David Arredondo guest blog: About Ohio’s New Congressional Districts

September 22, 2011 — buckeyerino

Editor’s note:  David Arredondo is a Lorain resident, very involved in the Lorain community and a highly visible member of the Coalition for Hispanic/Latino Issues & Progress (CHIP).  He is the vice chair for the Lorain County Republican Party.  He’s often a featured guest on WEOL radio to discuss his work with international students at Lorain County Community College (LCCC) as well as sharing a center-right perspective on political issues.  He’s also appeared as a Republican pundit on Feagler & Friends, which airs on the PBS affiliate in Cleveland, WVIZ.  Professionally, David Arredondo is the Director of International Student Services at Lorain County Community College.

ABOUT OHIO’S NEW CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS

Elections have consequences and it is clear that the GOP has had the upper hand on redistricting following the census in 1990, 2000, and 2010. Given this trend, it is entirely possible that we can expect more of the same in 2021. Our current law dictates that the state legislature is required to re-draw congressional district lines based on the census results and this census shows that Ohio has lost enough residents to warrant a loss of 2 seats. One of the requirements is that each district must be comprised of a similar number of residents. This time it is about 720,000 residents.

Another requirement is that the plan must provide for “majority-minority” districts which means that a significant number of black residents must be grouped together so as not to dilute their voting power. So the plan must adhere to this or risk being thrown out and re-drawn. Republicans have done as such the past three times and so first, Louis Stokes, then Stephanie Tubbs Jones, and now Marcia Fudge have the district seat in Cuyahoga County set aside for them.

This means that the plan is not democratic giving an equal opportunity for all candidates. Even if Republicans, or Democrats for that matter, wanted to create a fair, non-partisan plan giving all citizens equal opportunity to run for Congress or vote for a congressman in a 50-50 district, it is nearly impossible given the Voting Rights Act requirement providing for a Democratic Party set-aside seat.

The current Voting Rights Act is a relic of the last century and of a time that no longer exists. It is time for it to be abolished in so far as it perpetuates unnecessary practices such as congressional minority seat set-asides and provisions for bi-lingual ballots. It essentially sets-aside a Democratic seat based on race or ethnicity. The days of lasting institutional racism are long past.

If you want proof of how far we’ve come, just look at the faces of recently elected governors in New Mexico, Nevada, South Carolina, and Louisiana—all Asian-, or Hispanic-Americans and all Republicans. Marco Rubio, a Cuban-American Republican was elected senator from Florida. Here is substantial proof that so-called minorities can be elected state-wide without set aside districts. Six of the sixty-three new GOP congressmen elected in 2010 were Hispanic-Americans and two African-American. None was from a majority-minority district. One new Puerto Rican congressman was elected from Idaho. How many Puerto Rican voters might there be in Idaho?

And Republicans are supposed to be bigots?

For self-serving purposes, former Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner is spreading the word that Democrats dropped the ball last year by not offering a new law providing for a reform of the Ohio congressional redistricting process. She claims that Democrats’ hubris precluded them from working with Republicans, namely then-Senator Jon Husted. Nonsense, sheer nonsense. I have my doubts about the reality of such a scenario given that at least as early as summer 2010, polls showed that some state races would be toss-ups, the House could shift back to GOP majority and add seats in the Senate. I saw no speculation anywhere that Democrats would run the table and win the House, Senate and governorship. Even if Democrats wanted to pass a law for redistricting reform, GOP Senate leader Paul Harris would never have approved. He, not Jon Husted, would have been the decider on such a ploy.

Within the past few weeks more talk has surfaced, primarily from media pundits and aggrieved Democrats like Brunner, to change the current redistricting law, if need be, by a ballot referendum. It seems these days ballot initiatives are the only means that Democrats have to push their agenda. No doubt they believe that voters have forgotten that a few short years ago in 2005, Democrats and their Academic elite MSM allies proposed not one, but four initiatives to change the redistricting process, provide for Early Voting, and a reorganization of the Secretary of States office, among other things I recall. All four of these so-called “reform” initiatives” failed by no less than 2-1 margins, even in Cuyahoga County. I don’t agree that Ohio is a 50-50 state. Certainly over the past twenty years Republicans have largely had control of the state offices as well as the legislature. Democratic dominance is long in the past. The majority of “likely” Ohio voters are Republicans and Democrats, partisan voters. I can’t see how anything has changed to expect a different outcome for a redistrict initiative today or next year.

So in 2010, the GOP won 13 Ohio districts, Democrats 5. It would appear that the Republican redistrict map was an exercise in ensuring re-election for most incumbents, both Democrat and Republican save for three. Republicans were more than generous in giving up one seat and creating a possibly new minority seat in Columbus for a Democrat while the Democrats only lost one seat.

Those on the bubble are: Democrats Marcy Kaptur, Dennis Kucinich and Betty Sutton from Northern Ohio and Republicans Steve Austria and Mike Turner from the Dayton area. Two have no seat and one has a chance for a seat in an adjacent district in which she’s have to beat the Republican incumbent.

Right now a “death match” is shaping up between Kucinich and Kaptur in the 9th District. Since this includes much of Lorain County which is Sutton’s district, I wouldn’t discount the possibility that she takes on Kaptur and Kucinich rather than run against Renacci in the 16th.

Last but not least a change needs to be made whereby college students are allowed to register and vote in districts where they attend school: Columbus, Oberlin etc. as well as their home districts. Our system does not have portable registration such that you only have one residence to register and vote. College students do. Whether or not some or all vote multiple times at school and at home is unknown but the possibility exists that some do. That is fraudulent and needs to be fixed along with other measures. It is my understanding that currently the Cuyahoga voting rolls show more than one million registered voters with an eligible voting population of fewer than 800,000. The city of Oberlin has more registered voters than residents. The current electoral system leaves a lot to be desired.

Posted in National Politics, Politics in the MSM, State Politics. Tags: , , . 2 Comments »

James Williamson guest blog: Imminent Rebellion: The Demise of the Dollar and Economic Armageddon

September 21, 2011 — buckeyerino

Editor’s note:  I thank my brother for providing content for my blog when I’m not able to sit still long enough to create my own blog content.  The other guest blog articles he’s written in the Imminent Rebellion series are linked here, here, here, here, and here.

IMMINENT REBELLION: THE DEMISE OF THE DOLLAR AND ECONOMIC ARMAGEDDON

I’ve wanted to address the financial aspect of our current situation for quite some time but have not been able to articulate my thoughts sufficiently to make a coherent argument.  I hope I am able to do so now.  Fair warning though:  I am about to contradict all of the conventional wisdom of modern economists.  Here we go…

To begin with I am going to make a distinction between money and wealth.  These are not dictionary definitions and certainly not endorsed by most economists or financial advisors.  They are my definitions.  Money is whatever is used as currency.   At various times and places in the world it has generally been gold and/or silver but, in some areas of the world, even stones have served as currency.  In our case it is the US dollar.  Wealth is something of value that can be produced or consumed.  Food, clothing, shelter are the most basic forms.  Vehicles, electronics, furniture, weapons, boats, anything that is somewhat durable and useful would qualify under my definition.  Generally goods would qualify as wealth but services would not since there is no durability.  Land wouldn’t really qualify as wealth since it isn’t really something you produce or consume but it is the source of the raw materials that generate wealth.  The closest term that we commonly use to my definition of wealth would be assets, but it’s not a perfect fit either since cash is considered an asset but I don’t really count it as a measure of wealth.  It would be more of a potential for wealth.  I certainly don’t count the book value of your portfolio as wealth.

Money is accepted by the general populous because it is a lot easier to make value judgments in terms of money than it is in goods and services.  When the majority of the people in a society agree that the money is worth something it circulates and becomes currency.  Currency is then used to exchange goods, services, real estate, etc.

Wealth on the other hand, is something that is of use or fulfills a need, the most basic of which are food, clothing, and shelter.  Wealth (remember this is my definition) must be built up through utilization of resources to produce something that people need or want.  By my definition you would need the same three essentials for creating wealth that you need for running a business:  resources, labor, and capital.

They key word in all of this is produce.  Wealth is created by production and destroyed by consumption.  If I grow a bushel of apples I have created wealth.  If I eat a bushel of apples I have consumed wealth.  (I know this does not fit any definition you learned in economics class but I warned you of that at the beginning, didn’t I?)  The relative value of that wealth is decided by the individuals in a market and is usually quantified in terms of money.  The rules of supply and demand are probably familiar to you so I won’t go any further than to say supply and demand for money and wealth together determine the price or quantity of money required to purchase something of value which may or may contribute to your personal wealth.

Purchasing may increase your wealth (you buy land with a house on it) or decrease it (you throw a big party and purchase lots of food to be consumed). Merely conducting trade does not necessarily increase or decrease your wealth.  You may be amassing wealth or depleting it depending on what you are spending your money on.

Until recently, money was nearly always something that had intrinsic value.  The supply of money was limited by the amount of the substance that was available for use.  If you wanted to increase the supply of money you had to expend time and resources to extract it (i.e. mine more gold).  Societies were limited to the finite quantities of extracted material for their money supply.

This loosely tied money and wealth together.  In order to increase the money supply you had to produce something that people needed or wanted (i.e. gold).  This also creates a condition that allows for both inflation and deflation.  When the money supply increases faster than wealth does, inflation occurs.  When wealth increases faster than the money supply, then deflation occurs.  The market always seeks equilibrium so that the value of money accurately reflects the amount of wealth in a market. (Many of you will argue with me but remember this is NOT Economics 101.  This is economics according to James Williamson.)

Inflation is a condition where the money supply grows faster than wealth does.  More money to purchase the same amount of wealth leads to higher prices. You could also say that less wealth purchased with the same quantity of money will lead to higher prices. (In the macro.)  Dealing with inflation is much easier than dealing with deflation if you are wealthy or if you are in debt.  If prices rise, you can sell your goods and services at ever higher prices and therefore increase your wealth or consumption (whichever you prefer) with relative ease.  Since the goods you produced yesterday are worth more today it is rather simple to turn a profit on what you have either produced or traded for.  If you have a debt to pay it will become easier and easier to pay the debt because (presumably) the money supply is increasing and therefore your income (in terms of money not necessarily wealth) is also increasing.  To keep runaway inflation in check, society simply needs to produce enough to keep up with the money supply.

Deflation is a condition where the wealth supply grows faster than the money does or the money supply shrinks faster than wealth does.  Less money to purchase the same amount of wealth leads to lower prices and the same amount of money to purchase more wealth will also lead to lower prices.  Deflation is a generally a result of overproduction and much more difficult issue to deal with than inflation.  If you have surplus wealth you will get ever lower prices for your goods and services which in turn makes it ever more difficult to profit from production or trade.  This makes amassing wealth–or excessive consumption–ever more difficult.  If you have money reserves (not wealth by my definition) you may benefit from the lower prices for a short while and temporarily increase your wealth or consumption but eventually your income will get caught up in the downward spiral as well.  If you are in debt your situation is especially pernicious because, while your payment is fixed, your income is falling, making it ever more difficult to pay.  The real difficulty of getting out of this cycle is that increasing production or wealth does not cure the problem.  What you produced or traded for yesterday is worth less today than what you paid for it.  The only thing you can do is reduce your consumption until either the money supply increases or the production of wealth slows sufficiently to restore the inflationary market.

In the past (before 1900) periods of inflation were always followed by brief periods of deflation.  The markets would seek equilibrium and those who were prepared would weather the deflation storms (or even amass wealth at discounted prices) and those who were not would suffer.  After the correction, inflation would then provide market conditions for those who were not prepared to get ready for the next correction.

All of this changed with the introduction of fiat money.  Fiat money is money produced by governments with no intrinsic value.  It only has value because everyone agrees that it does.  It is created and destroyed at will by the government that issues it.  There is no limit to how much can be produced.  It doesn’t matter how much gold is in circulation any more.  Nor does it matter how much gold could potentially be extracted.  Since money is no longer produced (the treasury doesn’t even bother to print all the money that is available in financial markets, they just produce enough for circulation), the ties that connected money and wealth have now been completely severed and each one grows and shrinks independently of each other.  When the government wants less money in the market, they remove it.  When they want more money in the market, they insert it.

Why would governments do such a thing?  The answer is simple: They don’t like deflation.  Or, stated another way, they hate, loathe, and despise deflation.  In fact, I would go so far as to say that most governments would rather deal with foreign invasion than deflation.  Deflation is the four letter word of the financial sector.  Why?  Because governments and many of the businesses that support the government financially all benefit from inflation but are hurt by deflation.  As long as there is steady inflation it will become easier as time goes on to pay old debts.  Prices rise, incomes rise, tax revenue increases, debt remains the same.  Fabulous, right?  Well, with deflation prices fall, incomes fall, tax revenues fall, debt remains the same.  So if you like to live beyond your means, then you want continual inflation.  You don’t ever want to experience deflation because that would decrease your wealth in a real way.  As long as you have continued inflation, you can always sell higher than you bought, which, if you borrowed money to buy in the first place, is very, very important.  That means you never have to give up real wealth even if you are living on other people’s money.

With fiat money you can create a virtual inflation machine.  You can artificially create inflation even when the market would normally deflate simply by issuing more money.  More wealth + even more money = inflation.  Leveraged businesses and traders are benefited by perpetual inflation just as much as governments, so they support the practice.  Businesses never get punished for overproducing and governments never get punished for overspending.  Perfect isn’t it?  Now government can spend without any restraint and the bill never really comes due because when it does, there is always plenty of (albeit fake) money to pay.

This is the real reason we have fiat money and the real reason the Federal Reserve exists.  Don’t let them kid you about the mission to maintain full employment.  That’s just so the electorate will keep voting in incumbents. But given the choice, maintaining positive inflation always takes precedence over full employment.

So now we are in a market that really wants to deflate.  It hasn’t deflated in over a hundred years.  We overproduced homes and instead of treating them like wealth (something useful, i.e. a place to live) we treated them as a source of money.  Now the market pressures are so great that notwithstanding the injection of over $3 trillion in cash over the last three years, home prices are still declining.  Wages are following.  Well, private sector wages are falling.  Public sector wages continue to rise.  I’m not sure what is keeping inflation positive.  Are rising food and oil prices enough to counteract the deflation of wages and real estate?  Is public sector wage inflation enough to negate the private sector wage deflation?  What happens if oil & food prices begin to decline?  Is that the reason the White House doesn’t want to increase oil production?  For fear falling oil prices will cause everything to deflate?  The disconnect between wealth and money serves as a giant smoke screen that hides the true market behavior, but eventually the truth comes out.

What we are witnessing here is the fleecing of the American populace by the political and business elites.  This is why the gap between the rich and the poor has become so great.  The rich have cheated the system with the help of the government.  Don’t let Obama fool you into thinking the rich will pay.  They may write checks but they don’t ever pay.  The government only consumes wealth and produces only money.  The consumption, like it or not, comes at the expense of the producers.  Who are the producers?  You and I.

Many speculate that our currency will become worthless.  Generally they argue that hyperinflation a la Weimar Republic will destroy faith in it.  While I agree that when the faith in the currency is destroyed, the currency will be worthless.  I disagree that hyperinflation will be the real culprit.  The Fed is ready to combat hyperinflation.  When it starts, they will do everything they can to fight it.  Since they can destroy money at will, they will probably succeed.  No, hyperinflation will not be the real culprit if our currency becomes worthless.

What will destroy our currency is the market itself.  The Fed has pitted its will against the market.  The market wants to deflate and the Fed wants to inflate.  Eventually the market will win.  When it does, the eulogy for the dollar has already been written…  by John the Revelator!  (See Revelation 18:11-15)

Posted in National Politics. Tags: . 4 Comments »

James Williamson guest blog: Imminent Rebellion: The new King George

August 6, 2011 — buckeyerino

Editor’s note:  I’m glad my brother, James Williamson, has time to write a blog entry these days. I’ve had my hands full with other responsibilities, and have been on the road, from coast to coast, since early April.  As a result, I’ve had sporadic internet access, which not only makes it difficult for me to compose blog entries, it makes it difficult for me to even stay informed on current events.  James does his best to try to inform me.

James is an Ohio native who currently resides in Nevada.  Fairly recently, while James was driving down a Nevada road, he was accosted by an employee of the federal government’s Bureau of Land Management.  He was issued a traffic ticket.  Huh? Say that again, I’m not sure I heard it right.  He really got a traffic ticket from the Bureau of Land Management?  Yup, and James wasn’t even driving on, nor was he driving adjacent to, federally owned lands.  According to the words on the back of the ticket, the payment of the traffic fine was to be sent to an address in Pennsylvania.  Crazy.  Apparently, Congress passed a law clearly overreaching the  enumerated powers granted to the federal government by way of the Constitution.

James has composed an entire “Imminent Rebellion” series examining the growing schisms between the sovereign people, the state governments, and the federal government.  Prior blog entries in this series are:  “Imminent Rebellion: States vs the Federal Government,” “Imminent Rebellion: The Tar Pit,” “Imminent Rebellion: The New Fort Sumter,” and “Imminent Rebellion: Nullification, Secession, and the Constitution.”

IMMINENT REBELLION: THE NEW KING GEORGE

I’d like to start out by discussing a fallacy I hear so often quoted:  “It can’t get any worse than this.”  It can always be worse.  In fact I would argue that until people recognize that things can get worse they will get worse because living in denial brings inaction.  Inaction is the very cause of a downward trend continuing.  Something is broken and so you have to fix it.  If you don’t correct the problem it will continue to grow in severity until it becomes destructive.  The difficulty with breakdowns in our governmental/political system is that few people can agree on what is broken and hence what needs to be repaired and how.  So here is my view on our federal government problem.  (If you don’t think we have a problem then you scare me.)

Problem:  The federal government no longer recognizes the sovereignty of the people nor does it respect the sovereignty of the states.  These are both principles enshrined in our Constitution by the founding fathers (who were much wiser than our leaders today).  Both are essential to maintaining liberty because when a government retains all sovereignty there is no check on its power.  If there is no check on government power, the inevitable result is tyranny.  History has provided us with so many good examples that I could fill volumes with them, so, in the interest of brevity, I won’t include them here.

Many of our current so-called “leaders” barely make a pretense of adhering to the document that empowered our federal government and a few even openly dismiss it as out of date.  The Constitution is not outdated.  It will never be outdated.  Those who belittle its importance argue that the founding fathers could not have possibly seen 200 years into the future and anticipated the challenges that we have today.  While that statement is true, I would like to point out that the reason why the Constitution enumerates powers and outlines the federal system but doesn’t include any statutes is that it only enumerates individual rights and delegated authority (from the states to the federal government).  That is why we have a legislative branch in the first place.  It’s to deal with changing conditions, both at home and abroad.

In order to understand more clearly what is wrong with the government acting beyond its delegated authority we must understand why the Constitution was established in the first place.  To find this, let’s look at the preamble to the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

So, first of all, we understand that the federal government was created by the people of the United States.  It was created by the several states (not the other way around) and can (in theory) be abolished by the states by amendment.  So, it follows that the states, collectively, are superior, not inferior, to the federal government.  Furthermore, the people, collectively, are superior to both the state and federal governments.  Sovereignty lies with the people.  They hold the supreme power and, with it, the right to organize, alter, or abolish government as the need arises.  I have at least one friend who agrees with my view: Thomas Jefferson.  To quote the Declaration of Independence:

…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed… [and when it becomes destructive]… it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

The governed (the people or public)  in the thirteen former British colonies (now independent states) already recognized that there was a union among the several states before the Constitution was adopted and that it was imperfect.  They proposed forming a central government because they wanted to establish a more perfect union.  Why?

{To}… establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…

This is the reason the Constitution exists:  It’s to preserve liberty.  Liberty must be preserved or it will be taken away by those who wish to exercise control over others.  The colonists wanted to control their own destiny, not have it controlled by a king that didn’t even live on the same continent as they did.  Our founding fathers recognized that the people are sovereign and have the inherent authority to govern.  So, when authority is given to the government, it is given to it by the consent of the people.

Now I ask you: Where in the Constitution of the United States is the mandate that says that the federal government needs to ensure everyone has money in their pocket and food on their table?  Is that promoting “the general Welfare?” No, absolutely not.

Remember that the colonists organized the Boston Tea party and numerous other protests because the government of Great Britain impeded the promotion of general welfare by imposing financial burdens on the colonists for government actions they weren’t even party to.  (Obamacare?  Libya?  Foreign aid to the Middle East?)  Furthermore, the taxes were imposed by the government in London without any representation or public support from the colonies.  That was an infringement on liberty.  The protests only increased when King George tried to crack down on the rebellion and used his ability to designate when, where, and how citizens could be tried for crimes to deter the resistance.  By delaying trials and holding them in distant places with no jury (the judge’s decision was final) the average citizen could not adequately protect himself from the abuses of government. (Justice and domestic tranquility weren’t priorities for the British crown.) The general welfare is promoted by maintaining liberty and individual rights (defense being a necessary element in a hostile world), not by robbing the rich to feed the poor.  (The Robin Hood principle actually degrades the general welfare of the people . . . but that is an argument for a different day.)  I will say, however, that the protests didn’t have anything to do with a lack of common defense.  Britain did a pretty good job of protecting their piggy bank in the Americas.

So I ask you, after we threw off the oppression of George III and we established a government for the express purpose of preserving liberty, how are we doing now?  Is allowing people who plot and carry out designs to kill Americans to be tried in civil court promoting justice?  Is refusing to enforce our immigration laws and suing the states that try to deal with the problem promoting domestic tranquility?  Is military involvement in Libya or Yemen providing for the common defense?  Is taking approximately 19% of everything that is produced in the country in the form of taxation promoting the general welfare?  Is forcing your own citizens to purchase health insurance against their will promoting liberty?

I could go on but I don’t need to.  You are all aware that our own government is now guilty of many of the abuses that caused us to throw off the British government in the first place.  The reason we fought the Revolutionary War was because the outcry of the public fell on deaf ears.  The government in London did not listen to its constituents.  Now we have a government in Washington DC that does not listen to its constituents.  It doesn’t need to end in bloodshed, though.  There is another way.

The solution:  The federal government needs to get back to the basics:

{To}… establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…

Remember that, in the United States of America, the people are sovereign.  They have the right to govern themselves.  They only delegate authority to governments, . . . they don’t abdicate it.  The people delegated certain powers to the states and the states delegated certain (enumerated) powers to the federal government.

The federal government needs to preserve liberty, not trample it.    They also need to recognize that they are dependent on the states and the people for their existence, not the other way around.  If the federal government was looking out for the best interest of the citizens at large and not just the best interests of campaign donors, we would not have this problem.

This change can only happen from within.  This is the essence of the tea party movement.  So far no one in the national media has been able to articulate it, but the reason the tea party exists is because the federal government has become what we threw off over 200 years ago: Despotic!   This is a natural response from freedom loving people.  It is not radical, racist, or extreme.

The Declaration of Independence provides the remedy for the malady of despotism:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

So I ask you:  Do you think the federal government is preserving your rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?  Or are they becoming destructive to such ends?  How does taxing the rich and refunding to the poor promote liberty and the pursuit of happiness?  I suppose if you are on the receiving end, you might think the idea is great, but what if you are the one having money taken out of your wallet against your will and having it given to someone else just because they make less money than you do?  How does allowing guns to be smuggled to Mexico by drug cartels promote our right to life?  How does forcing everyone to buy health insurance preserve our liberty?

If you believe, as I do, that the federal government (and, by the way, state governments are not guiltless) has overreached, then please support candidates that truly believe in limited government.  If they don’t live up to their promises, replace them.  As long as the political elites control Washington, this problem will only grow until it financially crushes the state governments and simultaneously usurps their authority to govern.  This is already beginning to happen.  Obamacare and high-speed rail are only aiding in the power grab by forcing spending on the states while only funding about half of it.  By bankrupting the states, there will be less resistance for the next usurpation of authority since there will be fewer funds available to fight the measure.

I was recently issued a citation for a traffic violation while traveling on a state highway here in Nevada by a Bureau of Land Management officer.  I was not even on or near BLM land.  Police power is not delegated by the Constitution (and my Congressional representative’s office even agreed with me) and yet I am being tried by the federal government for a traffic violation on a state highway that does not even border BLM land.  This is a blatant violation of the Constitution, yet the BLM claims that they are acting within the law.  What law?  The law that Congress created that was in direct violation of the 10th amendment?  That law?  Inexplicably, my Congressional representative’s office also agrees with the BLM officer in that he acted within the law.  What further evidence do we need to show that we need new leadership in Washington?

The political elites deride and berate the tea party movement because it is in direct opposition to their goals, not because it is bad for the country.  They don’t want their power limited. They want to expand it.  They usually use the pretext of solving societal problems, but they don’t solve society’s problems because they can’t.  Only we, as a people, can do that.  Government regulations will not make our kids smarter nor get them better jobs nor will it magically create wealth for our citizens.  The federal government needs to get back to preserving liberty by protecting against foreign invasion (Mexico anyone?), minting (real) money, and regulating trade (with China maybe?).  That is what the Constitution gave them the authority to do and that is what will allow the states and the public the liberty to focus on the issues of education, local commerce, rule of law, and the well-being of its citizens.

It is paramount that we elect representatives that will uphold the principles of liberty.  Time is short.  If we do not act soon, the only alternative we will have is the alternative that the colonists felt compelled to take: Exercise the right to bear arms.

Posted in National Politics. 12 Comments »

Press release: U.S. Rep. Latta to host U.S. Rep Bachmann at 5th Congressional District Lincoln Day Dinner

March 30, 2011 — buckeyerino

Editor’s note: This press release was issued 3/30/2011. Rep. Bob Latta’s campaign website includes a page where you can enter your email address to have information about the event sent directly to your inbox. The Lincoln Day Dinner video announcement on his website can also be found on YouTube. Rep. Michele Bachmann represents Minnesota’s 6th Congressional District. It seems that the mainstream media has been openly wondering whether Rep. Bachmann will, at some point in time, be making a high-profile announcement having something to do with a very ambitious 2012 campaign for some sort of national elected office. Have you been hearing such chatter, too?

REP. BACHMANN TO HEADLINE 5TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT LINCOLN DAY DINNER

BOWLING GREEN – Congressman Bob Latta (R-Bowling Green) welcomes potential presidential contender Congresswoman Michele Bachmann as the featured speaker at his 2011 Lincoln Day Dinner scheduled for Friday, May 20, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. at Sauder Village, Founder’s Hall located at 22611 State Route 2 Archbold, Ohio 43502.

Congresswoman Bachmann is a 3rd term Republican from Minnesota’s 6th District. She is the first Republican woman to be elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Minnesota. She currently sits on the House Financial Services Committee and chairs the Tea Party Caucus.

Tickets are $25 per person and are now available on a first-come, first-served basis. To purchase tickets, contact a county Republican Party chairperson.

County>>Chairperson

Ashland>>Bill Harris

Crawford>>Matt Crall

Defiance>>Ted Penner

Fulton>>Sandy Barber

Henry>>Ron Behm

Huron>>Rob Duncan

Lucas>>Jon Stainbrook

Mercer>>Matt Gilmore

Paulding>>Fred Pieper

Putnam>>Lyle McKanna

Sandusky>>Justin Smith

Seneca>>David Koehl

Van Wert>>Martin Burchfield

Williams>>Brian Davis

Wood>>John Miller

Wyandot>>Sherman Stansbery

For more information, please visit www.lattaforcongress.com. To view a welcome message from Congresswoman Bachmann and Congressman Latta, please watch this video.

Posted in Announcements, National Politics. Tags: , . Leave a Comment »

Halfway agreeing with Kucinich on Libya

March 16, 2011 — buckeyerino

The rest of the world is wondering when the United States will officially make up its mind on the appeal put to it to impose a no-fly zone over Libya.  I suppose the rest of the world appeals to the U.S. to perform this task because they know full well that we are capable of this task in a way that no other nation is capable of doing.

The Obama Administration has dithered on the issue as time passes and dissenters get crushed by tanks.  The Obama Administration has said that it will not act unilaterally, so it is sending out feelers to see whether the U.S. has a mandate from the international community to take action on the request for the no-fly zone.  The Obama Administration dithers because the international community is divided on the issue.  For some strange reason, the President can’t decide which nations’ opinions count and which ones don’t.  If one were to base a decision upon what other nations think, one would suppose that the opinions of the Arab League, France, and the U.K.  would be more persuasive than the opinions of Russia and Germany, don’t you think?

Umm . . . I think, in one sense, it is OK for the U.S. to act unilaterally.  We don’t  need to ask the international community what the U.S. ought to do.  We never did need to.  Our nation makes up its own mind and then acts accordingly.  The international community is not the entity that is entitled to mandate what the U.S. does.

In another sense, the President should not act unilaterally.  It is the people of the United States of America who are sovereign.  We are the ones who issue mandates, and in the case of war, we do that through our representatives in Congress.  The U.S. Constitution even says so.

Congress moves as slowly as molasses running uphill in January.  Waiting for an act of Congress would cost precious time.  I’m of the opinion, however, that the President has wasted precious time already consulting the international community when he should have been using that time to appeal directly to Congress to affirm, one way or the other, what action is to be taken.  He might have to take a whip to Congress to swiftly draft a resolution and vote upon it, but Congress, as the representatives of We, the People, are the ones who make the binding decision, not the international community.

Legislatures prescribe what the executive branch is to do.  The executive branch is to carry out the directives of the legislative branch.

Some would argue that it is the prerogative of the President to make an executive decision on the matter in his role as Commander-in-Chief.  He does command the armed forces of the United States, true.  He’s directed some armed forces to assist Japan in the aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami.  Assisting Japan, though, is not an act of war.

The President could reasonably take immediate action against Libya if Libya were engaged in an assault upon the U.S., its citizens, or its diplomatic or military institutions abroad.  Libya is not carrying out an assault against the United States.

Under these circumstances, military intervention against the government of Libya, such as imposing a no-fly zone upon it, would require a Declaration of War from the United States Congress.  Upon that point, I readily agree with Dennis Kucinich, who has posted his position on his website.

My question is:  Where is the resolution at?  What I mean is, where is the bill before Congress that would officially declare war if it won passage?

Senator Kerry and Senator McCain have talked about resolutions to authorize implementation of a no-fly zone, but I agree with Dennis Kucinich that such authorization is insufficient because it is not in keeping with the U.S. Constitution.

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul has vowed to introduce a resolution that stipulates that the President cannot take part in any action in Libya without first being approved by Congress.  Wimpy, wimpy, wimpy, . . . and redundant.  That’s not the resolution that’s needed, since it only repeats the Constitution.  When it comes to foreign policy, when has Ron Paul ever exhibited signs of leadership?  That’s why I can never vote for him in GOP presidential primary elections.  Do you, Ron Paul, want to demonstrate leadership?  Put a war resolution before Congress, even though you’ll obviously vote against it.  Get the matter decided right now and put an end to Obama’s dithering.  Do whatever you want within the rules of Congress to ensure that your side prevails and wins the day, but cease the inaction.

Likewise to Dennis Kucinich.  Urge the Congress to vote on a war resolution, nothing less.  Put the matter to rest once and for all.

Some have said that our Congress should never vote in favor of a declaration of war when it is taking sides in some other nation’s civil war.  They say that a declaration of war should only win passage if the United States is under attack.  I don’t agree with that assessment, and neither does history.  During our Revolutionary War (a civil war within the territory ruled by the British crown) the American army did, in fact, receive valuable assistance from abroad.  Likewise, during our Civil War, some foreign influences aided the North and some foreign influences aided the South.  We did not waive off foreign involvement.  We accepted whatever foreign aid we could lay hold of to support our war efforts.  This precedent was set from the very founding era of our nation, so I reject the notion that we must automatically vote against going to war amidst some other nation’s civil war.  We can consider each proposed war resolution without being bound by such constraints.  I’m not saying we should be hawkish.  I’m not saying we should be dovish, either.  I’m saying we can make such decisions on a case-by-case basis, and whatever decision the Congress makes, yes or no, carries the full weight and force of the Constitution with it.

Having said that, I’d like to review a few specific sentences within Kucinich’s statement.

“A no-fly zone begins with an attack on the air defenses of Libya.  It is an act of war that can only be approved by Congressional action, not by any international body.  There is a civil war in Libya, which must be resolved by Libya.”

Instead of underscoring the words “It is an act of war” as Kucinich did on his webpage, I have highlighted those words in italics and bold print, since I think, on my blog page, the contrast with the rest of the text stands out more.  I do need to disclose, though, that Kucinich underscored it.

I agree with the first sentence.  It is an attack on Libya.

I would take the second sentence a bit further:  Not only is it an act of war that can only be approved by Congress, I would add that the approval from Congress (should it decide to do so) must come in the form of a declaration of war.  Authorizing a no-fly zone, I believe, would not pass muster.  The Congress declares war, then the Commander-in-Chief determines how to execute the war, whether to include a no-fly zone as part of the strategy, or not.  The chief purpose of the war would be to vanquish the forces of the government of Libya.  If that is accomplished, then a treaty is drafted, then ratified by the Senate, and the war is concluded.

The third sentence jumps to a conclusion.  That conclusion is that it is a civil war that must be resolved by Libya.  Instead, I wouldn’t speak for the rest of the nations of the world whether they are content to let Libya resolve this on its own or not.  Other nations might decide to involve themselves in the war and shape how it is resolved.  We might disagree with the actions of other nations who choose to involve themselves, but even if we disagree with the interference of any and all nations on the principle that Libya, itself, settle the matter as an internal concern, the word “should” needs to replace the word “must.”  We can have an opinion on what should happen, pertaining to the resolution of the Libyan civil war, but we aren’t able to decree what must happen.  In addition to not speaking for the rest of the nations, I don’t believe that Kucinich can speak for our own nation until the votes are tallied on the war resolution.  The Libyan civil war is not a matter that the U.S. should try to resolve if the Congress says “no” to a war resolution.  However, the U.S. will not leave the matter to be resolved by Libya, alone, if the U.S. Congress declares war on Libya.

Here are two more sentences from Kucinich that I want to examine:

“It is time for the Administration to stop looking for someone else to make the decision.  The U.S. must make a firm declaration that it will not intervene in Libya by means of enforcing a no-fly zone or any other aggressive military means.”

Kucinich hits the nail on the head with that first sentence, as the “someone else” refers to someone beyond Congress, and that especially applies to looking for other nations to make our decision.  Congress makes the decision.  Obama has no authority to look to someone else.

As to the second sentence, I would have to say, “Has the Congressional vote been held and tallied already?”  Only if the Congress has already voted against a declaration of war on Libya can the second sentence be binding upon the United States.  As much as Kucinich would like to dictate how all other members of Congress should vote, he can’t tell them how to vote.  If the other side prevails, then Kucinich ought to acknowledge that the United States really is at war with Libya.  The Constitution does not constrain the Congress from voting one way or the other.  What does the Constitution do?  It requires the United States to act upon the will of Congress, whether the vote is yes or no.  Much as Kucinich doesn’t like it, nothing bars a colleague from voting “yes.”

The bottom line here is that the Congress should render a decision on the matter so that President Obama knows what the mandate is.  Don’t tell him he can’t act without a mandate from Congress and then withhold a Congressional decision on what the mandate is, which is what Ron Paul’s proposed resolution amounts to.  Once Congress acts decisively, then Obama can act decisively.  Got it?  Do it!

Posted in International Politics, National Politics. Tags: , . Leave a Comment »

Japanese store shelves tell the tale: The time to hoard is long before the calamity strikes

March 15, 2011 — buckeyerino

I’m hopping back up on my soapbox again.  I’ve been blogging about preparing your family for catastrophes since 2008.  I’ve racked my brain to pinpoint of a number of ways in which your family can prepare, and put those thoughts on my blog, too.  I’m blogging again to remind everyone that the time to prepare for catastrophe is sooner rather than later.

AP business writer Yuri Kageyama produced this report about consumers throughout Japan, not just in the earthquake/tsunami ravaged zone of northeast Honshu island, descending on stores to buy up all products with any shelf life that could have some use in an emergency. (Hint: Just click on the above link and read the AP article. You need to take a look at it. Got that?)

The scarcity of these consumer goods throughout Japan is hampering the humanitarian relief efforts.  How do you ship survival goods, such as food, water, blankets, batteries, flashlights, tents, sleeping bags, etc., to the victims of the earthquake and tsunami when the unaffected population throughout the rest of the nation has siphoned away all those supplies?  Government officials are urging the public not to hoard, but the public is panicked.

Don’t feel vulnerable in a crisis.  You should have what you need for an emergency now.  If you don’t have it now, when will you have it?  In your hour of need?  And if a natural disaster, such as a house fire or tornado, wipes out your own emergency supplies, won’t you be grateful to your neighbors if they’ve got emergency supplies on hand that they can share with you?  Wouldn’t you be glad you could help out a neighbor if the roles are reversed?  And then, when widespread disasters wipe out the emergency supplies of everyone in the community, wouldn’t you be thankful that humanitarian relief efforts aren’t starved of resources because the population beyond the disaster zone has no reason to panic, since they’re already prepared?

One more thing to keep in mind:  The world economy is fragile.  This earthquake/tsunami disaster has sent seismic waves rippling out into the rest of the world.  If our nation’s economy collapsed (and there’s so much that’s straining our economy and threatening our currency right now), what you already have on hand might be all that you can obtain . . . until an economic recovery ensues.  How long would it take before you can rely on economic recovery to lift you out of your emergency?  Who knows?

No community is immune from disaster.  Don’t bet that it won’t be your family that is calamity-stricken next.  If you haven’t already, get your family ready for emergencies ASAP.

Posted in International Politics, Local Politics, National Politics, Politics in the MSM. Tags: , , , . Leave a Comment »

Guest blog: Imminent Rebellion: Nullification, Secession, and the Constitution

January 31, 2011 — buckeyerino

Editor’s note: This is timely, in light of the Vinson judicial decision today.  James Williamson, who is one of my younger brothers, is an Ohio native who currently lives in Nevada. Among his guest blogs that have appeared at Buckeye RINO are 3 others with “imminent rebellion” included in the title (Imminent Rebellion: States vs the Federal Government; Imminent Rebellion: The Tar Pit; & Imminent Rebellion: The New Fort Sumter). All of these “imminent rebellion” articles explore the friction between the Federal government and the state governments, a conflict which James believes will quickly escalate.

IMMINENT REBELLION: NULLIFICATION, SECESSION, AND THE CONSTITUTION

Not long ago I noted that discontent was growing among the states toward the federal government.  At first I thought immigration would be the main dividing issue but now I think there is more than one lightning rod issue driving the wedges.  Recently I have been reading in the news that nullification is resurging in response to “Obamacare.”  Apparently this is now being seriously debated in the Idaho legislature with several other states watching closely.  And if you think I’m a little crazy I now have company.  Representative Jim Moran from Virginia is now making the same observation…  (Don’t think because we seemingly share a first name and agree on one point that I’m giving this guy any credibility.  I think he is dead wrong on his race comments.)

Since this seems to be a budding phenomenon in our country, let’s look at the ideas of nullification and secession for a minute.  I could write a book and include a lot of history on this topic, but I don’t think it is necessary.  In fact, I don’t think you need to look any further than the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to come to a conclusion.  Consider the following extract from Article VI:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

This sentence (in my mind) clearly precludes nullification (with one exception).  To paraphrase, laws or treaties made under the Authority of the United States supersede anything written in any state constitution or law.  In short, when you join the union you accept the constitution in its totality along with the entities that it creates; executive, legislative, and judicial.  You can’t have your cake and eat it too.  A state can’t cherry pick the laws they will allow and which ones they won’t in their state.  That would create chaos and render the federal government useless.  The only exception I would make are laws, orders, decisions, etc. that clearly conflict with the constitution itself.  If that is the case then it isn’t really a law; it’s a statutory blunder.  In the case of “Obamacare” the mandatory purchase of health insurance is a prime example.  In such cases, states are perfectly justified in ignoring the provisions of the law that aren’t really law…  At least one federal judge agrees with me on this one (Hudson in Federal District Court in Virginia and now Vinson in Federal District Court in Florida . . . article from New York Times here).

So if nullification isn’t legitimate (excepting cases of unconstitutional legislation) then what about secession?  Is that also forbidden by the constitution?  It is a topic that is not addressed by the nation’s founders in the Constitution itself.  Presumably they didn’t really think any state would want to leave once it entered the union, otherwise they may have addressed it.   Let’s start with Section 3 of Article IV:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Note the difference between territory controlled by states and territory not controlled by states.  Congress has the power to dispose of territory that doesn’t belong to a state on its own but they can’t dispose or alter the jurisdiction of any territory controlled by a state without their consent.  If the federal government is superior to the state governments then why are there restrictions on its power?  Why couldn’t the federal government decide to combine Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire at their own discretion if it is superior to the state governments?  It would be more efficient and reduce operating costs of Congress and of the executive branch.  The new state wouldn’t even be among the top 25 in population or area.

The answer is simply that the Federal government is not superior.  The United States of America is just what its name says it is:  sovereign states that are united and are located in America.  Any state that agrees to join the union needs to play by the same rules as the other states in order to maintain a union but they don’t give up their sovereignty.  Much like a labor union that governs the workplace but not the individuals that belong to it, the United States government governs collective actions like trade and war, but not individual actions of the states.

Many point out that the states created the Federal government and not the other way around.  Not only is this true but the states did not abdicate their sovereignty when they did it.  This is very apparent in the 10th Amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So you English experts out there, what is the antecedent to delegated?  Who is delegating powers to the United States? Could it be? NO!!!!  It can’t be!!!!! NOT…… THE STATES!!!!!!!!!!!! Say it isn’t so!

Yes it is so.  Do you hear that Senators and Congressmen?  Do you hear that Mr. President?  Your authority is delegated to you by the states!

Taking this one step further, the states are delegated their authority by the people. That is what is unique about our nation and that is what has made it so special.  The people, the general public, everyone that can be called a citizen is a sovereign.  Sovereignty is held by the people not by the government.  All government authority is delegated and derived from the people to the states and from the states to the United States.

So if the states are sovereign can they secede from the union?  Well, if an individual leaves the country and renounces their US citizenship do they not in effect secede as an individual by leaving the jurisdiction of the United States and refusing to be governed by it?  Is it not the same with the states?  States can’t cherry pick the Federal laws, but they can accept or reject the union altogether.  Just as they voluntarily join the union they can also leave.  They cannot be compelled one way or the other.  Consider the opening sentence of the Declaration of Independence.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

So Thomas Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration all believed that there are legitimate reasons for dissolving political bands.  Furthermore they believed that sovereignty (separate and equal station) was given to them by God!  Now that’s radical thought for you.  It must make all the elites in Washington tremble to hear such words.  Perhaps that is why they have never read these documents publicly in congress until this January…

By now anyone who knows anything about history is probably thinking, “OK, smarty pants.  What about the Civil War.  Why did the North prosecute the war and compel the states to return to the union then?”  That is simple.  The United States was attacked, specifically at Fort Sumter.  That was an overt act of war.  President Lincoln and Congress were generous enough to recognize their prior status as states following the war rather than making them start over.  They didn’t have to do that.  Just like we didn’t have to give Germany and Japan their sovereignty following World War II.  We did it because we recognized that people must have liberty to govern themselves if they are to be happy and we are to have lasting peace.

I digress.

In conclusion, since the Federal government derives its authority from the states that actually makes the states (collectively) superior to the Federal government.  Without them there would be no federal government.  But without the Federal government we would still have state governments.  The federal system is dependent on the states, not the other way around.  As such, the states absolutely have the right to secede.

Oh, and Mr. Reid, you tried to remind the Republicans that the constitution was formed out of compromise.  May I point out that Amendment X was a part of the compromise between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, two opposing parties with opposite ideals.  Compromising within your own party and making back door deals with industry is hardly in the same league….

Posted in National Politics. Tags: . 7 Comments »

Preparing for calamities

January 23, 2011 — buckeyerino

Don’t want to feel vulnerable in times of uncertainty?  I don’t blame you.

Whether a catastrophe is man-made, whether it materializes by freak accident, or whether it’s the product of Mother Nature, the last thing you want to do is panic and not be able to think straight.  Keeping a cool head so that you can think quickly and decisively with complete clarity can save life and limb.

You have to prepare.  You have to put things in place and put some work into it in order for things to fall into place and everything work out just fine when disaster strikes.

For instance, you may have a functioning smoke detector in your house.  Has your family actually had fire drills where you evacuate the house and have everyone accounted for?  I don’t think your kids will think it’s weird if you have family fire drills.  After all, they have fire drills at school.  Schools also have tornado drills and lock-down drills.  You might practice those, too.

If a blizzard snowed you in for four or five days, would you have enough food on hand?  How would you keep from freezing if the blizzard also knocked out the power lines?  Don’t think it could happen?  Well, it happened to our family back in January 1978.

What about a flash flood warning and your house lies in the flood plain?  You have precious little time to round up everyone and get the heck out of there so you don’t get swept away and drowned by the swift currents.  Are you able to just grab something that will tide you over for the next 72 hours or so?  Or will you escape with just the shirts on your backs?

Even if you have more time to evacuate, such as an approaching hurricane (if you are living on the Gulf Coast or Atlantic Seaboard), are you all in agreement about what goes with you in the car and what gets left behind?  Or will you be squabbling about it when it’s time to hit the road?  You could practice packing the car with everyone in tow so that you know what will fit and what won’t, plus you’ll know how to fit it all in.

Or, instead of having a plan for any of these scenarios, will you just take your chances and wait for FEMA to save you?

I don’t know about you, but as for me, I’m not waiting on FEMA.  If you followed the news coverage of Hurricane Katrina, you know that depending on government help isn’t your safest bet.

  • Practice, practice, practice.  Have drills until everything happens smoothly, and revisit the practice and drills from time to time. Time yourselves.  If any of you have physical disabilities, you’ll have to train even harder.
  • Have an evacuation plan. Know how you’ll discover if all persons are present and accounted for, especially when every second counts.
  • Have a plan if you’re stranded in your own house.
  • Have a 72-hour emergency kit already prepared in a location already designated so that you can just grab it and get out of there in a matter of seconds.
  • Have alternative energy plans so that you have light and heat in the house when the utilities have been knocked out.
  • Have food and even some huge jugs of water (you know, like the ones they use for the water cooler in your workplace) that can last you for a month, maybe more.  Actually use the stored food so that the oldest stuff doesn’t go bad, and keep replenishing the stockpile with new stuff.  By rotating through the stockpile, you’ll also discover what stuff works and what doesn’t: For example, storing wheat makes no sense if you can’t grind it into flour, and storing flour makes no sense if you don’t know how to prepare food from scratch or follow recipes, and following recipes to make food from scratch makes no sense if you’re family hates the taste of it and refuses to eat it.  You’ll need to know which foods you can prepare without going to the grocery store for missing ingredients.  You’ll need to know which foods can be prepared without running water, natural gas, or electricity.  You’ll want to have some food, perhaps in your 72-hour emergency kit, that you can just eat as is, like beef jerky or trail mix, plus some bottled water.
  • Have your vehicle in good enough condition so that it can be relied upon when it really counts.
  • Go camping.  It’s good practice for “roughing” it.
  • If you have a yard and if zoning ordinances permit it, plant a vegetable garden this spring.  Maybe you’ll even want grape vines or fruit trees on your property.
  • Encourage your neighbors, friends, and relatives to prepare.  If a tornado rips your house to shreds, or a fire burned your house to the ground, or a flood washed your house away, it probably wiped out your food storage, too.  But if your neighbor, friend, or relative also prepared and has stored food, they can share.  In your neck of the woods, the more households that are prepared, the more likely you can all band together and help one another out in times of crisis.

If you are prepared, then you need not fall victim to fear, confusion, indecision, panic, or paralysis.  Just proceed according to plan, and if a monkey wrench is thrown into the mix that screws up the plan, you’ll be able to think on your feet and compensate more quickly with a Plan B than if you were caught totally flatfooted with no plans at all.

Be survivors, not casualties.

Posted in National Politics. 2 Comments »

Should a state be able to declare bankruptcy in Federal court? NO!

January 23, 2011 — buckeyerino

Oh, those rascal politicians on Capitol Hill in Washington DC.  Oh, those rascal politicians in state offices scattered around the country.  What do we do about such rascals that have bloated government spending for decades and decades now?

So many states are facing red ink, and so many of those states won’t solve the problems on their own.  Instead?  Look to the federal government for bailouts of states.

But wait!  The federal government spending even more?  For more bailouts?  How?  How can the federal government keep coming up with more dollars out of thin air?  It’s unfathomable.

So now there are some tongues wagging on Capitol Hill to provide relief to fiscally undisciplined states without committing even more federal dollars to bailouts.  It’s called bankruptcy.  Legislation may soon materialize that would allow states to declare bankruptcy.

If you are one of the lucky Americans that hasn’t been wiped out in this disastrous economy and it just so happens that you’ve invested in municipal and state government bonds thinking that they were safe bets, well, all that could change.

If it changed, then where would you invest your money that would allow it to hold its value?  Every investment that’s only on paper or that’s only a few bytes on a computer chip has its risks, and the risks are getting bigger by the day.

Workers are already being punished by this economy by losing jobs and not finding new jobs.  Perhaps it’s time to punish the investors, too.  Well, at least punish the investors who don’t own stock in financial corporations that are “too big to fail.”

If a state were to declare bankruptcy under the proposal that’s wagging tongues on Capitol Hill, bondholders would be unsecured creditors.  So, how do you get your money from cashing in bonds from a bankrupt state?  I don’t know.  With no collateral, there’s nothing a bondholder could repossess that would coax the state to pay up.  Perhaps you could take the matter to court and seek a judgment against the state, but what good would that do?  There’s no mechanism at your disposal that would allow you to collect the money the state owes you.  Futility.  Utter futility.

Oh, and state pension funds?  Gone.  Sorry about your retirement.

What if bankruptcies spread through the states like wildfire?  Is it conceivable that the federal government might do likewise?  And then what?

I think this bankruptcy idea is dead in the water, as I don’t see how it could gain any traction with voters.

Sorry, all you political rascals.  You’ll just have to learn fiscal discipline.  Unless, of course, your objective is to cause the collapse of America as we know it.

Posted in National Politics, State Politics. Tags: , . Leave a Comment »

. . . And the walls come tumbling down!

December 4, 2010 — buckeyerino

Our economy is a house of cards. Our dollar isn’t backed by gold. It’s fiat money. It’s worth is determined by how much confidence the world has in it. If confidence in the dollar is destroyed, so is the dollar. It just becomes worthless paper at that point.

The politicians in DC and the cheaters on Wall Street and the Chicago Democratic Party machine have brought us to the brink of collapse. The bailouts have done nothing to strengthen the house of cards. Keep mounting card on top of card, and, at some point, the house of cards must fall. It must. So long as there are laws of physics it must fall. Our economy will topple. The only question is when. Which card will be the final one that the other cards can support? Which card will be the one that brings the
walls tumbling down?

Is your family prepared to survive through an economic collapse? I saw a big storm coming back in September 2008, and I think it’s here. Maybe it can be staved off until 2012. I definitely think we cannot get past 2014. But maybe it hits us this month.

Sure, we just elected Republicans to take control of the US House of Representatives, and the two major parties now have checks and balances that will prevent extreme partisan agendas from becoming the law of the land . . . in January, that is. The new Congress takes office in January. But maybe the collapse will occur much sooner than 2014. Maybe much sooner than 2012. It might happen this month. Despite the elections, it’s just too late. The wheels are already in motion. All the Democrats, all the Republicans, even all the Libertarians, all the Greens, all of the Constitution Party, all of the Socialist Party, cannot stop what’s already in motion. It’s a bigger mess than we can handle.

If we suffer a total and complete collapse, all your dollars in your bank accounts become worthless, despite any FDIC guarantees.

Therefore, I hope you have supplies already on hand for your family to depend upon if the worst comes to pass. Right now, you may be holiday shopping, and the sales figures seem to be better than expected, as, perhaps, some consumers have so much pent-up desire to shop that they just can’t keep a lid on it anymore. That’s okay. You might as well shop for tangible items right now if the dollar is going to be worthless later. But while you’re doing that shopping (if you’re one of the fortunate ones who still has an income in this economy), make sure you’ve got at least enough necessities on hand to last your household for at least a month. If you can stash away lots more supplies so that you can be self-sustaining for longer than a month, by all means do so. Preparedness can mitigate your feelings of vulnerability when a crisis arises.

I worry about what predicament our deployed troops might find themselves in if our government becomes insolvent, the financial industry is wiped out, and the currency loses all its value.

There are two things in the news that may possibly cause the dam to break this month. The first is the lame-duck Congress, ramming through the rest of the ill-advised uber-liberal agenda in desperation as the clock ticks down and this session ends.

The second is WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks supposedly has 10,000 pages of documents that they are preparing for posting on the web, and the USA’s financial sector will be the object of the expose.

We saw how WikiLeaks caused a scramble at the Pentagon when documents from the war in Iraq were splashed online. After that, the US Department of State was hit by an earthquake that not only may have irreparably harmed our relations with all other nations, but the field of diplomacy, itself, in every country, is now standing outside naked in a cold winter. If WikiLeaks can derail diplomacy worldwide with just a few documents, what could it do to our financial sector?

I think the documents about the financial sector will be so damaging that all confidence in it will be lost. The collapse here will then cascade all over the globe. The worst hit will be Europe. Europe is already teetering. Africa will be in dire straits because so many of those nations only squeak by because of foreign aid. The Far East owns so much of our national debt, they’ll take a big hit. South America might actually weather the storm the best.

Iceland, the first to become insolvent, and Greece the most recent to become insolvent, are relatively small nations in Europe, but when their governments finally scraped the bottom of the barrel and there was no more money there, it had destabilizing effects on the Euro.

Now it’s Ireland’s turn. Ireland denied for weeks and weeks that they were the next to follow in the footsteps of Iceland and Greece, yet it is coming to pass. The politicians in Ireland who are to blame for it all simply wanted to stay in power as long as they possibly could, thus they tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the Irish as long as they could. Sorry, but the crisis is too big to hide. The European Union is coming up with a plan to put Humpty Dumpty together again with the help of the IMF. It still might not be enough, and Europe will teeter on the brink, the Euro imperiled.

Portugal will likely be next. Their politicians are denying that their government will become insolvent, too. If the rescue of Ireland doesn’t crash Europe, maybe Portugal will.

And after Portugal, Spain is suspect. The politicians of Spain are in denial, also. If Europe managed to hold things together during Portugal’s implosion, that’ll be the end of the line. Once Spain implodes, forget it. The Euro is dead, and the European Union is in a shambles. The more solvent nations will retreat back to within their own borders, because they’ll be hard-pressed to meet the demands of their own public, let alone the demands from elsewhere. When America falls, though, not even the most solvent European nations will be spared the bloodletting.

The IMF won’t be of any help, as its chief backing comes from the United States.

If the United Nations weren’t reeling enough from the WikiLeaks targeting the U.S. State Department, it’s biggest donor, the United States, will no longer be able to fulfill its financial commitments to the U.N. The U.N., itself, hasn’t ever had its financial house in order, so they’ll easily buckle under the weight of the wreckage.

Of course the politicians in Washington DC are just as much in denial about the coming collapse as the politicians in Ireland, Portugal, and Spain are. For one thing, they are complicit in our economy’s troubles, so they really don’t want to believe that it will crash, because then everyone will know it was their fault, and from there, power will slip away from them.

The incoming Congressional Republicans are thinking, “OK, now we can get to work and make things better.” They are naive. It’s already out of their hands. They will be so utterly dumbfounded when everything falls apart. “What? How did it happen so quickly? Just when we were about to make a difference for the better with our best-laid plans, it’s a moot point because we’ve already crashed!”

Obama’s Chicago White House may have been planning to bring about this disaster. What? Sabotage? Yes. The liberals he hobnobbed with in Chicago weren’t your run-of-the-mill latte-sippers. Remember Bill Ayers? He’s only one person. There are many others who have programmed this President to sail this course. These are people who have always clamored for a revolution to overthrow the American government and the Constitution that upholds it.

Some of the wonks in Obama’s close circles have clamored for such things as:

  1. using the “green energy” push to accomplish Marxist objectives of redistributing wealth (“economic justice”);
  2. zero population growth, or perhaps even phasing in a depopulation of the planet;
  3. having a domestic military force that could perform security policing of our citizenry not unlike that of the policing our Armed Forces do on foreign soil, such as in Iraq and Afghanistan;
  4. writing a Constitution that would spell out what the government can and will do for you rather than the current Constitution, which states what the government cannot do, thus replacing limitations with bold initiatives;
  5. use the urban public schools to groom the urban youth to become the watchdogs of political correctness and become a massive voting bloc that will support progressive causes (Bill Ayers, himself, advocated for such “education reforms.”);
  6. denuclearize America so it can set the example for other nations to denuclearize, be the vanguard of peace, send no one out to foreign battlefields, and drastically reduce our military;
  7. use the persuasion of power in manipulating the American public if the power of persuasion doesn’t yield the desired effect;
  8. collaborate with the arts community and the media to amplify the desired message, and discredit sources of dissent;
  9. workers of the world unite to usher in a world government guided by the proletariat;
  10. never let a crisis go to waste, as each crisis must serve to consolidate power, and carefully and intentionally orchestrating the emergence of crises may be very desirable if doing so serves to make the public feel more vulnerable and, by extension, dependent on leadership;
  11. shape public opinion with astroturf if grassroots support for the desired agenda is weak, since those who dissent will feel powerless and offer less resistance if they are made to believe they are in the minority;
  12. it is acceptable to overthrow the government if it interferes with the propagation of progressive principles and policies.

There are other radical ideas bandied about within the circles of Chicago political power, but these give you some flavor of the voices that influence the White House.

On that last point, about government overthrow: it can be accomplished through a quisling that is able to consolidate power, through a manipulation of public sentiment, through gaming the system, through martial law, through weakening the power of the people, through violence (Bill Ayers, again), or through scrapping the existing system of governance by causing it to collapse.

I believe the Chicago White House is advancing on all of those fronts.

I’d like to credit the State of Ohio Blogger Alliance (SOB Alliance) for raising the red flags of warning back in 2008 before the presidential election took place. Many of those on the SOB Alliance blogroll posted a 13-part series collectively titled HOPE ON (Help Ohio Prevent Electing Obama Now). There were detractors that insisted that the HOPE ON series was over-the-top propaganda, but re-reading those posts now, especially the ones dealing with economics, the HOPE ON series has hit the nail on the head.

HOPE ON part 1 Obama is part of the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac problem
HOPE ON part 2 Obama’s reluctance to drill
HOPE ON part 3 Above Obama’s pay grade
HOPE ON part 4 Can the other side of the aisle even be reached from where Obama is?
HOPE ON part 5 Obama requested $740 million in earmarks
HOPE ON part 6 Obama’s stances ill-defined when voting “present”
HOPE ON part 7 Obama not inspiring our trust
HOPE ON part 8 What are Obama’s intentions for the middle class
HOPE ON part 9 Measure Obama and McCain by their character
HOPE ON part 10 Obama will tax us
HOPE ON part 11 What would Ronald Reagan do?
HOPE ON part 12 Obama isn’t just liberal–he’s extremely liberal
HOPE ON part 13 McCain the real deal

Some excerpts that stand out in my mind:

Part 8: Obama has attempted to portray himself as the champion of the middle class, but the windfall profits taxes and the high-bracket income tax increases proposed by Obama will backfire in the form of rising unemployment as the government dampens earning power, not just of individuals, but of employers as well.

Part 10: Obama talk of federal initiatives and taxes make it sound as if the government creates wealth, but the government doesn’t. The people create the wealth of the nation, and tax policy must reflect that, but Obama’s principles don’t even acknowledge that.

Part 12: The Citizens Club for Growth rated Obama tied for last place with a zero rating in Obama’s first year in [U.S. Senate] office.

Part 13:  Obama has revealed himself to be a socialist. We now have the smoking gun. Now that he’s been pinned down, his counter-argument is that McCain’s platform is based on “selfishness,” which is hardly the way I’d describe John McCain when the chips are down.

Also Part 13:  It’s now been shown that Obama’s reluctant shift toward an all-of-the-above approach toward energy was just a sham, as it’s now come out that the regulatory burden to be imposed on the coal industry during an Obama presidency will be prohibitive. How many more industries, not just in the energy sector, could be impacted by regulatory burdens imposed by Obama remains to be seen.

More part 13:  Obama’s views on education reform aren’t directed at learning or achieving academic success. As shown by his work with Bill Ayers, “social justice” is to be the ultimate imperative that the schools are charged with achieving.

What strikes me about the excerpt from Part 8 is that, indeed, we have higher unemployment than anyone had projected, and Obama’s highly complicated tax proposal presented to the Congress ensures that the government’s regulatory burden upon businesses will only increase, plus, of course, he still wants the taxes to be raised on the very people who are more likely to be business owners, and, in turn, businesses are the very entity that hires workers and brings our unemployment rates down.

The excerpt from Part 10 shows that Obama’s government is very heavy-handed and intrusive. We know that government does not create wealth, but that’s exactly what Obama’s meddling with. Government does not make people healthy, but the government is meddling there, too. The rhetoric loftily asserts that we now have a government who will work on your behalf, that will no longer allow problems to be swept under the rug. Aren’t we all just happy that our government will no longer turn a blind eye to anything? Ooh! Big Brother sees what you’re going through and is here to help. Big Brother will interfere (no, not intervene, I chose the right word: interfere) on your behalf. The funny thing is, I don’t think the main motive for transforming our government into Big Brother is to spy on us. I suspect that they are trying to grow the government big enough to collapse the system so that is is scrapped and can then be replaced with a system of their own design.

The Part 12 excerpt about Obama’s voting record during his first year in the U.S. Senate speaks volumes about where we find ourselves today. How far have we come since then? Back then, he stood for zero growth. Now it’s less than zero. His radical philosophy prevents him from wanting to sustain our employment base.

To placate the citizens, of course Obama’s going to say, with his mouth, that he wants to put people back to work. He’s putting obstacle after obstacle in the way of putting people back to work, so we need to wake up and realize there is another agenda afoot. Obama’s agenda is not a jobs agenda.

If Obama’s agenda were a jobs agenda, he wouldn’t:

  • be pushing for Cap and Trade
  • on top of Obamacare
  • on top of a more complicated tax code
  • on top of a tax hike
  • on top of extending unemployment benefits
  • on top of confusion at the Federal Reserve
  • on top of bailouts for America’s least successful most unethical companies
  • on top of subsidies for industries that aren’t sustainable
  • on top of a Dream Act that will add incentives for additional foreign nationals to immigrate here illegally
  • on top of a moratorium on tapping additional oil and coal energy resources
  • on top of compensating government employees better than the private sector does
  • on top of letting SEIU union leaders shape economic policy
  • on top of continued dysfunction at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
  • on top of a mind-boggling budget deficit
  • on top of an unfathomable national debt.

That’s not how you create jobs. That’s how you collapse the system!

The first excerpt from Part 13 includes a link to the radio interview in which Obama emphasizes “economic justice,” which is a progressive’s euphemistic jargon for the rise of the proletariat A.K.A communism.

On energy, in the 20d excerpt of Part 13, the timing of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was impeccable. We knew that Obama wasn’t sold on the all-of-the-above approach to energy, and now he can smile like a Cheshire cat that he has the most perfect of excuses for continuing our dependence on foreign oil and subsidizing “green” fuel technologies that are money pits because none of them are on the pathway toward self-sustainability. If you want to help Americans, especially during the expensive winter heating season, stop throwing up obstacles to getting the cheapest most reliable domestic sources of energy. The agenda is collapsing the system. Everything points to it.

And from the final excerpt of Part 13, it appears that the Ayers-propelled education reforms will, once implemented, groom the youth for their role in the new system that replaces the collapsed one.

The WikiLeaks website founder is on the run right now. He’s given the ultimatum that if he is taken into custody, all the documents at WikiLeaks will instantly go public. That could happen any day now, and Mr. Assange of WikiLeaks will be the “fall guy” whose infamy will be forever memorialized in history books as the one who precipitated the crash of the world’s economy.

When we reach the “What do we do next?” phase when we’re all shell-shocked and feeling vulnerable, Obama, as President of the United States of America, will set forth a new blueprint, the likes of which we’ve never seen before, and when he does, we will finally come to understand what his meaning of the word “transformation” is.

Posted in International Politics, National Politics, Political Blogosphere, Politics in the MSM. Tags: , , , . 6 Comments »

David Arredondo guest blog: The Trojan Horse AKA the Dream Act

December 2, 2010 — buckeyerino

Editor’s note:  David Arredondo is a Lorain resident, very involved in the Lorain community and a highly visible member of the Coalition for Hispanic/Latino Issues & Progress (CHIP).  He is the vice chair for the Lorain County Republican Party.  He’s often a featured guest on WEOL radio to discuss his work with international students at Lorain County Community College (LCCC) as well as sharing a center-right perspective on political issues.  He’s also appeared as a Republican pundit on Feagler & Friends, which airs on the PBS affiliate in Cleveland, WVIZ.  Professionally, David Arredondo is the Director of International Student Services at Lorain County Community College.

THE TROJAN HORSE A.K.A. THE DREAM ACT

Talk of the Dream Act should be just that, talk; there is no reason for its passage now as it is constituted. Its passage would be costly and wasteful and continue to exacerbate an immigration system that needs to be replaced, not reformed.

Legalizing a segment of the 12million undocumented persons in this country does not help the process of replacing our current 19th-Century based system predicated on “Give Me Your Tired, Your Poor.” Verily, most of the 12 million here unlawfully may be described as “the tired and poor.” Regardless of the state of our economy, it makes no sense to permanently absorb into our economy these millions who will require massive government assistance.

The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that at minimum under the Dream Act, 1 million will enroll in American colleges with costs of more than $6.2 billion a year. Once again there will be a Federal mandate for the states to provide in-state tuition and financial aid. In states like California, Texas and Arizona, the costs would be even more.

The Dream Act requires an undocumented student to complete at least 2 years of college to earn permanent residency and later citizenship.Those of us in the higher ed industry know that 2 years of studies doesn’t qualify a student for much.

Perhaps the hidden effect that Liberals don’t mention is that once the student qualifies for Permanent Residency, his parents, siblings, and extended family can then apply for the same thing under our current immigration system. Looks like a Trojan Horse to me.

This is all the more reason that the proposed Dream Act must be defeated. This is why we need to replace the current system with one that puts security first and does not provide for Amnesty for the millions “tired and poor” who would be a burden on local, state and federal governments. A new system predicated on residency and citizenship for “the Best and the Brightest” is needed but only after careful study of the needs of our country and economy. “Chain Migration” that allows for one permanent resident to bring entire extended families needs to be eliminated as well.

Democrats are to blame for having the votes to do pass the Act unilaterally and failing to do so these past two years. It does not look likely that the Dream Act or Amnesty will pass anytime soon. However, I could propose a sensible and streamlined act that might.

1. Give all current undocumented children brought here by their parents who are under the age of 26 and give them the opportunity to enlist in America’s armed forces for at least 4 years. At that time they would be eligible for permanent residency and citizenship. In the military they would be trained for a specific occupation that will serve them when they muster out. Their service would make them eligible for the G.I. bill which gives them the opportunity to enroll in university for further education and training.
2. Suspend current immigration law that allows their parents who brought them here illegally from qualifying for Permanent Residency. In short, the only beneficiaries of Dream Act 2.0 law should be those who actually completed their military service.

Over the next several years we need to prioritize our nation’s needs–national security,job creation, economic growth, deficit reduction, and smaller, more efficient government.


Posted in National Politics. Tags: . 2 Comments »

James Williamson guest blog: Dear Santa, this is what I wish for during the 2012 election cycle . . .

November 27, 2010 — buckeyerino

Editor’s note:  James Williamson is one of my (DJW’s) younger brothers.  He is an Ohio native currently residing in Nevada.

A 2012 WISH LIST

Election season is over.  The campaigns for 2012 have not begun yet.  That means we are at a point at which the field is wide open for the next cycle and we can dream up any scenario we like.  So, in my letter to Santa this year, I’d like to ask for a few things for 2012 (because it will need to start in motion now for it to come to fruition by then).

Dear Santa,

There are so many things that I would like to ask for but I’ll try to keep the list short in hopes that I will get at least one wish.

1.    Sovereign fiscal sanity. I’d like to see it spread to the whole world but if that can’t be done then at least bring it to the US.  Nothing leads to poorer decisions than desperation, which is where the major governments of the world are headed right now.

2.    More incumbents retiring or getting defeated. While it was gratifying to see a bumper crop of new freshmen in the US Congress this year, I hope that we get even more next time.  Part of the difficulty that we have with solving our current problems with government is that the people that helped create them are the ones in charge of fixing them.  We need fresh blood and fresh thought . . . and lots of it.

3.    The death of professional lobbyists. OK, so this is probably never going to happen, but remember I called it a wish list.  One of the problems that we have today (as the Buckeye RINO has pointed out before) is that Congress no longer writes its own legislation and often doesn’t even know all the details of the legislation when they vote on it.  The actual text of most legislation is written by lobbyists or, more commonly, clients of the lobbyists.

4.    A requirement to identify who writes all text included in legislation. If we could identify who is writing the actual text of the legislation, then maybe judges could use a similar philosophy with statutory law that is used in tort law:  In case sof ambiguity, the decision will generally favor the one who did no draft of the contract (or, in this case, legislation).  Maybe that would deter corporations from getting involved in the bill writing process and our lazy representatives and senators would have a reason to do something besides take sides, bicker, and make closed-door deals when creating new legislation.

5.    A simplified tax code. I work for a retired colonel who is very intelligent and quite successful.  Once we were talking about taxes and he mentioned that when he does his taxes with an electronic filing system he will watch the tax meter and react when the number goes up or down.  It reminded me of playing pinball or gambling.  What is wrong with our tax code?  Why does it have to be so complex that even people with Ph.D.’s can’t figure out their tax liability until the IRS instructions for filing a return are published?  Corporations can afford to hire people to dedicate themselves full time to try to figure this out, but most individuals can’t, so the government strategy is to take too much and then refund back what they aren’t entitled to by law.  Would you like to pay your utility bills this way?  I read a recent article that suggests that the government can only get about 19% of GDP no matter what they do.  This is because higher taxes stifle economic growth.  So if 19% of GDP is the magic number, then why don’t we just set it there (or preferably lower) and stop all the games of cat and mouse with deductions and credits?  (OK this discussion could go on for another hundred pages so I’m going to cut it off here.)

6.    A balanced Congress. Congress always makes bad moves when one party thinks they can act with impunity in the spirit of “getting things done”.  I think the cases of Congress not doing anything are better than Congress doing something poorly.  I’m not terribly concerned about the final outcome (although, with the Tea Party Movement successes being within the Republican party, I do tend to favor them) as long as one party needs the support of the other to get legislation passed.

7.    An independent White House. Probably too much to hope for, but I really wish we could have a president that doesn’t belong to either the Democratic or Republican party.  In theory, that would keep him party-neutral and not give one party or the other the advantage in Congress by having the president on “their side”.  A third party candidate would work, but I don’t see them having any more luck getting elected than an independent.

8.    More power returned to the states. Despite what detractors say about the nation’s founders, i.e. that the founders wanted, above all, a strong federal government (their reasoning is that the Constitution created a stronger government than the Articles of Confederation that existed previously) the founders also wanted strong state governments and strong protections for individuals.  It’s about balance.  The citizenry, the municipalities, the states, and the federal government all have their respective responsibilities and limits.  One of the reasons US Senators were selected by the states before the enactment of the 17th Amendment was to maintain the balance of power between the states and the federal government.  For some reason, we have forgotten that and have trodden the 10th Amendment under foot.  Can someone remind our government that the people (not the the federal government) are sovereign?  Can the states remind the federal government why we had a revolution in the first place?  Do they remember why we rebelled against king George?  Apparently not.

Well Santa, there are probably a lot of good girls and boys with much simpler wish lists this year but why ask for toys when they just wear out, break, or get tiresome?  Why not ask for something more meaningful than mindless entertainment or pleasure?  Is that asking too much?

Sincerely,

James Williamson

P.S.   I wouldn’t want you to think that I am an ingrate. I am thankful for for my Christmas gifts from previous years: Thankful we have our independence from Britain;  thankful we have religious freedom;  thankful we have a strong military that protects us from foreign aggressors . . .  I could continue the list but I think you can fill in the rest.

Posted in National Politics. Tags: . Leave a Comment »

“Hanging chads?” Guam vote recount

November 5, 2010 — buckeyerino

What we learned from the 2008 Senate race in Minnesota between Al Franken and Norm Coleman is that, when the results between candidates are very close, you must recount and recount and recount the votes until the Democrat wins.  If the Democrat hasn’t won yet, then it’s not yet time to stop recounting.

If there’s any scorn for Al Gore within the Democrat party, it’s because he stopped recounting too soon in 2000, and he should have called for progressives everywhere to march on the Supreme Court and burn it to the ground unless SCOTUS allowed recounting in Florida to continue until the Democrat won.

Guam, one of the 57 states of the USA (if you’re Obama, but it’s a territory of the USA if you aren’t Obama), also held its elections last Tuesday.

The following information was gleaned from Guam Pacific Daily News.

Guam Democrats are thankful to both Al Gore and Al Franken for the vote recount blueprint.  Because of Al Franken, they know that they have to keep recounting until the Democrat wins, and because of Al Gore, they know that any imperfection on any paper ballot creates ambiguity, requiring the best psychics to be assembled to channel the spirits to reveal the intent of each voter.  Luckily, Democrats have the numbers needed on the 7-member Guam Election Commission Board if, after all other attempts, gaming the system is the only other way to thwart the will of the people.

The Republican ticket for Governor and Lieutenant Governor appears to have defeated the Democrat ticket by 583 votes. That, indeed, sounds like a very small margin, but the voting population on Guam is smaller than that of any state in the USA.  In many states, automatic recounts are triggered only when the vote margin is within one percent or within less than one percent (in Ohio, it’s one-half of one percent).  In many states, recounts in races with larger vote margins must be paid for by the candidates’ campaigns or political parties.  In Guam, however, the Guam Election Commission can widen that vote margin for an automatic recount however they see fit, and, in this particular case, they’ve decided to stipulate that within a 2 percent margin the territorial government will pay for the recount.  Perhaps if they manage to overturn election night results, the Commission will be emboldened enough to call for recounts in future elections if the vote margin is within 3 percent (why stop there . . . maybe 5 percent).

The ballots will have no hanging chads, as HAVA (Help America Vote Act), passed in the wake of the Florida recount of 2000, required supposedly more reliable voting methods.  Guam uses optical scan ballots, which are the preferred ballot option for Democrats because electronic voting machines are hard-wired to rig elections in favor of Republicans.  Optical scan ballots provide more opportunities for Democrat quibbling because they are filled out by hand, and, as anyone knows, you can assert that anyone who failed to fill out such a ballot perfectly would be a voter trapped in poverty, possessing a poor education, thus unable to follow simple directions.  Anyone knows that the intention of every impoverished voter is to vote Democrat.  Only millionaires and billionaires who want tax breaks to move jobs overseas would intend to vote for Republicans.

The tabulating machines involved in the recount are programed to halt if an optical scan detects any irregularities, so that the ballot that causes the halt can be examined by humans.  There is a contingency plan if not enough ballots are irregular.

Democrat Party Treasurer Joey Duenas hinted at the pretext for continuing with recounts.  Machines, he argued, would not halt for ballots that contained votes for write-in candidates in which the bubble isn’t filled in next to the line where the candidate’s name is written.  In the past, the Guam Supreme Court has ruled that such write-in votes do not count unless the appropriate bubble is filled in.  That might not daunt Duenas, who patriotically declared,”Every vote is sacred to me.”

Perhaps if the shoe were on the other foot, with Democrats leading election night results, the votes might not have been sacred enough to call for a recount.

Posted in National Politics. Tags: . Leave a Comment »

Mme. Speaker Pelosi, I wonder if you would clarify something. . . ?

November 3, 2010 — buckeyerino

Beginning in the summer of last year, our Representatives in Congress began convening town hall meetings to extol the virtues of proposed health care system changes.  The reception wasn’t so good.

Also making news were groups of detractors widely known as the Tea Party.

I’m trying to remember, way back then, how you characterized the negative feedback that garnered media coverage . . .

Correct me if I’m wrong, but, didn’t you say it was mere astroturf?

I think you did.  I think you said it was nothing but astroturf.

I wonder if you would care to elaborate further on that observation in light of the most recent election results.  Do you still think it’s astroturf?

Posted in Health Care, National Politics. Tags: , . 1 Comment »

Election results match up well with Buckeye RINO endorsements

November 3, 2010 — buckeyerino

Though I said in my prior post that I still wouldn’t be happy though Republicans were projected to do well in Congressional races, I have to say, looking through election results, I’m not sad either.  Their are many reasons to smile.

The candidates I endorsed did reasonably well.

In Cuyahoga County, with the new form of government, the Republican didn’t win the county executive race.  Plus, of the 11 county council winners, only three are Republicans.  I’m not sure if that will put enough distance between the county government and the scandalous rascals who will make every attempt to infiltrate it.  On the bright side, having 3 Republicans in county office is a huge improvement over zero (and it’s been zero for a long time).

The last time I checked, the Erie County Auditor race was too close to call.  There’s still a chance it could turn out the right way, in favor of Rick Jeffrey.

Unfortunately, Jeff Krabill didn’t win the 80th District seat in the Ohio House of Representatives.  He certainly came awfully close, though, as incumbent Dennis Murray didn’t even garner 50% in his successful re-election bid.  A Libertarian candidate, though not a winner, clearly influenced the outcome of that race.  If the Libertarians didn’t have a candidate on the ballot and it were a two person race, I don’t see how Dennis Murray would have been appealing to a Libertarian.  In a two-person race, I think Krabill would definitely have been the one who captured more than 50% of the vote.  Krabill can take solace in 3 facts: 1) He retains his seat on the Sandusky school board; 2) It took BOTH a Democrat AND a Libertarian to defeat him, as the Democrat couldn’t have done it alone; and 3) as a result of the 2010 Census and other Republican election victories, there may be a redesigned district, perhaps a more favorable one, for Krabill to run in if he chooses to take another shot at state rep in 2012.

In another race contested by more than two candidates where the winner captured less than 50% of the vote, the outcome was much more to my liking.  There was a four-way race for Lorain County Commissioner, and Joe Koziura came out on the short end of the stick. 😀  Republican Tom Williams is the new county commissioner.  Starting in January, Lorain County taxpayers will finally have an advocate working on their behalf in county offices.

Skip Lewandowski didn’t win his state rep race in the 56th District, and he would have been an excellent state rep.  Rae Lynn Brady didn’t win in the 57th, either.  On the upside, Terry Boose easily won re-election in the 58th District, Rex Damschroder prevailed in the 81st District, and the GOP recaptured the Ohio House of Representatives.

In the 13th state senate district, Gayle Manning won.

Kathleen McGervey won her election to the state school board.

The Kasich/Taylor ticket uprooted Ted Strickland from the governor’s office.

David Yost won for Ohio Auditor and Josh Mandel for Ohio Treasurer.

The GOP will lead the reapportionment process for designing new legislative district boundaries based on the new 2010 Census figures.

Maureen O’Connor and Judith Lanzinger won races for the Ohio Supreme Court.

Bob Latta won re-election.  Peter Corrigan, Rich Iott, and Tom Ganley did not win, but 5 Ohio Democrat U.S. Representative incumbents (Mary Jo Kilroy, Steve Driehaus,  John Boccieri, Zack Space, and Charlie Wilson) were defeated by Republican challengers, so, in January, the Ohio delegation to the U.S. House of Representatives will include 13 Republicans and 5 Democrats.  As expected, the GOP, nationwide, picked up more than 60 House seats.

Rob Portman won the race for U.S. Senate, and the GOP made nationwide gains there, with at least a net gain of six Senate seats since the special election in Massachusetts that sent Scott Brown to Washington DC.

There you have it.  Lots to smile about this time around.

Posted in Local Politics, National Politics, Politics in the MSM, State Politics. Tags: , , , . 1 Comment »
« Older posts
Newer posts »