ONE NATION UNDER GOVERNMENT

We are seeing our country become a bastion of service workers that either work for the government or the private sector to sell goods that the United States no longer manufactures. Some say it is the natural progression of the modern high tech evolvement of our economy that has matured from the Industrial complex to the robotic age of the integrated circuit.

The human assembly line of old school manufacturing is now a line of specialized robots programmed to do the task of many while being overseen and operated by a few trained people. This mechanized production along with a higher set of skill sets for human labor has been touted as the main reason that America has shifted to a service

over manufacturing based economy.

Yet is that true? Consider the old joke “How many people does it take to change a light bulb?” Well in the past you could argue it took about 800 workers plus one. That number represents the amount of factory workers manufacturing the light bulb replacement and one to screw it into the lamp.

With automation the amount of workers in the Edison factory did not decrease however even though the laborious practice of glass blowing and filament twisting was now done by machines. There were still many jobs for the human workers from testing to packaging and shipping that remained employed throughout the modern transformation from hand to machine in the Edison invention.

Americans have been sold a lie by our politicians that good paying factory jobs have progressed out of our economy naturally through the advancement of technology. Union leaders have lied to their members that greedy manufactures ran oversees to feast gluttonously on cheap labor and higher profits.

What is the real truth? The truth is that our government has been the biggest saboteur of manufacturing in this country for years. The war on capitalism did not start with the Obama administration but rather has been waged by Congress for over fifty years. The socialists Democrats have been in bed with Union leaders to bring tyranny to American manufacturing in a multi-flanked imprisonment of their healthy survival. The Republicans in Congress were equally duplicitous as we watched the dying of “made in America” factory jobs become “Maids in America” service jobs.

When I say that the Unions and our Government attacked manufacturing on many flanks I refer to Labor laws, Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA), Class Action Law suits, liability laws, EPA laws, Union contracts, National Labor Relations Board, trade deals, a huge tangle of import and export laws and of course corporate tax laws.

This has been the heavy hand of Federal government lobbied by unions to make profitability in the United States next to impossible for domestic manufacturing. The only reason that China is out producing the United States in manufacturing is that the Chinese do not have the American Congress to stand in their way.

Consider Gibson Guitar in Tennessee if you think I might be overselling the case that government has ruined our manufacturing industry. The Lacey Act is an old conservation law passed in the 1900 intended to stop the import sale of illegal wildlife, fish, plants and wood from poachers that was amended as of 2008 to add more prohibited items.

Gibson Guitar was raided by the Feds with guns drawn to seize rosewood purchased from India. The Indian government believed the sale was legal, Gibson Guitar believed the sale was legal but the Federal government holds Gibson’s business hostage while it investigates. This means the guitar making business is held hostage without charges and awaits an outcome with their property in seizure while they lose money daily.

Laws designed to protect the interests of Americans be it conservation, environmental, labor, and consumer safety among many other areas have effectively bullied manufacturing to leave America to find a haven in other countries with less regulation.

That leaves both union and non-union workers without jobs. Makes towns and cities run in the red financially with lost business tax revenue. It also makes many small businesses that did business with the lost manufacturing company close their shops. Moreover, like an economic domino effect even the small family run sub shop that sold sandwiches to the lunch hungry factory workers gets muscled out of the market by national franchised chains.

This is the Federal America that has been waging a hostile war against business under the guise of protecting us. This is the Federal government that once you are caught in its crosshairs, rightly or wrongly will destroy your career and reputation. This is the America we have made by asking for and allowing our legislators to sit on Capitol Hill and make laws governing every aspect of our lives.

There is no freedom to be immoral but equally there is no freedom from a mountain of legal constraints that America’s has imposed upon its economic engine.

Americans need to re-introduce themselves to the notion of freedom. Freedom entails mistakes along with fortune, tragedy along with happiness, failure along with success, thieves along with honest brokers and spoils along with victory.

Every law we make and call for to be made makes us less free. Every time we attempt by law to rid our society of bad actors socially or economically we instead trap more honorable people unaware of wrongdoing while the real morally bankrupt find another way to predate on innocence.

When a society has no laws we call it lawless and assume it is a chaotic place to live. Yet conversely, when a society has an overabundance of laws that constrain one’s ability to live then society ignores the law and equally becomes lawless. Yet, under the law is a foundation we call morality. That common societal morality keeps law either valued or diminished.

The law based on no morality or circumspect ethical value is bound to be broken by people who follow moral justification for their actions. Just as the immoral person will flaunt the law no matter how steeped it is on moral ground.

America has allowed special interest to transplant our nation from a moral society with limited laws for the purpose of punishing immoral acts to a nation that legally attacks our morality and has given rise to a din of laws based on empty human secular values.


The new immorality is to profit if you are a business, to display religious symbolism, to not re-cycle, to deny global warming, to call abortion killing, to smoke, to use salt, to be overweight, to use words deemed inappropriate, to utilize energy inefficient products, to believe in capitalism and to work hard and become rich.

The American economy is finally feeling the true results of decades of legislative overreach that has seen our nation on a path of decline from the hubris and atheistic influence of big nanny government. The once proud country of individual freedom watched by the God loving neighborhood of peer pressure to insure that morality was the ultimate enforcer to keep business and people honorable is gone.

The only way to return manufacturing and re-build America’s once promising future is to reverse, repeal, re-boot and return our country back to its Judeo-Christian roots as a Republic that wrote the Bill of Rights’ to expressly protect us from our current federal tyranny.

THE SOLAR POWERED RUNWAY

Secretary Stephen Chu is being chewed out by the House oversight committee on the loan guarantees given to the solar panel company that went bankrupt in August of 2011 after receiving 535 million taxpayer dollars.

Watching the hearings reminds me of a blast from the past. The senate hearings on Organized crime in the 1960’s in which Mafia bosses denied being anything other than being upstanding American citizens.

Stephen Chu claims no previous awareness of any of the politically motivated e-mails involving Solyndra by White House, investor George Kaiser, Office of Management and Budget or Soylndra executives until they were reported in the press days before he testified.

Apparently Stephen Chu the White House and the Democrats want Americans to believe there is no scandal, no illegality, no undue political influence, no break from SOP (standard operating procedure) and no incompetency.

Interesting that both the CEO and the CFO of Solyndra (Brian Harrison and W. G. Stover) both pleaded their Fifth Amendment rights and refuse to answer questions about their company to Congress weeks earlier given that all is above board in this “un-scandal”.

We have now learned that the White House was involved along with the DOE in requesting Solyndra to delay announcement of its bankruptcy and layoffs from its plan in October 28, 2010 until November 3, 2010.

Collectively we dawn a deadpan face as the political games played in Washington has jaded us all to expectations far from great.  Is anybody shocked that the White House tried to bury the evidence of the failed Solyndra that it took down the runway as the latest fashionable future in energy?

Americans know how the political game works or should we more aptly suggests doesn’t work for the people. The altruism in Washington to set policy that benefits the public  is a pretense Americans know well.

Retuning to my mafia analogy, we all know that in order to be a part of any corrupt cabal one needs to either be just an unscrupulous person begging membership or a patsy to be used.

Stephen Chu is a renowned physicist that truly believes in green energy and although his left leaning political belief in global warming makes him culpable to conservative criticism, no one seriously views him as corrupt.

Instead this good guy geek was brought into the Chicago political gang and given the job of Secretary of the Department of Energy for two reasons reputation and naivety.  How else does this administration manipulate favoritism to his campaign fundraisers (Kaiser) and make it all seem coincidental?

The worst outrage of the Solyndra story of course is the disputed legality of the loan restructuring that put taxpayers out in the cold as a secured creditor while the private investors went to the head of the line.

Stephen Chu seemed calm under fire when he explained to Congress that when the DOE learned that Solyndra had a serious cash flow problem the government was left with two choices. One pulls the loan and ensures Solyndra falls quickly into bankruptcy where taxpayers would take a bath or restructure the loan. Chu’s argument for the latter involved Solyndra’s half built building that would not become a salable asset unless it was completed.

However, most Americans are rightfully confused that if the reason to not pull the loan was to insure that the taxpayer had asset equity to liquidate if the company went under, then how did it benefit the taxpayers to be made secondary creditors over private investors?

In business there is always the paradoxical choice of what to do with a high volume sales customer that does not pay their bill. Shut them off and you lose those sales while chasing your money in court or keep extending them credit and hope they will adhere to a payment plan and not beat you out of greater debt. However, I know of no such plan that involves handing your receivables over to a third party in which you lose either way if the customer pays or defaults? 

This can only happen in a government managed or should we say mismanaged loan program. We have seen politics mixed with many endeavors such as war strategy and we know it is a toxic mixture. No American is surprised that politics mixed with business not only creates failure, corruption, favoritism, waste, inefficiency and fraud but worse it displays a public disdain.

The Democrats on the Committee shrugged their shoulders that this was not a scandal, but a normal expected outcome of the policy to lend taxpayer dollars to losing causes. The fact that the government threw half a billion dollars on the green energy betting table and it lost was no big deal. The fact that the loan was restructured to make the taxpayer insolvent happens every day.

The idea that Stephen Chu should even be questioned given his impeccable credentials to the Democrats is the only outrage.

Yes, this administration found the perfect patsy in Stephen Chu to kill two birds with one stone, pay back Obama’s fundraising friends and use a green energy company to laud the president’s environmental success story.

However, even though the emperors clothes are now revealing their transparent see through exposure it will be the patsy dressmaker (Chu) that will take the fall not the man gliding on the runway stage as the once Chicago super model that now struts in Washington.

SEXUAL CHARGES IN SHAM OR SHAME

The sexual harassment claims by women are serious running the gamut from stalkers to the casting couch. Many women’s lives have been turned upside-down by the hostile threats posed by unwanted sexual advance to the quid pro quo of sex for career advancement. These legitimate harassment cases brought by women against men and employers should never be taken lightly or minimized for the psychological and emotional effects it can cause a true victim who has been violated.


Indeed there once was a silence to this abuse by a combination of sexism and chauvinism in our social past that helped disguise and excuse indecent proposals. Today however, much like racism it exists but rightfully no longer condoned by social acceptance and no longer widespread. It is hard to find many males that still hold chauvinistic views or would dare express them publically if they do.

Therefore, all women have been freed from not just the miscreant mind of the lone male letch but an old boy network mindset that would snicker and do little to defend the honor of the woman being harassed. When a society knows better it does better and those that fought to bring better harassment and stalking laws to public awareness should be commended.

Yet, like all trail blazing activism when do you accept you have achieved success and stop pulling the rope to create an imbalance in the opposite direction? There is a good argument that our society has changed from being racists and sexist to colorblind and workplace neutered. Why then are there those activists still claiming racism and pushing for new laws? Why are they those still active in claiming sexism and pushing for more laws?

If the goal is to completely wipe out every racist and every sexist male in our society then I charge those activists with dumb naivety. It would be like passing laws to stop poverty, or homelessness. There will always be the fringe element that will violate the right of another for their own exploitive desire and all the laws in the world will not abate their debased character.

If the goal is to be vigilant that we continue on the positive path of liberated respect for one another in society then I call out these activists as fomenting the opposite. Charging innocent people with racism or sexism makes society view the finger pointers as the harassers in a role reversal that actually diminishes real genuine victims. Those that cry out sexism for every off color joke or gesture diminish the gravity of harassment because they equate the imprudent miss-steppers with actual misogynist culprits.

Moreover, the intellectual dishonesty of those that seek anonymity while asserting a charge years after the so-called events of their harassment while not so concerned about trashing the reputation of the accused. The fact that they did not file suit at the time for fear of damaging their reputation or not wanting to create a stir is acceptable as a choice they have right to make but not arbitrary to then un-make and only after the alleged wrongdoer has a public profile.

There are ethics that sometimes get lost when society tries to write laws to protect the more subjective behavior and reaction of human interaction. We know that there are some people that are highly sensitive while others have duck feathered backs and might be unaware that they are even being slighted.

Even If we were to take these women at their word none of what has been alleged rises to the legal definition of harassment or stalking laws. Regarding the charge by Bialek that Cain grabbed and groped her, that is a sexual assault charge not a harassment charge and yet she did nothing about the so-called incident. She claims to have told her boyfriend at the time but without any details? That for me does not pass the smell test.

The ability to judge the veracity between the “he said, she said” finger pointing is as impossible on its own. Therefore, the past history of the accused and the accusers then becomes distilled for cracks in credibility. If more than one accuser surfaces then the accused seems less credible but in this case what is Cain being charged with by these woman?

Is it quid pro quo sexual harassment: no? Is it creating a sexual hostile work environment ; no. Is it sexual assault; possibly yet even the victim (Bialek) and her attorney Allred are not claiming sexual assault.

I find it interesting that if you look back to the era before sexual harassment laws and society’s ingrained chauvinistic days we forget that chivalry was the counterbalance to men’s disrespect of women. Those Sir Walter Raleigh days of gallantry are gone because defending a woman’s honor has been deemed chauvinistic and patronizing.

Yet what father back in those days before the liberation of women did not teach their sons to treat women with respect reminding them that their mother was in fact a woman? Equally, what mother today doesn’t teach her son to exercise extreme caution about making comments that might embroil them in a tainted charge of harassment? We have seen five year old little boys suspended from school because they hugged a female classmate.

Serious sexually assault, serious stalking, and verifiable casting couch evidence must be produced in court before the accuser’s reputation is red-lettered. Yet we all know that the mere accusation leveled against anyone is today sufficient to destroy their reputation forever.

I don’t profess to know the truth anymore than anyone else looking from the outside, in, at these allegations against Herman Cain. What I do know is this; what we were suppose to have learned through the Spanish Inquisition to the Salem Witch hunts was that allegations are not evidence of guilt. That innocence should always be presumed until proven guilty as our standard. But sadly just like being called a devil worshipper or a witch, when charged with being a sexual predator on any level your reputation receives a stain that regardless of innocence never can be wiped clean again.

I think Cain deserves at the very least to have my presumption of innocence to his character remain until evidence not allegation comes forward.

SHOVEL READY DEMOCRATS

We all remember the Watergate scandal and how from the first Washington Post story by Woodward and Bernstein that broke on the front page the country was riveted and immersed in little focus of much else. Watergate’s time in America was akin to a virgin’s morning confession to a naïve group of unmarried Americans that had believed in the fairy tale aspect of the Princess’s wedding but yet still innocent of the adult game.

The 60’s wasn’t a time very different politically then today but the American public was very different. The public was still proud to be god fearing nation and expected morality to live out in everyday endeavors including and perhaps especially in public service.

Watergate shocked the people when the favors game of political bribes, hush and slush monies spilled out of the otherwise locked closet that voters never requested a key to unlock. The 60’s was a grown-up moment for Americans to view politics without the euphoniums and delicate metaphors. Americans finally saw politics in Washington as it really was, a prostitution’s promotion of self interest that had made most lose faith in anything coming out of the beltway brothel.

That combination of voter distrust of Washington corruption and cynicism of the political seasoned candidates wrought America Jimmy Carter in the 1976 campaign as the electorate thought that the pure hearted peanut farmer was one of them. The voters quickly realized that Carter was a mistake.

However, to learn from a mistake one must know specifically where one erred. The election of Barak Obama in 2008 proves what America has yet to learn about the importance of character and how the ideological left has nothing in common with the common American.

In every way and on every issue the Democrats has been the Party of big government solutions, greater government intrusion, and increased government spending, agitating and dividing Americans into economic and social class enemies while being feckless in their diplomatic foreign policy and National Security leadership.

Carter weakened America home and abroad, Clinton solidified our enemies’ belief in our weakness by Mogadishu cowering and cruise missile pot shots. Now Obama has replaced the cruise missile approach with predator drone assassinations and an overall foreign policy strategy that ignores strong ally relationships and rewards those countries rife with anti-American sentiment.

Domestically one might argue that Clinton unlike Carter and Obama had the country on a successful economic road. Yet in business there is an understanding of the difference between short term profitability and long term solvency. The Big government anti-capitalist Democratic Clinton policy of banking reform was a Wall Street boom until the bubble it created burst open at the tail end of the Bush administration.

We have seen the havoc reaped by Democratic policies both in their control of Congress and the White House since the agitate generation of the 1960’s arose to reject the moral restraint and restrictions of their parent’s America.

Since those Watergate days the battle for party popularity created a manipulative dance by both parties to win favor from a socially fractured nation. Freedom began to mean being freed from consequences of immoral behavior. Free from early morning church attendance on Sunday. Free from societal shame regardless of how depraved it descended because no one was victimized because everyone is a victim.

So the Democrats moved further left once the children of that new social morality or “flower power” generation grew up and infiltrated the party. Yet they pretend to be the so-called Clinton centrists Democrats in their quest to disguise and appear less radical to the voting public.

While the Republican Party waltzed away from Reagan by both the father and son of Bush Republicans that moved the party further into the center from the right side of conservatism. Wrongly thinking that by splitting the social baby they would appear more palatable to the indoctrinated amoral face-pierced tattooed offspring of the pot smoking tie-dye jeans 60’s generation that still cling to their anti-establishment protests as a warrior keeps a medal of valor.

However, deep down under the window dressing put up by the two parties there exist a very long standing set of timeless core distinctions that can be traced back to the Hamilton and Jefferson antagonisms.

Democrats have intoned Jefferson but have embraced the Hamiltonian ideology of big centralized government. Republicans have lived Jefferson but have allowed the Democratic Party to paint them as big corporation elitists.

In the area of Washington scandals and corruption Democrats have been allowed to skate away from most of their many sordid affairs by eating their own and claiming them as aberrations. While they continue to walk their Party away from traditional Judeo-Christian morals in the shameless 60’s values of anti-anything-American-established.

While Republicans still faithful to the puritan notion of honor and integrity handle their scandals with a self-flagellating acceptance that their character is flawed and deserves to be placed on the pillory by their Democratic rivals.

Today the obvious evidence of radical take down of America by the ideological left-wing Democrats both in Congress and in the White House is no longer theory that their aim is to ruin capitalism and weaken our reputation abroad because of their disdain for American tradition.

If Americans are a center-right nation politically then why are we expecting an ideological left leaning Party and its presidential candidates to do anything but fail us and the country?

It is time to bury the myth that there exists a yet young unknown Kennedy re-incarnation in the Democratic Party. The Democrats have moved their party so far left that even if a new Kennedy was born he would much more likely run as a Republican. One could easily envision Kennedy beseeching the Occupy Wall Street whiners by saying “ask not what your country can do for you” to a stirring public’s agreement furthered by “ask what you can do for your country” to which most Americans would loudly shout go home and clean up your act.

It is equally time for Americans to bury the Watergate Nixon reputation of the Republican Party that has been the drum- beat for over forty years by Democrats to scare voters away from traditional values.

Today, we have two political parties and two political ideologies that have been described as left versus right, socialists versus capitalists, big versus small government, social justice versus individual rights, religious versus atheistic, and most importantly faithful to the Constitution versus anti-Republic.

Americans need to grow up from the 1960’s social and political protest and recognize what that time in our history really meant. It was then and still is a tantrum by selfish youth wanting what all youth wants; freedom from rules and personal accountability that was infiltrated and directed by a small group of radicals seeking to bring down America’s representative Republic from the inside by communism.

Interesting that Americans today readily accept the notion of radical Islamic sleeper cells in the United States that might cause another mass civilian terror plot but laugh and scoff both then and now that McCarthyism was a right-wing paranoia trip.

However, as the radicals now sit in the established seat of power and continue to fan the flames of anti-American class warfare shouldn’t we hard working Americans see finally the face of the Democratic Party behind their many masks?

Who does the Occupy Wall Street crowd support: Republicans or Democrats? What are the Occupy Wall Street youth advocating: capitalism or communism? What morality is most associated with their beliefs: Judeo-Christian or secular humanism? What are they threatening to do if they don’t get their demand of the rich Wall Street tycoons and bankers being taxed into socialism: peace march or violent destruction? Who do they want to see as America’s president in 2012: a traditional constitutionally loyal President or a Marxists thief of your Bill of Rights?

“Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!”


(Nikita Khrushchev)

“I once said, "We will bury you," and I got into trouble with it. Of course we will not bury you with a shovel. Your own working class will bury you.”