this payment, the actual amount I donate may be less — in fact, it may end up being far less if the recent House bill raising the tax on the retention payments to 90 percent stands. Once all the money is donated, you will immediately receive a list of all recipients.

This choice is right for me. I wish others at A.I.G.-F.P. luck finding peace with their difficult decision, and only hope their judgment is not clouded by fear.

Mr. Liddy, I wish you success in your commitment to return the money extended by the American government, and luck with the continued unwinding of the company’s diverse businesses — especially those remaining credit default swaps. I’ll continue over the short term to help make sure no balls are dropped, but after what’s happened this past week I can’t remain much longer — there is too much bad blood. I’m not sure how you will greet my resignation, but at least Attorney General Blumenthal should be relieved that I’ll leave under my own power and will not need to be “shoved out the door.”

Sincerely,
Jake DeSantis

America’s Lack of Gun Control is to Blame for the Violence in Mexico

“Never let a good crisis go to waste”.

I knew (as many others did) as soon as the drug violence in Mexico became headlines it wouldn’t be long before the anti-gun crowd would use the crisis to their advantage and begin to try to implement their wish list.

It wasn’t long after “Drug Violence in Mexico” made headlines that Secretary of State Hilary Clinton was on the news accepting Americas blame in the crisis sighting America’s addiction to drugs and lack of gun control. No mention however, of the lack of border security or immigration enforcement. In a speech she went on the attack blaming military-style assault weapons calling for a new “Assault Weapons Ban.

“Mrs Clinton said the use of military-style assault weapons was a particular concern, and she would discuss reimposing a ban on their sale.

A previous US decision to lift a ban on such sales had been a mistake, she told the NBC television network.

...Mrs Clinton said assault weapons did not belong on anyone's street.”

Over the past few months the anti-gun crowd in Washington, and over at the Brady Center, have been drooling over their anti-gun wish list now that Democrats control both the executive and legislative branches of government. Here is a short description of their wish list.

A new “assault weapons" ban: This is not a repeat of the Clinton ban. Many in congress and the Brady Center are calling for a California style ban which is far more restrictive than the Clinton Gun Ban. They want to ban out right AR-15’s, AK 47’s, M1’s, M1 carbine’s, Mini-14’s and other magazine fed semi-automatic rifles. They also want ban all semi-automatic shotguns and .50 caliber rifles.

Their stated goals are also to ban all magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds and require federal registration of all semi-auto rifle and pistol magazine fed firearms.

Require micro-stamping of ammunition: This will require stamping serial numbers onto the casings and bullets linking the owner to the bullets in a federal gun-owner registration database. This would virtually be cost prohibitive sending the cost of ammunition sky rocketing to pay for the program. This would also prohibit private transfers of ammunition. Say your and your buddy are at the gun range and he runs out of ammo and you give him a box, this would be considered an illegal transfer sense the serial number on the ammunition does not match the person who is in possession of it.

Repeal the Tiahrt Amendment and the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA): This protects the personal information of legal gun owners/purchasers. This of course does not affect illegal firearms since there is no paper trail for illegal purchases.

Require all firearm sales to go through NICS and allow the FBI to retain the records of all NICS-approved firearm transfers: Again this does not affect illegal purchases only legal ones. This will also allow a NICS check to reject someone whose name is on an FBI watch list which is flagrantly flawed.

Prohibit the sale of more than one handgun to a single individual in a 30-day period: This is thought to be a way to thwart "large-volume" illegal gun traffickers.

The consequences of these bills will put a huge burden upon the law abiding citizen and do little to stay the illegal gun trade. This will in effect ban all private transfers of firearms and amunition, ban millions of commonly owned semi-automatic rifles and pistols, ration sales, and give new powers to the BATF to harass law abiding gun owners and legitimate gun dealers.

Quote of the Day

"Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program." Milton Friedman

Daniel Hannan Takes America by Storm

Mr. Hannon talks about some familiar themes that are being played out right here in this country. Speaking of the absurdity of replacing public sector jobs as a compensating mechanism for private sector job loss he says, “…you cannot carry on forever squeezing the productive part of the economy in order to fund an engorgement of the unproductive. You cannot spend your way out of recession or borrow your way out of debt.”

On the Glenn Beck show Daniel Hanan points to the destructive forces that are unleashed when Government inserts its regulatory muscles into the free markets saying the bank bailouts, the nationalizations, the subsidies, act to make things worse.

About the issue of government created jobs he makes the point that they aren’t typical public sector jobs in the traditional sense like a policemen or firemen, rather they are liaison officers, outreach workers, or racism awareness counselors. Maybe here in America we can add to that list community organizer.

The most significant point here, showing the deception behind the scenes, is that these jobs are created to get folks to vote for the party who created them. This is what FDR did with organized labor and the many other special interest groups he created who benefited from his administration. Same thing is happening today with wealth redistribution policies.

In another interview, on the Sean Hannity show, Hannon said everybody, except politicians, understands that when you are in debt you spend less. Hannon also quoted Milton Friedman “There is only two kinds of money in this world. There is my money and your money.”

Milton Freedmen actually said, “"Nobody spends somebody else's money as carefully as he spends his own. Nobody uses somebody else's resources as carefully as he uses his own. So if you want efficiency and effectiveness, if you want knowledge to be properly utilized, you have to do it through the means of private property."

Causality

Government interventions into the free markets, by artificial manipulation, is what caused the Great depression. It was war debt, high tariffs, and failed monetary regulation that caused the recession of the late 1920’s. It was government spending and regulatory controls and anti-business policies of the FDR’s administration that deepened and prolonged the Great Depression.

The recession of the late 70’s early 80’s was started by LBJ’s deficit spending to fund the Vietnam War which brought about rampant inflation. Jimmy Carter mismanaged the economy egregiously by increasing taxation and regulation stifling the economy even further. The unemployment rate was higher then than it is now. By 1980, the "misery index"—unemployment plus inflation –hit over 20 percent for the first time since World War II. It was Reagan’s supply-side tax cuts that allowed entrepreneurs to invest and increase productivity. Reagan also slashed regulations, freeing the entrepreneurial spirit of American business ending the recession.

Today’s crisis can be traced directly back to the easy money policies of the Fed and anti-credit discrimination regulations placed on lenders by the government.

Instead of looking at successful models as a guide to economic recovery the government keeps repeating the mistakes of the past by insisting on following the same failed methods.

What Mr. Hannon is getting at is, the best way to deal with crisis is to get back to the fundamentals of how government is suppose to work; leaving the people alone to make their own decisions and deregulate allowing an atmosphere where the sprit of entrepreneurialship can thrive.

The Road to Hell

EU presidency: US economic plans 'a road to hell'

STRASBOURG, France (AP) -- The president of the European Union slammed President Barack Obama's plans to have the U.S. spend its way out of recession as "a road to hell," underscoring European differences with Washington ahead of a crucial summit next week on fixing the world economy.

With that said, the White House searches for new tax revenues.

The White House said it would launch a search for new tax revenues, as Congressional leaders moved to scale back proposed spending increases and tax cuts in President Barack Obama's ambitious budget.

The Obama administration plans to create a task force to consider elimination of corporate loopholes and subsidies, tougher enforcement against tax avoidance, and tax simplification, White House Budget Director Peter Orszag said late Tuesday.

Basically the administration wants to find new ways of taxing people and corporations. Another thing they want to do is reduce the level of tax breaks such as on charitable contributions which will negatively impact philanthropy. They also plan on increasing the powers of the IRS to more aggressively go after people and corporations.

Mean while the senate plans on scrapping the middle-class tax cut after 2010.

President Barack Obama says he's not ready to comment on a proposal from some Senate Democrats to scrap his middle-class tax cut after 2010. Obama says he hasn't yet seen what changes are coming out of the House and Senate.

But he delivered his bottom-line on the budget at a Tuesday evening news conference. Obama said the budget must move toward health care reform and include an energy policy that frees the U.S. from dependence on foreign oil. He also says he's looking for investment in education and a reduction in the deficit.

Obama’s spending plan, which will increase the deficit by over $9 trillion in the next 10 years, is simply unsustainable. Taxes will have to go up and not just on the rich but for everyone. This will be increases on taxes in virtually all categories from corporate taxes, income taxes, to regressive excise taxes—sales tax, gasoline, energy, etc. Nough said.

Change and the New Deal

Voters in their zealousness for "change" have given us a President and legislature hungry to bring back the old failed policies of the FDR administration.

There is no doubt that the policies of “New Deal” were blatantly statist and centralized Government power. Essentially Roosevelt’s policies declared war on the Jeffersonian legacy of individualism and decentralized government.

As historians have repeatedly revealed, the origins of these policies came from soviet literature in communist publications lauded by intellectuals and progressives some of which had earlier sailed to Europe and traveled to Russia and met with Joseph Stalin. Many of these “travelers” as Amity Shlaes calls them in her book “The Forgotten Man” sympathized with communism and felt that many aspects of it could be successfully implemented back home. Many of these travelers such as, Raymond Moley, Rex Tugwell, and Adolf Berle became part of FDR’s Brain Trust. Others actually were appointed to cabinet level positions in FDR’s administration.

Harry Hopkins, one of FDR’s advisors and one of the principle architects of the “New Deal” was a communist sympathizer and a suspected Soviet agent. Hopkins, a Brain Truster, supervised the WPA and held the position of Secretary of Commerce from 1938 to 1940.

Then there were those who were outright communists themselves. One such example can be found in Lauchlin Currie, an economic adviser to President Franklin Roosevelt , Alger Hiss in the State department, Harry Dexter White a high ranking official in the Department of Treasury, etc.

The New Deal virtually destroyed laissez-faire capitalism in this country which was already under assault by interventions implemented by Woodrow Wilson such as the Federal Reserve and the federal income tax. But it was changes made by FDR’s administration that made the quantum leap towards statism and centralization.

Now under the leadership of FDR’s contemporary cronies we are promised “change” once again. What change? Promising to take more control of private and publicly traded financial institutions, as Obama, Bernanke, and Geithner are calling for, virtually taking over every part of the economy is “change” that would make FDR and his Brain Trusters proud.

“Change” so brazenly socialist that even Vladimir Putin took notice warning the Obama administration of the dangers of socialism.

“In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state’s role absolute,” Putin said during a speech at the opening ceremony of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. “In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated.”

One thing is for sure the most prominent features of socialism and fascism is government inserting itself into private institutions.

The Obama administration has taken the “New Deal” to new heights never imagined in FDR’s day. “Change” maybe, but certainly nothing new. It is the same failed philosophies that the travelers brought back from Soviet Russia and were implemented by FDR. FDR used the crisis of the Great Depression as a segue for implementing sweeping socialist changes. Rahm Emmanuel, Obama’s chief of staff, agrees “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” There is nothing new here folks, Obama’s “change” is nothing more than a modern reincarnation of FDR’s New Deal, ushering in a new wave of outmoded collectivist idealism.

Government misdirection

Obama’s new administration will never cease to astound me. First comes the multi-billion dollar Stimulus Bill, then the extraordinary Omnibus Bill without any pork. How’s removing tattoos from gang members at the cost to tax payers of $200,000 or $238,000 for the Polynesian Voyaging Society, $2 million for swine odor and manure management, $250,000 to preserve Lahontan cut-throat trout, $866,000 for stable fly control, $265,000 for blackbird management for example of the lack of pork in the bill.

Then to find out that it was Christopher Dodd who wrote allowances into the bill for corporations receiving stimulus money to payout bonuses. It doesn’t stop there, come to find out it was Geitner who engineered the AIG bailout. Geiter also lied about when he knew what he knew. According to Liddy, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has known about them for three months and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner found out about the payments two weeks ago -- a week before Geithner has said he first heard of the bonuses from his staff.

Some Republican law makers have called for Geitner’s resignation:

“Lawmakers in both parties Wednesday questioned why Mr. Geithner didn't do more to derail the bonus payments and two Republicans called on him to resign.

The uproar comes on top of a skeptical reception to Mr. Geithner's plan to ameliorate the financial crisis and concern about his slowness in building a team.

From the outset, Mr. Geithner's tenure was clouded by questions about his failure to pay personal taxes. Now, seven weeks into the job, he also finds himself pilloried by late-night comics.”

Now, according to the New York Times the Obama administration plans to further take over private and publicly traded financial insitutions.

“The Obama administration will call for increased oversight of executive pay at all banks, Wall Street firms and possibly other companies as part of a sweeping plan to overhaul financial regulation, government officials said.”

The new rules will cover all financial institutions; including those institutions that haven’t received any bailout money.

Can anyone justify such a government intrusion into the free markets? The government has no right to make compensation decisions for the private sector. This is economic fascism where ownership remains in private hands but is controlled by the government. Can this be their Ultimate goal? Obama is fininshing what FDR begun. This has always been the goal of the left.

Of course the lies and decpetion don’t stop there. Obama promises to cut the deficit in half by 2014 but according to tht WSJ the CBO tells a different story:

“Congressional budget forecasters said President Barack Obama's spending blueprint would produce significantly deeper long-run deficits than the White House has projected, complicating the task of enacting his ambitious domestic agenda.

"This will make it more challenging for Congress as we craft a budget resolution," said North Dakota Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad. The Senate Budget Committee chairman will be one of the key players steering the White House spending blueprint through Capitol Hill starting next week. "The reality is, we are going to have to make adjustments to the president's budget if we want to keep the deficit on a downward trajectory," Mr. Conrad added.”

More proof of the lies coming out of the Obama administration. Should America really put there trust in government to fix what they broke in the first place. Is this the philosophy of freedom? Should we ignore the lies and deceptions ignoring their consequences? America voted and America got what it asked for.

The Tax Gods Speak

House passes bill taxing AIG and other bonuses

Washington is sure protective of our tax dollars as Schumer, Pelosi et. al…cry fowl, "We want tax payer money back."

WASHINGTON – Denouncing a "squandering of the people's money," lawmakers voted decisively Thursday to impose a 90 percent tax on millions of dollars in employee bonuses paid by troubled insurance giant AIG and other bailed-out companies. The House vote was 328-93. Similar legislation has been introduced in the Senate and President Barack Obama quickly signaled general support for the concept.

"I look forward to receiving a final product that will serve as a strong signal to the executives who run these firms that such compensation will not be tolerated," the president said in a statement.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif, told colleagues, "We want our money back now for the taxpayers. It isn't that complicated."

As a tax payer I want the government to return the $750 billion they plundered from the tax payer.

Obama Biden Gaff Machines

In the wake of Obama's off color remarks on The Tonight show Toby Harnden brings us the top ten Obamabiden gaffs.

But one of my favorites is when Joey Biden talks to a Indian American supporter and says in Delaware you cannot go into a 7Eleven or a Dunkin Donuts without a Indian accent.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Dismisses Obama Overtures

Oh, what a surprise.

Will Iran, whose leaders deny that the holocaust ever happened, have sworn themselves to the destruction of Israel, ever be appeased by the Great Satan Infidel as they chant in anti-western rallies?

Barrack Obama had mis-judged them from the beginning when he said Iran wasn’t a threat on the camping trail. Again he miscalculated when he went on Arab television to apologize for American polices and promising the murderous Palestinians $9 hundred million in US tax payer money to rebuild Gaza rebuffing our ally Israel.

He will continue to be wrong in the Middle East because of his foreign policies of appeasement and toleration just as Jimmy Carter got the Russians wrong during the SALT treaty and the Iranians wrong during the Iranian hostage crises. Ronald Reagan got it right, "Negotiate from a position of strength." That is assuming of course that anyone can negotiate with fanatical mentally challenged religious ideologues. But you certainly don’t negotiate from a position of tolerance, appeasement, and weakness either.

According to this NYT article:

Khamenei said there will be no change between the two countries unless the American president puts an end to U.S. hostility toward Iran and brings ''real changes'' in foreign policy.

Never mind the fact that Iran has supported violence and terror over the globe from North Africa, Lebanon, Israel, the Balkans, Asia, to Iraq that have killed Americans soldiers and civilians and many allies.

Iran's mentality towrds the US is that of brainwashed minions who worship a God-like cult leader.Besides recognizing Obama's weaknesses in foriegn polcy they aslo got something else right, the empty rhetoric of cahnge.

''They chant the slogan of change but no change is seen in practice. We haven't seen any change,'' Khamenei said in a speech before a crowd of tens of thousands in the northeastern holy city of Mashhad.

In his video message, Obama said the United States wants to engage Iran, but he also warned that a right place for Iran in the international community ''cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization.''

Khamenei asked how Obama could congratulate Iranians on the new year and accuse the country of supporting terrorism and seeking nuclear weapons in the same message.
Khamenei said there has been no change even in Obama's language compared to that of his predecessor.

''He (Obama) insulted the Islamic Republic of Iran from the first day. If you are right that change has come, where is that change? What is the sign of that change?
Make it clear for us what has changed.''

More change we can believe in.

Vladimir Putin Warns Obama of the Dangers of Socialism

I have wanted to post this for a while but I have had other things to get out there. If there is a national shame this is it; Obama is warned about the dangers of socialism by, of all people, Vladimir Putin.

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has said the US should take a lesson from the pages of Russian history and not exercise “excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state’s omnipotence”.

“In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state’s role absolute,” Putin said during a speech at the opening ceremony of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. “In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated.”

Although, we can’t expect the former communist and head of the KGB Vladimir Putin to get everything right when it come to how capitalism works he certainly comes to the table with a wealth of knowledge on the failures of socialism. At the very least his warnings should be taken seriously.

And how quickly the national memory forgets the disastrous polices of the FDR’s administration and Keynesian economics—here we go again. Obama has picked up the torch of LBJ’s great society which picked up where FDR left off, which states government always knows best.

Den of Thieves

Yes chuckie, and we want our stimulus money back too. It also belongs to the tax payer.

Constitutionally speaking the Congress cannot single out any one person or group for legislative persecution (and that is what it is) they have to do it generally across the board. What this means is, if they want to follow the constitution they have to tax all executive bonuses not just AIG. But why let a little thing like the Constitution get in the way.

Those who complain of the bonuses being paid out to corporate executives need to remember AIG’s Edward Liddy had no legal recourse other than to pay the bonuses.

In the case of AIG where executives received some $173 million in bonuses were out of the financial services division located in Connecticut. Connecticut has a state law requiring any employer, who has a contract to pay an employee a set wage or bonus, to pay up. If the company should fail to pay, as required by the contract, the company is liable and can be sued. If the plaintiff wins the case the company will be required by state law to pay double the amount plus attorney fees. This could be disastrous making AIG liable to possibly pay out over $346 million dollars.

Not to mention the fact, there are provisions within the stimulus bill that allows companies receiving tax payer support to pay out bonuses to their employees. Once it was found out it was Christopher Dodd who wrote these provisions into the bill he quickly rolled on Barrack Obama saying he was asked by Obama to write these provisions into the bill.

So it would seem AIG acted within the regulations put on them by government. Now they are being persecuted by government for following the rules.

The Government wants to blast AIG for their behavior, what about the government’s behavior? One just has to remember that AIG is paying bonuses in the low hundreds of millions of dollars while the government stimulus spending is in the high hundreds of billions. They are all crooks, its thieves regulating thieves. If anyone wants to complain about the bonuses they should be complaining even louder about the bailouts in the first place.

I guess it’s a case of everyone wanting to have their cake and eat too.

The argument against Altruism

If I had a dime for every time I heard someone say the government doesn’t do enough to help people I would be in a higher tax bracket. I especially hear this around the issue of healthcare.

The other day I had a conversation with someone who said the government should provide free healthcare to everybody. I answered by saying, how about we go down to the bank and open an account so you can contribute money to pay my health care costs since I don’t want to pay for insurance anymore. She looked at me with a puzzled look in her eye. I continued, what’s wrong with that? Do you really think there is any difference between me demanding you pay my costs or the government demanding it? I cannot use force to make you do it without violating the law but the government can. Such is the essence of providing free healthcare to everyone.

The moral to this story is giving people things for nothing is an act against freedom since it uses force to violate the rights of others.

Dangerous Philosophies

The fact is that there are some philosophies that have very real and dangerous consequences. These philosophies fail because they ignore the essential characteristics of reality. In effect, people who follow these philosophies bury their head in the sand to the contradictions, denying causality of the unintended consequences. These failures are readily predictable for anyone with some linear thinking ability.

We are seeing these philosophies being played-out in the stimulus package and the Omnibus bill. They are being played out by injecting altruistic ideology into the legislative processes.

Government benevolence always backfires with unintended consequences. Authoritarian programs designed to make the economic system fair, have brought us to the brink of economic collapse. Just look at the “Community Reinvestment Act”, created to protect low income borrowers from discriminatory credit practices. This was the spark that ultimately led to the housing crash. How many Americans are being hurt by this crash?

While both Congress and the media rage a crusade to crucify corporate leaders for their corporate jets, hiring contractors to renovate posh office suites, and giving big bonuses to their executives. No mention is ever heard of Nancy Pelosi flying her family, friends, and personal employees around on military jets which she demands to be at her beck and call 24 hours a day.

What is also ignored is that these corporations, who buy their own jets, hire contractors to improve the aesthetics of their offices, and give out bonuses actually help to stimulate the economy. These practices are job friendly and that is what we need right now isn’t it?

Speaking of job friendliness, Barrack Obama signed a not so job-friendly executive order that discriminates against 84 Percent of the construction workforce. This new order basically calls for large-scale federal construction projects to be carried out by union labor eliminating over 80 percent of non-union contractors. When Clinton called for higher wages, benefits and collective-bargaining, for union contractors resulted in the costs nearly doubling. Of course it is the tax payers who absorb these higher costs.

Obama says he wants to create jobs but this policy does the exact opposite because 84% of American builders and contractors do not belong to unions. In every case union only contracts drive up costs by limiting bidders and forcing construction users to use union workers who represent less than 15 percent of the workforce.

“Union-only PLAs drive up costs for American taxpayers while unfairly discriminating against 84 percent of U.S. construction workers who choose not to join a labor union,” added Pickerel. “All taxpayers should have the opportunity to compete fairly on any project funded by the federal government.”

And how have Unions affected the auto industry?

"The unions for decades have been making steeper and steeper demands on the auto industry through efforts of strikes, a form of legalized extortion. Making demands that simply could never be lived up to in the long run. Pensions alone that the auto industry owes union members exceed $14 billion dollars - and that is to people who no longer produce anything for the companies. It is basically a system similar to how our social security system works, where the workers of today are supposed to provide for the workers of yesterday. Both are doomed for failure.

So now we have the US auto industry going to the United States government and asking for taxpayer dollars to bail out the costs associated with these union groups demands. It is another form of redistribution of wealth, where Americans are asked to pay money so that the unions can benefit.”

According to a Fortune magazine article “Behind Ford's scary $12.7 billion loss” organized labor has created a disadvantage to American auto makers trying to compete with non-unionized competitors. Not to mention the fact it increases the cost of the car.

“What’s more, not only is the union work force a terrible expense for the auto industry it’s just flat-out less productive than it’s non-union counterparts:

...nonunion U.S.-based auto assembly plants made 1.1 million more vehicles in 2005 than they did in 2001, while production at unionized plants fell by 1.1 million, he said.

Of course, one way to look at that statement is to say that the non-union automakers (Toyota, etc.) are just selling more cars than the union automakers. And that’s probably true, but it still proves the point that a union labor force is bad for business. Companies like Toyota are selling more cars because their cars are cheaper (thanks to lower labor costs) and better made (thanks to better workers). Both of those facts are an indictment of the union workers.

And it also exposes a larger truth. The more we foist costs like health insurance, high taxes and heavy regulation on American businesses the worse they’ll do in competing with their international counterparts. Something that will drive jobs and economic growth overseas.”

It is only common sense that states what is anti-business is anti-job.

Does Gun Control Work?

If all guns were banned I think the first thing you will see is a drastic underground market and the rise of crime organizations smuggling guns into the country just like drugs. I also think you turn hundreds of thousands if not millions of otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals because many Americans will not give up their guns or seek guns on the black market. You give up the legal gun trade for the illegal gun trade but guns will still be out there.

In order to find out how gun laws affect crime the non-pragmatist would take a look in places where strict gun laws exist to find the results.

Before the Washington DC gun ban went into effect gun crime was already dropping, after the ban the murder rate rose.

John Lott speaking on the Heller vs. D.C. case stated, “The DC brief specifically points to Great Britain's handgun ban in January 1997. But what wasn't mentioned in the brief was the fact that the number of deaths and injuries from gun crime in England and Wales increased 340 percent in the seven years from 1998 to 2005.”

In 1996, Australia outlawed semi-automatic rifles and many pump action shotguns and other semi-automatic weapons. As of 2000, the Australian government confiscated and destroyed about 660,000 privately owned firearms. However between 1996-1998 armed robberies rose 73 percent, assaults rose 16 percent, and unlawful entries rose 8 percent. Murders also rose slightly. -- "Guns down under," Reason, Australia, p. 10, 10/1/00

Germany has some of the strictest gun laws in Europe and like Washington D.C. a gun ready for defensive use in the home is outlawed. Despite this the annual number of firearm-related murders throughout Germany rose 76% between 1992 to 1995. --- Library of Congress, p. 69.

Today we here of a mass shooting in Germany:

WINNENDEN, Germany – A 17-year-old wielding a Beretta 9 mm pistol burst into classrooms at his former high school Wednesday and gunned down students — some of whom died with their pencils still in hand — in a rampage that ended with 15 dead before he took his own life, authorities said.

What information can be extracted from this? Gun control simply doesn’t work.

The Dishonesty of the Anti-Gun Crowd

The arguments of the anti-gun crowd are based in emotionalism and histrionics and the fact that some folks actually exercise self-responsibility is somehow stifling to their soul. Trying to engage the anti-gunner in reasoned discourse just isn’t possible since they tend to be pragmatists.

During the debates on the Clinton gun ban the anti-gun crowd’s arguments were laden with rhetoric, emotionalism, and hysteronics, not facts. What facts they had were all nuanced, or quite frankly made up. What really pissed me off was when the Speaker of the House, Tom Foley, refused to bang the gavel when time ran out. At this point the ban had been defeated by three votes. Although time had run out the anti-gunners in congress managed to sway a few more votes in their favor and Tom Foley quickly banged the gavel before the pro-gun crowed could talk them out of changing their votes. The ban passed and the rest is history.

To showcase this dishonesty here is Dennis Henigan the legal director for Brady Campaign omitting “Of the People” when quoting the second Amendment.



The above video might be argued as an unintentional omission until you see this one and realize he has a pattern of lying:


Dennis Henigan Misquotes the 2nd Amendment - Click here for more amazing videos

Two Supreme Court Justices had this to say:

In 1833 Justice Joseph Story wrote in his Commentaries on the Constitution that the right to keep and bear arms provided a “strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers”. Chief Justice Roger Taney in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) listed the right to own and carry arms as one of the rights of citizenship.

In this Gallup poll shows Americans overwhelmingly agree that the 2nd Amendment protects the gun rights of individuals.

Smell the Pork

According to the Heritage Foundation the "Omnibus" spending package contains 9,287 pork projects at a cost of nearly $13 billion.

Let’s name some names. Here is a list of the big tax dollar spenders in the omnibus spending bill.

Taxpayers for Common Sense reports that the biggest spender is Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., with 60 earmarks worth $123 million. Of course he isn’t the only one:

1) Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va. -- $122,804,900
2) Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala. -- $114,484,250
3) Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo. -- $85,691,491
4) Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. -- $76,899,425
5) Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss. -- $75,908,475
6) Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska -- $74,000,750
7) Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa -- $66,860,000
8) Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla. -- $53,133,500
9) Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. -- $51,186,000
10) Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii -- $46,380,205
11) Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. -- $39,228,250
12) Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D. -- $36,547,100
13) Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vt. -- $36,161,125
14) Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. -- $35,577,250
15) Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa. -- $27,169,750
16) Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. -- $26,628,613
17) Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa. -- $25,320,000
18) Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis. -- $23,832,000
19) Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. -- $21,952,250
20) Former Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M. -- $19,588,625

Let’s vote them all out of office.

Letter to IRS

Ed Barnett wrote a letter to the IRS explaining why he was unable to pay his 2008 income taxes. Though this is humorous (I’m sure the IRS had a good laugh as they began hunting this person down). As you read this letter pay attention to how many different taxes people have to pay.

Dear IRS,

I am sorry to inform you that I will not be able to pay taxes owed April 15, but all is not lost.

I have paid these taxes: accounts receivable tax, building permit tax, CDL tax, cigarette tax, corporate income tax, dog license tax, federal income tax, unemployment tax, gasoline tax, hunting license tax, fishing license tax, waterfowl stamp tax, inheritance tax, inventory tax, liquor tax, luxury tax, Medicare tax, city, school and county property tax (up 33 percent last 4 years), real estate tax, social security tax, road usage tax, toll road tax, state and city sales tax, recreational vehicle tax, state franchise tax, state unemployment tax, telephone federal excise tax, telephone federal state and local surcharge tax, telephone minimum usage surcharge tax, telephone state and local tax, utility tax, vehicle license registration tax, capitol gains tax, lease severance tax, oil and gas assessment tax, Colorado property tax, Texas, Colorado, Wyoming, Oklahoma and New Mexico sales tax, and many more that I can't recall but I have run out of space and money.

When you do not receive my check April 15, just know that it is an honest mistake. Please treat me the same way you treated Congressmen Charles Rangle, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and ex-Congressman Tom Dashelle and, of course, your boss Timothy Geithner. No penalties and no interest.

P.S. I will make at least a partial payment as soon as I get my stimulus check.

Ed Barnett

We should all send letters. Remember we have the power to fire any oppressive ruler in this country; the President, Congressman, or Senator and put people in office who will serve the people instead of abuse them--they work for us. Remember the second law of tyranny:

"Abuse always expands to fill the limits of resistance to it."

In summation: “Dangers to freedom”

I ask you, is the principles of individual freedom outdated and irrelevant in today’s society? I ask this because I have heard over and over again that government doesn’t do enough to help people. So people who expect government to do more for people are either ignorant of the fact that to help more people the government has to violate someone’s real rights, or they think that property rights is out of fashion.

I was watching a news program recently when a guest of the program, who was there to defend Obama’s spending plan, said (with conviction): “We are going to be taxing the rich like they should have been taxed all along.” What this guy is really saying is some portions of society don’t deserve to have rights.

Anyway, in conclusion of the “Enemy Within” the threats to freedom have been shown to be pragmatism, altruism, and apathy.

The pragmatist finds no ready made reality; instead one creates his own reality. Relatively there are no absolutes; no facts and no laws of logic. The pragmatist worships at the altar of an alternate reality constructed of emotion and perception without regard to the independent facts. The pragmatist can rationalize anything including appeasing terrorists as a way to achieve peace. This happened when Barrack Obama’s first televised interview, after becoming president, was on an Arab Television station and he apologized for American policies. And when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promised the Palestinians $9 hundred million to help rebuild the Gaza strip, she essentially rewarded Hamas for firing rockets into Israel and killing civilians.

The pragmatist can rationalize all these things including the need to marginalize some individual rights for the benefit of society. One way this is done is by changing the terminology such as “fairness” as a disguise for redistributing wealth, the disastrous CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) that caused the housing crash was disguised as “fairness” in lending. Speaking of the Community Reinvestment Act, Barrack Obama has broadened the CRA to become the American Recovery Reinvestment Act (notice the similarity to the disastrous National Recovery Act FDR implemented, deepening and prolonging the “Great Depression”). How does anyone defend the stimulus and the omnibus spending bill? Pragmatism, that’s how.

The altruist demands the individual make sacrifices to society—sacrifice some property; sacrifice some liberty, sacrifice some happiness so that others who don’t act on their own behalf to achieve these things can have them anyway. The altruist says that although man should be responsible for himself, he can’t be trusted with that responsibility, so society must be tasked to do it for him. The final product of altruism is socialism.

Apathy is the ostrich that buries his head in the sand ignoring the problems and allowing others to make decisions for him. Like the altruist he surrenders his responsibilities to society. The apathetic person by default tolerates the abuses of individual rights to go on unopposed.

The government should be the agents for protecting the rights of individuals. The voters should vote anyone out of office who doesn’t respect these rights. If the laws fail to stop oppressive practices of government the voters have to step up to the plate and change the personnel running the country. In other words, fire them.

Listen, the bottom line is if people want freedom to reign supreme in this country they need to understand the majority cannot vote the rights away from the minority—and the individual is the smallest minority.

If people want to stay free, it is time to stand united and demand individual rights be protected. It is the only way save our freedom.

The Enemy Within Part Three: Apathy

Are American’s tiring of the fight for freedom? Is freedom in America dying by suicide?

When the government takes someone’s personal property and gives it to someone else just because they want it or need it is a violation of protected private property rights.

As the government moves to solidify the institutionalization of violating private property rights, many cheer, some complain, and others bury their heads in the sand, ignoring the real consequences of this nationalized behavior. My question is, where is the out cry, where are the protesters and demonstrations, where are the phone calls and emails telling government Americans won’t stand for it? Where are the voters when it comes to firing the bad guys involved in the plunder? Instead, far to many people just accept it and mumble under their breath about having to subsidize everything under the sun from treating crack heads in Chicago’s South Side, to tattoo removal for gang bangers in South Central LA, and even women’s reproductive care in Mexico City.

Why is it so destructive for the government to confiscate wealth and redistribute it anyway? Every democracy throughout history has failed because sooner or later the majority figures out they can vote themselves the property of the minority which in every case lead to socialism—in one form or another—which intern leads to a totalitarian style government sometime in the near future.

The founders of this great nation went to war against the government over “excess taxation.” Today the government has found away around the “excessive taxation” problem with the “progressive tax” code (and taxing everything including double taxation on investments and retirement funds). This is the implementation of, "We've got to make sure that people who have more money help the people who have less money."—Barrack Obama.

The progressive tax is where a minority of tax payers are forced to pay the majority of the tax burden. The fact is, the top 1% of earners pays more “income tax” than the bottom 90% put together. So, the minority—the highest income earners—In this country pay excessive tax rates (which even Whoopi Goldberg rails against) while the majority pay far less or none at all. Since the minority has little to no voice in a democracy they have little recourse other than to stop producing or shut up and pay the taxes.

Do the rich have any less right to their property than the poor or middle class? Do the weak have fewer rights than the strong? Or does every individual, rich or poor, strong or weak have the same equal rights under the law? The last I checked they did.

The altruists in society have convinced Americans that they are all victims of the arrogant and selfish rich and therefore the rich do not deserve their rights. What’s missing from this philosophy is the truth, which is, the constitution protects everyone’s individual rights not just the majority of people.

The progressives in society have put the rights of victim-hood ahead of those who succeed punishing initiative, creativity, and productivity, while rewarding idleness and fruitfulness. Today’s progressive society is a tribute to dysfunction. In America, if you can’t afford your home because you’ve mortgaged a lifestyle you can’t afford, the burden will be transferred to the guy working two jobs to support his family and trying to get ahead in life.

Throughout American history getting something for nothing has been a foreign concept in the national psyche but today it is not only common place but expected.

Those who would give up their dignity for a little security and a guaranteed piece of the American dream fail to realize they are giving up their personal sovereignty at the same time. Some people would rather give up their personal responsibilities and let the state take responsibility for making decision for them. This is cowardice and cowards don’t want to think or act for themselves. They want freedom from freedom in the same way a child wants mom and dad to tell him what to do. Instead of accepting the inherent risks of freedom they want freedom from failure. They prefer guaranteed prosperity to the challenges of life.

Freedom isn’t free; it wasn’t passed to us in our DNA and we will not pass it to our children in their DNA. Freedom is a ceaseless battle that every freedom loving American is responsible for waging. Freedom does not come without effort; it takes courage and vigilance, initiative and motivation, determination and education, and it takes work ethic. It takes the desire to better oneself and one’s position in life. What the fight for freedom really boils down to is the relentless pursuit of self-reliance.

Someone who is self-reliant says I don’t need the nanny state. I can take care of my self and my own. This of course is a slap in the face to the cowardly altruist who wants someone else, someone perhaps smarter than he, to make decisions for him. The altruist doesn’t want freedom. Quite to the contrary, he is afraid of freedom and he does not trust other’s to make choices for themselves and wants government to decide for them.

As long as people are willing to let the government make decisions on their behalf or violate the rights of others, freedom cannot thrive for long. What is needed is for Americans to stand up overwhelmingly for truth and freedom and let their representatives in government know they won’t tolerate the violation of individual rights. However this is not the trait of “apathy”.

The apathetic, like an ostrich, bury their head in the sand and ignore and evade the discussion altogether and by default support the philosophies and polices that are eroding the real rights of individuals in this country.

The 2nd Amendment Part Two: Original Intent

The founders were united in their belief that private citizens, armed with their own firearms, were vital to a free nation. They observed what happens to citizens when the means of personal defense is kept from them. They observed that the greatest atrocities committed upon humankind have been at the hand of governments.

History is chock full of examples of tyrants who have sought to disarm the people they intended to enslave. Julius Caesar, during the Gallic campaigns, recognized the difficulty of conquering an armed people: “all arms were collected from the town” and “there could be no terms of surrender save on delivery of arms.” King Charles II imposed legislation to disarm the English population nearly 100 years before the disarmament campaign in the colonies, and there are many other examples.

The 20th century has also seen plenty examples of what can happen to unarmed populations such as in Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Soviet Union, and in Mao’s China, where millions of unarmed citizens were oppressed, abused, and slaughtered. Unarmed citizens will always live their lives at the whims of those who have guns, namely the government and criminals. In fact, dictators throughout history have disarmed their citizenries in order to impose power:

Adolph Hitler: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so."

Lenin: "One man with a gun can control 100 without one."

Stalin: "We don't let them have ideas. Why would we let them have guns?"

Mao: "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

The founders of this great nation were revolutionaries who went to war against their government, the king of England, because of oppression. If they had allowed the government to disarm them we wouldn’t have the America we know and love today.

The founders felt it important to leave us the legacy of resistance because they understood the nature of man, which it is in his nature, once he gains a little authority to begin to practice despotism. Often the encroachments on freedom are slow, mostly unnoticeable, until one day you wake up with your freedom gone.

As we can see, the founders had a long (founded) history of mistrusting government and of standing armies as dangerous to individual liberty. For this reason it was considered the duty of every male to keep a rifle with few exceptions and this was considered patriotic. The duty to keep arms applied to every household, not just to those persons who were eligible for military service, this included older males as well.

James Madison, one of the principle architect’s of the second amendment (Bill of Rights), viewed the 2nd Amendment as protecting the right of gun ownership of the population at large. In fact many of America’s framers believed this, and on many occasions stated that the right to gun ownership is a right of the “people”.

Thomas Jefferson commenting on his mistrust of government power said,” Experience hath shown, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."

According to Thomas Jefferson the primary intent of the 2nd Amendment is to preserve liberty and defend against an oppressive government when he said, "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants"

John Adams seconds this notion but takes it a step further saying the 2nd amendment establishes right to self-defense against criminals: "Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion...in private self defense..."

Thomas Jefferson addresses how gun control laws protect the criminal from his intended victim: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

Thomas Paine stated the 2nd Amendment also plays a roll in protecting property rights: "...arms...discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property..."

Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society and good friend of James Madison tells us what the term “people” means when it is used in the Constitution. He also mentions the majority cannot deprive the individual of his rights: "The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of."

George Mason defines the original meaning of the “militia”: "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials."

Thomas Jefferson tells us what to do if there is ever a question of the meaning or intent of the law: "On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

Though, there may be some vague language in parts of the Constitution, there is nothing vague about “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It is quite clear the 2nd Amendment protects the rights of the people (individuals) to own and carry guns.

The explicit reasons for the 2nd Amendment are: 1. National defense- to come to the aid of one’s country against foreign invaders and to defend liberty from oppressive and tyrannous government. 2. Self-defense. 3. For defense of property.

The 2nd Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with sporting or hunting arms, though these arms are certainly a truly American heritage. Nevertheless, the 2nd amendment is about the right to defense.

The 2nd Amendment Part One: The Militia

The Revolutionary War was fought over government oppression, specifically “excessive taxation”. The founders made sure the legacy of freedom they fought and bled for would be protected by placing restrictions on government through Constitutional restraints. The founders, in their uncanny wisdom, also gave us a backup plan for defending freedom if government, or reason, failed to protect the rights of individuals. They gave us the 2nd Amendment.

That said, the famous “Shot Heard Around the World” happened when colonists converged on the British army to stop them from confiscating private arms from homes setting off the battles of Lexington and Concord—the beginning of the Revolutionary War.

In the minds of many Americans, the Second Amendment may just be the most important constitutionally protected right of all since it serves to safeguard all other rights.

The truth behind the 2nd Amendment is often ignored or misunderstood and therefore gets misrepresented in the debates. One common error is the militia argument. What one needs to understand about the “militia” is that there are different categories of militia.

The militia according to Federal statutes in section 311 of US Code Title 10, entitled, "Militia” states: composition and classes" in its entirety:

"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

*Source “We the Unorganized Militia” by Randy E. Barnett. This is a great read on the utility and relevance of the militia in today’s society.

Given this knowledge any interpretation of the “militia” being only members of the military is an illogical and erroneous conclusion.

Pragmatism in Foreign policy Part Two

How does the pragmatist respond to Terrorism? It seams the way to deal with bad guys is to reward them. Sectary of Sate Hillary Clinton on behalf the Obama administration, showing their true colors, has just given us a glimpse. By promising money to rebuild the Gaza strip.

“Hillary Clinton put America on a collision course with Israel today after pledging to press for a Palestinian state.

The U.S. Secretary of State's position brings her into conflict with the Israeli Prime Minister-designate Benjamin Netanyahu.

Although Netanyahu has spoken of Palestinian self-government, he has shied away from a two-state solution to the Middle East conflict.”

Hmmm, shouldn’t Israel, the folks who have to deal with Palestinian aggression daily, have the finale say on the matter?

“Clinton, who is in Jerusalem for talks today, spoke after attending a conference in Egypt geared to raising donations for the Gaza Strip. She pledged $900 million in U.S. aid.”

Although that is a stinging sum for American tax payers, who are already reeling form the Obama’s $3 trillion Stimulus package, is just a drop in the bucket in comparison of how the rest of the world is reacting by pledging $5.2 billion.

So the world rewards terrorism.

“Rockets still fly on a daily basis out of Gaza, does the world stand shoulder to shoulder against the terrorist.

No they stand shoulder to shoulder with the terrorist against the victims.

But since the victims of the rockets and terror are Jews, let's finish the job Hitler started.”

So it would seem my perdictions of toleration and appeasement will be the guide for the Obama administration’s foreign policy is coming true--as if that was a stretch to predict.

Pragmatism in Foreign policy

Let’s take a look at foreign policy for a moment. The effects of pragmatism are evident everywhere one looks. For instance, it is no longer fashionable to use the term Muslim or Islam when speaking of our enemies. Instead of Islamic extremist or Muslim terrorist the acceptable term for those causing trouble is now extremist or fanatic. In fact, the war on terror isn’t even mentioned by the new administration.

The catch word “moderation” has become the new symbol of respectability. One must always keep an open dialogue with their enemies and keep the peace process moving along. One cannot challenge the validly of these claims because who gets to decide what’s valid? Ambiguity rules the realm of the pragmatist and it is this philosophy that drives both domestic and foreign policy. Since pragmatism is a code of non-ethics there can be no rightful claims except to do whatever is expedient or popular at the moment.

Take another example from war on Terror. In Iraq, instead of fighting the war to win the U.S. has embarked on a path of crusading western style democracy in the same way the Christian crusaders went about spreading Christianity to the heathens, who did not want it, employing brute force to achieve it.

The idea that the Islamic world would ever accept a western style democracy is simply ludicrous at best.

First of all, the image of democracy as a symbol of freedom and all Islam needs is a heavy dose of democracy couldn’t be further from the truth. Folks need to understand democracy is fundamentally incompatible with freedom. Freedom is premised on the idea of individualism; which principally states that every man (and women) is an independent and a sovereign being. Freedom means one does not need anyone’s permission to act on the judgment of his own rational mind. In other words, a free man is not a merely an interchangeable component of society—he is free to cultivate his talents, take calculated risks, to think and act for himself, and enjoy the benefits of his creations.

Islamic culture on the other hand is the antithesis to the principles of freedom. Instead of recognizing and respecting individual rights the culture of Islam is built on the idea of tribalism. The function of the individual is to serve the clan or the larger organism. Islam rejects the values necessary for freedom to exist.

So while Bush may take credit for having liberated millions of people (at least on paper) by giving them the vote. The consequence of his policies was to fan the flames of American hatred throughout the Middle East—exhibited by mass demonstrations glorifying martyrs and celebrating 9/11.

What else did we get for our troubles? In almost every case voters support candidates that are overwhelmingly anti-west.

In Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, and Palestine, where U.S. policy advances democracy and demands elections, in every case without exception, the populations of those nations embraced anti-western, freedom adverse, Islamic fundamentalist candidates.

This same failed policy of nation building and crusading western style democracy around the Middle East as a means of achieving victory is still being played out in the Middle East under Barrack Obama’s administration. It quickly becomes apparent that the outcome of pragmatic policies isn’t as important as having noble intensions.

Pragmatism in Politics

Pragmatism is truly the language of the politician. This is borne out time after time when a candidate presents one set of ideas in the primaries and another during the general elections. For example, during the democratic primaries Barrack Obama was seen pandering to the left but once he won the primaries he made a rapid shift towards the center to appeal to a broader audience in the general elections.

How many times did wee see candidate Barrack Obama backtrack on a statement he made with conviction just a few days before? How many flip-flops were there 10, 20, or more? How many half truths and deceptions were potential voters spoon fed? How many promises did he make that he had no chance of delivering?

Of course this isn’t exclusive to just Barrack Obama, or the democrats for that matter, politicians in general are pragmatists who run from the truth if it shows any potential whatsoever to be damaging. This is evident when a candidate changes his tune depending on the audience he is speaking too—even to the point of contradicting himself?

This behavior seams to be perfectly acceptable by the voters as simply, “just the way it is, everybody does it, the status quo, or business as usual.” If this is true, should anyone be surprised that we have so many problems in society today?

Does this pragmatic philosophy cause contradictions that affect policy? The answer is absolutely yes. Just examine any government policy and you’ll find plenty of contradictions. Look at the stimulus package which is full of pork. How does tattoo removal and food stamps help the recovery? How can Obama say there is no pork in the bill and yet there is at least $13 billion in pet projects that don’t do a single thing to stimulate the economy? How can Obama say he won’t hire lobbyists to work in his administration then turn around and appoint William Lynn, a lobbyist for Raytheon, as deputy secretary of defense? How can he say he is going to restore integrity to government and then have four appointees who are in trouble for failing to pay their taxes including one who is now the head of the IRS?

The broken promises just keep piling up. This shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone because Barrack, the poster child for pragmatism, was infamous for his flip-flopping during the presidential campaign as he tried to be all things to all people.

Obama promised:

1. No pork. See above.
2. Bipartisanship. Republicans in the House of Representatives weren’t even given a copy of the stimulus bill before the vote nor were they asked for their input.
3. To reduce bills that gets rushed through Congress and allow at least five days for public comment before signing bills. That never happened.
4. To create a $3,000 tax credit for companies that add jobs. That seams to be missing from the stimulus bill and budget.
5. Not to hire lobbyists. See above.
6. To bring integrity to government. Then he nominates 4 people who owed back taxes.
7. Transparency. The stimulus bill was a secretive process until after it was passed and we are still learning what’s in it.

These broken promises shouldn’t surprise anyone since he had such a vivid history of being untruthful.

Click here for Top Ten Flip-Flops

Want More? Here's more:

1. The Surge.
2. FISA.
3. School Vouchers.
4. Welfare Reform.
5. Divided Jerusalem.
6. Meeting with Iran without preconditions.
7. Palestinian elections.
8. The threat posed by Iran.
9. The Patriot Act.
10. Wiretapping.

There are many more but this should suffice to prove my point.

Does anyone doubt that the institutionalization of the pragmatic philosophy is a threat to America and to the principles of individual liberty?

Defending the Stimulus Package

I tried watching President Obama’s speech to congress on the stimulus bill. However, when he patted himself on the back for passing a stimulus package without any “pork” in it (while maintaing a straight face), and Nancy Pelosi jumped to her feet in standing ovation, I have to admit I threw up in my mouth a little bit. I just couldn’t watch any further.

According to the Heritage Foundation the Stimulus package contains 9,287 pork projects at a cost of nearly $13 billion. Some of these pork projects are:

$2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects
$2 billion on child-care subsidies
$2 billion for community organizations (such as ACORN)
$1 billion for Amtrak
$650 million on top what’s already been spent on digital TV conversion coupons
$400 million for global-warming research
$50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts
$1.7 million for swine odor and manure management research
$1.2 million for mosquito research
$200 thousand for a tattoo-removal for gang bangers
Etc.

No, none of this is pork.

The Stimulus package should be simply called the Obama debt plan. Besides being the most expensive spending package in history it is also the largest power grab by government in the history of the United Sates.

In order to carry out this massive plan the federal government would need to hire 200,000 new employees, according the Heritage Foundation calculations—as if government wasn’t already too big.

Can anyone tell me how this plan can in any way be defended?

Combating Tyranny

Gene Palmisano, writes in a recent post “Waiting for the Renaissance” that if Americans truly wanted to fight tyranny “a tax revolt would suffice.”

“I always assumed if Americans wanted to fight government tyranny, a tax revolt would suffice, but the tax structure in this country is so pervasive, so enmeshed into the fabric of our everyday lives it’s inescapable. If this recession has taught us anything, we the consumers are the ones with purchasing power, we determine which markets survive and which die, we determine the destiny of our economy.

If we are to demand political reform in Washington, we need to flex our fiscal muscles and restrain from buying durable goods; after all, why should we bolster the economy with our buying power, when the government shows such lack of moral restraint in fiscal policy. I say we strike this economy. Crash the markets if need be; whatever it takes to twist the strong arm of government.”

I couldn’t agree more. In fact, I have had several conversations with folks about the power of the consumer. Remember, gas prices came down mostly because consumers changed their driving habits. If enough people dislike the business practice of some corporation, Wal-Mart for example, they could change the way Wal-Mart does business—even put them out of business—simply by spending their money somewhere else. Wal-Mart would then face a choice; change their business practices or go out of business.

In a free-market society the consumer controls their own destiny, and they don’t need government regulation to do it. When it comes to combating tyranny the same principles apply. Society could effectually overthrow the usurpers of power, those who pervert the principles of Republican government, simply through economic means.

Check out Gene's Blog at, “The Metaphysical Lunch”

Does Democracy lead to socialsm?

Tim Kerns writing in an article on Mises tells of a talk he gave to a group of entrepreneurs that illustrates how democracy can lead to the path of socialism if voters are not mindful.

“I've always been perplexed by the dichotomy that often divides people's avowed beliefs and their actions. It may be hard to accept the moral and economic evils of socialism, in the abstract, but it's also hard to vote against it.

Asked whether they believed that socialism was the best track to prosperity, all said no. Asked whether they supported socialism or capitalism, the latter got the universal nod.

I followed those introductory comments with a brief spiel on a book I wrote years ago. I brought out a copy, briefly paged through it, and mentioned its content and supposed value. I also said that, if the group wanted this book to go to one of the audience members, they could vote for me to make it so.

The vote was unanimous; no one was so "selfish" that he or she would vote against someone's receiving a book — even if the odds were against any particular individual's getting the book. Heck, "something for nothing" was in play!

So I gave the book to the nearest audience member, and then I said, "Well, you voted for me to give this book to 'George,' but that book had a cost. We never discussed what cost was attached to your votes. I just spaced that. Anyway, it's only fair to have that cost borne by all: I'd like you each to pass a dollar up here to the podium — unless, of course, 'George' wants to give it back to me."

"George" played along (or perhaps he really wanted the book). He laughed and told his colleagues to fork over the money.

The audience's mood was growing dark, and I didn't want to cause trouble, so I then reached into my bag and gave a book to everyone.

The lesson cost me a dozen books, but I figured I had made a point about liberty, about democracy, and ultimately about limited government.”

This is a great illustration of how democracy can lead to socialism. In fact, it was Karl Marx who said, “Democracy is the road to socialism.”

A Brief Note on Taxes

My question is, is the taxation of income even Legal? Can anyone show me the law where it says we have to pay income tax?

The 16th amendment, besides never being ratified, was not about income tax. According to W.H. Taft, the president who signed the bill into law (and later became a Supreme Court Judge himself,): the 16th amendment was an excise tax on the government itself, and nothing more.The Supreme Court concurred in its majority opinion:

“It was not the purpose or effect of that amendment [16th amendment] to bring any new subject within the taxing power.” [Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170; 46 S.Ct. 449 (1926)]

In other words, whatever the taxing power the federal government had before the 16th amendment didn’t change after the 16th amendment according to the Supreme Court.

Also, in the case of Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan and Trust Company (157 U.S., 429) was held by the Supreme Court to be a direct tax, and therefore not within the power of the Federal Government to Impose unless apportioned among the several States according to population.

Of course the income tax today remains a direct unapportioned tax and therfore unconstituional.

It is clear that the intent of the 16th amendment was to allow the government to tax only its own employees and not private citizens. There is however a provision in the amendment to tax American citizens and corporations oversees, for being given US protection, in countries that have a tax treaty with the United States.

Wealth Redistribution Part Three: The Original American Model

Aristotle warned, “If the majority distributes among itself the things of the minority, it is evident that it will destroy the city.”

The founders shared this view as well, which is democracy is inherently “incompatible with personal security and the rights of property.” What the founders understood is that taxes could become a weapon for one group of people to prey upon another group. This is why the constitution limited the government to indirect taxes such as tariffs, duties, and excise taxes. Today’s income tax is none of these, in fact the income tax is a new classification of taxes altogether that falls out side the constitutional definition of what and who can be taxed. (More on this later)

Jefferson (and the other Founders) opposed confiscating wealth and reallocating of property by government. Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter, April 1816, “To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association — the guarantee to every one of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”

The framers made sure the constitution was very strong on property rights—what belongs to you is yours. If someone tries to take it from you, you can stop him yourself or call the sheriff. Our founders understood that in democracies the majority can take property from the minority so the framers of the constitution put in safeguards so this wouldn’t happen.

The Bill of Rights is a document that specifically protects individual liberties—it doesn’t grant rights, it protects them, and it doesn’t protect the rights of the collective. In other words the “Bill of Rights” offers no class of people or special interest group any special rights. That is why we are a constitutional republic—ruled by law not by majority opinion.

Another thing our founders understood very well was the importance of property rights as an integral component of individual liberty. In fact property rights are the only means of implementing one’s rights. This is the private ownership of land, livestock, the income one earns, etc, etc. And they also understood the fact that incentive, creativity, and productivity is more often propagated by reward and dignity is a product of self-achievement.

So they created a nation of opportunity but not one of guarantee. In America anyone, regardless of gender, race, or financial status, can succeed if they are willing to get an education, have a strong work ethic, and exercise good judgment in the choices they make. Although opportunity exists for everyone there can be no guarantee of prosperity without violating someone’s rights.

I think the principles of American economic philosophy are best described in G Edward Griffin’s book “The Fearful Master”:

1. Economic security for all is impossible without widespread abundance.
2. Abundance is impossible without industrious and efficient production.
3. Such production is impossible without energetic, willing and eager labor.
4. This is impossible without incentive.
5. Of all forms of incentive—the freedom to attain a reward for one’s labors is the most sustaining for most people. Sometimes called profit motive, it is simply the right to plan and to earn and enjoy the fruits of your labor.
6. This profit motive diminishes as government controls, regulations and taxes increase to deny the fruits of success to those who produce.
7. Therefore any attempt through governmental intervention to redistribute the material rewards of labor can only result in the eventual destruction of the productive base of society, without which real abundance and security for more than the ruling elite is quite impossible.

Suffice it to say in order to preserve the rights of people the founders favored measures to encourage free-market solutions for the natural distribution of wealth rather than by government mandate. The American economic method is capitalism and capitalism is the only economic system that fully supports individual rights.

Wealth Redistribution Part Two

The altruist calls compassion a duty of everyone in society. The method for showing compassion for the poor, vulnerable, and underprivileged, however, is to take the productive fruits of those fortunate enough to be successful and give it to those who did not earn it through the use of force, implied or otherwise.

The goal of the altruist is “wealth redistribution”, need proof?

Hillary Clinton:

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Barrack Obama:

"We've got to make sure that people who have more money help the people who have less money."

Michelle Obama:

"The truth is, in order to get things like universal healthcare and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."

"We've lost sight of the fact that we are one another's brothers' and sisters' keepers in this nation. We have to prepare to sacrifice something big for the greater good."

Karl Marx:

“Capital is reckless of the health or length of life of the laborer, unless under compulsion from society.”

“If we have chosen the position in life in which we can most of all work for mankind, no burdens can bow us down, because they are sacrifices for the benefit of all…”

Adolf Hitler:

“It is thus necessary that the individual should finely come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole…This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture…By this we understand only the individual’s capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow man.”

Two things are clear hear, 1. The altruist wants to seize a portion of your income. 2. They believe it is one’s duty to sacrifice on behalf of society.

It should be understood that wealth redistribution is a weapon to wage war on certain classes of people but it is also a recipe for destroying incentive in the nation as the more successful cut back on their productive efforts.

However, if one wishes to show his compassion for his fellow man, for society, he is certainly free to do so by his own voluntarily action, perhaps by donating some money to charity or volunteering his time and talents to help others in need. But the collectivized altruistic model calls for every citizen to do his part. But if he chooses not to, for whatever the reason, perhaps he struggles to pay his own bills. The government is empowered by the collective to garnish his wages, put liens on his home, confiscate his property, or even imprison him…And if he resists any of these measures to collect the fruits of his labor, on the behalf of society, the state can physically restrain him or even kill him.

Now ask yourself is this really compassion—Force?

All real rights of man are defined by the right to own property. Without it there can be no other rights. So any new rights, such as the right to welfare or free medical care for example, violate the real rights of men because it imposes a compulsory obligation upon the productive class in society to pay for the services of the unproductive or under-productive, robbing them of their earned property—income. Forcing someone to work on the behalf of someone else is, by definition, slavery. The practice of confiscating the product of one’s efforts is oppression. Therefore any so called right that violates the rights of others cannot by definition be a right.

Wealth Redistribution Part One

It should be known that when I use the term “altruism” or “altruist” I am referring to a group or individual that would advocate collectivizing or nationalizing the altruist ideal and not the individual who is charitable of his own personal volition. People should be charitable but they should never be forced to surrender their property in the name of compassion.

Let’s define what wealth redistribution is in clear terms. Whoever takes it upon himself to redistribute wealth says that the wealth belongs to that person. In other words, if government is the agent of redistributing wealth then that wealth, your wealth, belongs to the government. This is basically saying the individual is nothing more than a sacrificial animal whose purpose it is to serve the greater good of society.

The altruist believes that some individuals’ productive efforts should be taken away and given to other people who did not produce it by imposing significantly higher taxes on the most successful individuals and companies in our nation. This is class warfare in which one class of people, those who do not produce or earn wealth pit themselves against another class of people, those who produce or earn wealth to take a portion of their wealth, therefore causing harm to that group of individuals, not to mention damaging the integrity of property rights in the process.

During the Presidential elections Barrack Obama told Joe the Plumber that he wanted to spread the wealth around. Basically what Obama was saying is that the government should seize the wealth of successful folks in the name of equity.


However, the Constitution is very strong on property rights. It was Hugo Chavez who said, the United States Constitution is too individualistic and ought to be reformed to be more socialist.

The stated policies of Barrack Obama seem to agree with Mr. Chavez. Listen carefully to this audio recording:



In the audio we hear Obama’s frustration that the Constitution places too much restriction on government when he complained about the Warren Court didn’t go far enough to facilitate redistributive economic policies. What Obama was really hoping for was for the courts to impose a “right” to welfare.

What wealth redistribution really amounts too is wealth confiscation and legalized plunder. One could also call it “nationalizing your pocket book”.

Frederic Bastiat (French economist and theorist in the mid 1800’s) points out that once the government over steps the clear line between the protective role into the aggressive role of redistributing the wealth and providing so called benefits for some of its citizens; it becomes a means for what he accurately described as legalized plunder.

Bastiat explains legal plunder:

“When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it—without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud—to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed…

How is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them. And gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen by himself cannot do without committing a crime…”

John Locke said: “The people cannot delegate to government the power to do anything which would be unlawful for them to do themselves.

What Bastiat and Locke observed and what Karl Marx accurately describes as class struggle is really “class warfare” where each class or special interest group competes to sway the balance of governmental power in their favor. This is also a fair description of democracy. In fact it was Karl Marks who said “Democracy is the road to socialism.”

It is Marxist doctrine that says, a human being is primarily an economic creature. In other words, his material well-being is what’s important; his privacy and freedom are secondary. It is this altruistic doctrine that views men as sacrificial animals.

The altruist says your productive efforts belong to society and government is the principle agent that enforces the will of society. What the government doesn’t tax is a gift to you from them. This insidious doctrine is irresponsible and puts the individual on the road to becoming a kept citizen because the redistribution of wealth consumes the fruits of his labor and since property rights are essential to liberty it also robs him of his liberty.