Tuesday, September 29, 2009

The Myth of the Obama Mandate 2008

The supporters of Barack Obama like to point to his 9.5 million vote margin of victory over John McCain in last year's election as evidence of his mandate for change. But viewed from the perspective of the percentage of the popular vote he won, the rookie will have to do a whole lot better in office than he has to date to move into the "mandate" ranks with Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Eisenhower, and FDR. In the only poll that counts, Obama has no more claim to a mandate than Carter in '76, GW Bush in 2004, nor Reagan in 1980.

1964 Johnson 61.05
1972 Nixon 60.67
1984 Reagan 58.77
1956 Eisenhower 57.37
1952 Eisenhower 55.18
1944 Roosevelt 53.39
1988 GHW Bush 53.37
2008 Obama 52.87
1980 Reagan 50.75
2004 GW Bush 50.73
1976 Carter 50.08
1960 Kennedy 49.72
1948 Truman 49.55
1996 Clinton 49.23
2000 GW Bush 47.87
(Gore) (48.38)
1968 Nixon 43.42
1992 Clinton 43.01

Perhaps more to the point, however, is the fact that John McCain would be president today but for 1,383,540 more votes properly apportioned in the nine formerly red states which went to W in 2004. Mandates don't hang in the balance of so few votes out of over 30 million cast. The cracker thin margins of victory for Obama in those states for 2008 are as follows (rounded to the nearest thousand):

Colorado 215,000
Florida 236,000
Indiana 28,000
Iowa 147,000
Nevada 121,000
New Mexico 126,000
North Carolina 14,000
Ohio 262,000
Virginia 235,000.

These handfuls of people made all the difference for Obama, but he had to outperform his predecessor John Kerry in those states by 3,036,289 votes to get them while his opponent McCain had to underperform his predecessor Bush by 191,852 votes at the same time. Neither eventuality is likely next time. The Republican candidate in 2012 won't have a record of alienating the base as a maverick and won't take four weeks to cash a check, nor another four to allocate it correctly, because she won't be McCain. And the Democrat candidate will not be able to run on a platform of change because we'll all have had plenty enough of that already. And staying the course won't work either because large numbers of chronically unemployed people who've lost their homes won't find that prospect very appealing.

There's a reason sales of firearms and ammunition are up over 30% since Obama got elected. There's a reason the normally undemonstrative and silent majority recently marched on Washington. There's a reason town hall meetings this summer witnessed excessive hyperventilating. And "mandate" isn't one of them.

Sunday, September 27, 2009

John Smith Looks for a Job

John Smith started the day early, having set his alarm clock (made in Japan) for 6:00 AM. While his coffeepot (made in China) was perking, he shaved with his electric razor (made in Hong Kong). He put on a dress shirt (made in Sri Lanka), designer jeans (made in Singapore), and tennis shoes (made in Korea). After cooking his breakfast in his new electric skillet (made in India), he sat down with his calculator (made in Mexico) to see how much he could spend today.

After setting his watch (made in Taiwan) to the radio (made in India), he got in his car (made in Germany), filled it with gas (from Saudi Arabia), and continued his search for a good paying American job.

At the end of yet another discouraging and fruitless day checking his computer (made in Malaysia), John decided to relax for a while. He put on his sandals (made in Brazil), poured himself a glass of wine (made in France), and turned on his TV (made in Indonesia), and then wondered why he can't find a good paying job in America.

And now he's hoping he can get help from a president (made in Kenya).

(author unknown)

Friday, September 25, 2009

Oba Mao

Why does an entrepreneur in Beijing think Mao and Obama are kindred spirits? Maybe because they are?

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

A Prayer for President Obama

"May God bless and keep the president, far away from us. Amen."

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

"The Sons of Liberty and Nullification of State Power"

The nullification of the power of the British state during the American "Revolution" actually prevented a revolution as far as the founders were concerned. The only thing revolutionary going on was Britain's attempt to deny the colonies their chartered rights as Englishmen.

(Click here for the source)

In 1765 the British Parliament passed the Stamp Act. This act was applicable to Britain's North American colonies. The act called for a one cent tax on all newspapers, wills, codicils, manifests, contracts, paper, glass, lead and paint. The act was part of a larger plan of the British government to tighten its hold on its American colonies after the Seven Years War with France, which ended in 1763. The object of this essay is to give a history lesson. This lesson has been lost, but provides an excellent example of what an oppressed and determined people can do to resist tyrannical government power and actions.

What did the colonists do? They did two very important things. They formed into secret organizations like the Sons of Liberty, and they forcibly resisted and nullified the Stamp Act. Yes, I said "nullify". This word makes statists the world over gasp with trepidation. Through the actions of the Sons of Liberty, protests, mass meetings, inflammatory news articles, and sometimes violence were employed to thoroughly disable and nullify the act. Many conspiracy theorists will also gasp and fret that the birth of the American Revolution was started by a secret society. Yes, the Sons eventually came out publicly, but even today we do not know their full membership. Let's examine some of their tactics.

Secret Meetings

In Boston, Newport, New York, New Haven, Ct, Savannah, Ga, Philadelphia and Charleston men calling themselves "Sons of Liberty" (after the name given to the colonists by Colonel Issac Barre in the British Parliament) organized themselves to resist the hated Stamp Act. Many of these men came from the upper classes, but a large section of them came from the colonial middle and lower classes. In these meetings they vowed to oppose the Stamp Act and prevent it from being enforced in America, effectively nullifying it. Stamp collectors were threatened, beaten, tarred and feathered, harrassed, and in some cases had their property destroyed. Many were made to sign pledges to refuse to collect the tax, and were threatened to be labeled "enemies to their country" if they didn't reject their new positions. Many Marxist historians, while praising the resistance of the Sons of Liberty, condemn them as rich white men who only cared about their own liberty. Of course in any mass movement there will be people who are myopic and concerned only with their own interests. To broadly paint the leaders of these secret societies as selfish only furthers the Marxist myth of class warfare. The fact is, no revolution can survive without leadership. This leadership generally comes from the upper and middle classes, and all revolutions up to our day have proven this. What revolutionary leaders cannot do is continue any revolution without the mass support of the populace. Let's examine this further.

Support of the Masses

When one truly examines the American Revolution it is apparent that it was a mass movement of the colonial population. Murray Rothbard, in his four volume history of the American colonies, Conceived in Liberty, details this in full. Men in the Sons of Liberty, Masonic Lodges, and colonial churches lead the charge, but it was the people who made the Revolution possible. From 1765 through 1776 the American people were subjected to increasing tyranny from the British establishment in America. Higher taxes, impressment of sailors, nepotism in the colonial governments, dual officeholding, enforcement of mercantilist laws, like the Navigation Acts, suspension of several legislatures, particularly New York and Massachusetts, and the keeping of a standing military in the midst of the civilian population all contributed to the restiveness of the colonial population. The Boston Tea Party, the burning of the British warship Gaspee in Rhode Island, tarring and feathering of royal officials, threats and protests against Stamp agents, are just a few examples of the actions of the people. The people were lead by men like Samuel Adams, Charles Thomson, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Joseph Warren, John Adams, most of whom were members of secret societies like the Masons and Sons of Liberty. These men lead the populace in nullifying the power of the British government in America.

The Nullification of British Power

Throughout the period of the American Revolution, royal governors and officials routinely complained about the violence of the populace and how their authority was threatened by the revolutionaries. They recognized that their power was slowly evaporating. They saw laws like the Stamp Act repealed due to pressure and threats, the Townshend duties resisted by nonimportation agreements, mass meetings in defiance of law, and confrontations with soliders, like the Boston Massacre, and colonial assemblies asserting their power. This nullification movement was lead by secret societies like the Sons of Liberty, behind closed doors. Masonic lodges met and developed plans and agreements for their members to utilize for resistance. Leaders met in taverns and coffeehouses to discuss resistance measures and plot, yes plot, future actions. These combinations effectively nullified and eviscerated British power. We could learn from their examples. Americans should use non violent means to resist the following:

1) Any attempt to submerge the USA into a North American Union with Canada and Mexico

2) A war with Iran

3) Increased power for the UN or WTO

4) Continued abuse of eminent domain

5) Fascistic measures destroying American liberties

6) Any gun control legislation

7) Any attempt to increase the power of the federal government

8)Any attempt to institute a draft or civilian conscription

9) Any law or act that further restricts liberty

10)Any attempt by the federal government to suppress a secession movement within the USA

11) Further evisceration of our constitutional rights and liberties (particularly the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments). The Bush Administration's attack on attorney-client privilege is particularly appalling.

I am in no way advocating any violence. I do not believe that we are at that stage. Non violent protest and action should always be a first step.

The New Stasi

The Stasi was the feared and ruthless secret police of the German Democratic Republic, or more appropriately, Communist East Germany. In America today the neocon rightwing and leftist groups are building a new despotism in our nation of liberty. In the growing power of the Federal government are the building blocks of a new Stasi, so to speak. The FBI, DIA, ATF, and DOJ are amassing great power through laws like the PATRIOT Act, The Real ID Act, and the definition of some American prisoners as "enemy combatants". People may laugh, joke or wave my comments aside as paranoia, but the building of this massive power structure is real. A new "Sons of Liberty" type movement is needed.

Liberty and freedom are not free. Both are typically destroyed by the overpowering hand of the state. It doesn't matter if you are rightwing, leftwing or libertarian. Our freedoms are ours to have, not government's to grant.

Sunday, September 13, 2009

An Open Letter to President Obama

Dear President Obama:

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.

You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.

You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.

You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.

You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.

You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.

You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others..

You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America ' crowd and deliver this message abroad.

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.

You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil,coal and shale reserves.

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.

You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations.

You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.

You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.

You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.

You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do..

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Reillys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.

You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

Lou Pritchett

Former Vice President

Procter and Gamble

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

From "An Address to the True Born Sons of Liberty"

But gentlemen, I take it that the right of all appropriations of the public money is in the people.

And when the governor or council, either seperately or together, appropriate any of the public money, without the consent of the house of representatives, they are liable to be called to account by the house of representatives for such misconduct;

and when the house of representatives are remiss in their duty in that respect, and allow the public money to be squandered away or drawn out of the treasury and appropriated unconstitutionally, that then the representatives are liable, and ought to be called to account by their constituents;

and whenever their constituents neglect to call them to account for such their neglect and breach of trust, they are not worthy the name of the SONS OF LIBERTY, the name of slave is more suitable, for slaves they really are, and are fit for nothing else;

for it plainly shews that they don't know they are imposed upon, or that they are such cowardly dastards they dare not assert their rights.

And in order to prevent your being made the property of designing courtiers for the future, don't chuse any of those officers to represent you in the general court; they have an interest to serve diametrically opposite to yours; and for that reason ought not to be trusted.

A Countryman, 1765

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

The Return of The Mummy

"We're going to get a recovery, because the amount of deficit spending taking place, a corpse would sit up." -- Martin Walker, UPI, 5/8/09 on "The McLaughlin Group"

Hey, Obama! Why Don't You Get a Real Job?

What is a communist? One who has yearnings
For equal division of unequal earnings.
Idler, or bungler, or both, he is willing
To fork over his penny and pocket your shilling.
-Victorian Era