Dealing With the Devil

The government giveth and the government taketh away. That seems to be lesson we can take away from the recent events in Washington. The good congressmen and senators, eyes bloodshot with rage promised the American taxpayer that the outrage of AIG taking money from the government (read taxpayer), then giving millions of it out to their employees in the form of bonuses would not be allowed to continue.

We were told that these were retention bonuses that would keep these high performing employees on the job. These are the same high performing employees that produced the massive profits that led the company to come back to the taxpayers time after time - promising each time would be the last.

After nearly bursting a blood vessel and almost falling into an apoplectic seizure, Senator Dodd came back the next day and admitted that he had actually inserted a provision in the porkulus bill that specifically permitted these employees to receive the bonuses. So much for the claim of surprise! The man should get an Oscar for his manufactured rage as it's difficult to be sincerely angry with someone for doing what you said was permissible. After more prodding the good Senator also remembered that that he had inserted the provision at the request of the Obama administration through the Treasury Secretary's office.

So we have the public and much of our government going into a hissy fit over one more action of our new president. How did this come about? Are the people in the White House so inept or confused that one hand does not know what the other hand is doing? That would be the easy ,but not very comforting, answer. The answer could be more sinister. Could it be one more distraction to keep us from noticing the really damaging behavior of the Obama administration... kind of like the fuss about Rush Limbaugh.

Could it be that the millions of dollars flushed down the drain in AIG bonuses were just a smoke screen to hide the billions of dollars AIG funneled to foreign banks? I have to wonder why this does not make the lawmakers at least as angry. I would think that seeing all those taxpayer dollars flowing overseas doing nothing toward the proclaimed purpose of making credit available to US businesses would make loyal officials go through the roof. This money isn't doing a whole lot to help people facing foreclosure on their homes either. All it has done is help a multi-national corporation get its books in looking a little better, and for all we know, making massive bonuses possible to foreigners in Dubai?

I'm having trouble deciding what message is actually coming out of Washington. Are the banks that valuable that we have to spare no expense to save them, yet the people running them so morally crippled with greed that they cannot be trusted to handle our money? The conspiracy theorist in me sees in this action an attempt to shore up the institution of banking while removing the bankers. To what effect? Possibly big government sympathizers whose loyalties lie with the Obama administration rather than with the shareholders and depositors. I don't know... just a thought. But the way they have been demonized by the press and congress... even the President, I am concerned that these evil financial wizards are about to be marched off to an encampment next to Joe Arpaio's desert prison.

More likely this is just a bunch of political types, not smart enough to come up with the more involved plan, looking for cover when a payback for huge political contributions to Sen. Dodd, the President and many others is exposed. It may be that seeing the light in the distance from the torch and pitchfork brigade of outraged citizens made them turn on the people who helped get them elected.

One almost has to feel sorry for the executives at AIG who thought their contributions to the Democrats bought them immunity from common sense business practices... particularly when the actions of Dodd and Geithner specifically paved the way for them to receive their rewards. Unfortunately for the execs, they found out you can't make deals with the devil. Those giving to and voting for hope and change apparently did not get the change they hoped for.

Perhaps a lesson can be found here for many in the business community that looking to curry favor with those who don't understand and value what you do and who are basically looking for sources of revenue to fund their grand social schemes, may make you the next village getting looted in the pursuit of their impossible, and I might add, immoral, dream.

This brings us back to looking at politics and government in a radical new way: looking for what is good for the entire country full of people rather than what I think will benefit me. Sure this means that you won't get any special advantage or be supplied by the work of someone else... it also means it won't blow up in your face and you won't be publicly pilloried and threatened. You may not get quite the financial reward, but then you may well have a strengthened customer base... and that's not all bad. As Rick Warren would say, "It's not about you."

Larry D Miller is a web developer who has been involved in the political world for the past twenty some years. His company, Simple Webs, works with organizatins and candidates and can be seen at http://www.simplewebs.biz and his current project, http://www.politicalchristian.org examines the relationship between Christians and the political sphere. Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Larry_D_Miller

http://www.pippoproducts.com

In Defence of The Roman Republic - For Iranian Freedom Fighters

This quote is for all the people in Iran that seek freedom, justice and democracy. The road is hard as Garibaldi states in his call to arms, but the rewards are great.

"I offer neither pay, nor quarters, nor provisions. I offer hunger, thrust, forced marches, battles and death. Let him who loves his country in his heart, and not with his lips only, follow me." -- Giuseppe Garibaldi. - G. M. Trevelyan, Garibaldi's Defense of The Roman Republic (1907-1911)

May you have the God given right of freedom returned to you.

http://pippoproducts.com

General Motors and United Auto Workers - The Black and White of it All

By T. C. Simon

GM and UAW Demonstrated Leaders in Incompetency

The demise of GM as a major automobile company is an example of fear and greed running amok. As the curtain fell on the future of a giant free enterprise company it signals the end of an era and the beginning of another.

In a previous article titled, Magic, Pixie Dust and the Mirror or Truth, I extolled the failure of GM management being strong enough to resist unrealistic demands of the UAW. They failed to demonstrate the backbone to address excess with firmness and leadership. This repetitive failure occurred over decades cumulating in the bankruptcy now faced.

The UAW attempts to escape responsibility for contributing to the death of GM with excessive demands for wages, benefits, and featherbedding jobs banks by pointing the finger of blame on weak management at GM. While they intimate the leadership of GM had a responsibility to avoid agreeing to demands that were unrealistic they placed threats of strikes at the top of negotiating tactics. The weak GM management feared losing market share in a prolonged strike and they caved. It was a matter of avoiding a bill due today hoping they would be able to pay it tomorrow.

Tomorrow never came for GM or the UAW. Both now lose more than they would have gained if acting responsibility by stepping forward without fear on the part of GM and greed on the part of the UAW.

The Missing Steps

GM management needed to tell shareholder we might lose market share for a while but as a company, we will emerge stronger. UAW needed to tell the members that obtaining a contract that placed GM in a losing financial posture was not good for the union, its members, or any supplier that relied on GM for product sales.

We must examine if GM and the UAW recognized the extreme nature of the doom they created for the future. Did they know where this course would lead or were they just ignorant? If ignorant, we need to learn from this and never be so ignorant again. If they ignored this information, we need to learn that ignoring a loss will not keep it from happening. The course both followed either ignored the truth or was ignorant of this basic truth; you cannot spend more than you have coming in the door.

Even a lemonade stand operator knows that if you are paying more for products, services than you make as profit on sales the business will dissolve, you will be bankrupt and the lemonade stand will cease to exist.

Both GM and the UAW should have known this. Unfortunately, that is a philosophy starting to pervade America. Those who earn more should give it to those who earn less. As with the UAW contract demands, this current perversion has no limits for constraint to assure it does not exceed income from any source.

The Current Steps

We currently see political drumbeating promoting programs costing staggering sums of money. This question does not advocate a discussion of the right and wrong of the programs but a discussion of how it is paid. The same discussion should have been present in the UAW, GM contract meetings when discussing the demands of the union and the position of GM. Just as current discussions ignore this subject in meetings, the former discussions ignored the simple formula that if you want to continue to operate expenses cannot exceed income.

There are many proposals that continue to drain resources from a future America in excess of its ability to provide. One single expense that is also staggering proposes to provide benefits for illegal aliens as if they were legal US citizens. Like all proposals who pays for this?

The Mirror of Truth: Past, Present, and Future

Now it is time to place GM and the UAW in front of the Mirror of Truth to see if any truths arise from their history. History teaches us that events occur based on a series of steps leading to a result. We have discussed the events allowed to exist leading to the GM bankruptcy.

The US Congress should serve as Management for the shareholders of the US, its citizens. Their role is to assure we do not spend more than we have as income. The management of the country makes sure we meet current obligations of today and of tomorrow. Our Management must serve as check and balance against excessive spending.

Currently the Presidential Administration assumes the role of the UAW, putting forth contracts, and then negotiating terms to expand benefits for its members. The reasoning stated uses the same logic of the UAW in its contract negotiations with GM. "The people just want their fair share. It is only right to increase all the programs set forth to benefit the members regardless of the cost, regardless of the deficit hole it leaves the country for years in the future. It's only right; it's only fair that all share in the wealth of the country and that all are provided equal benefits."

It is time to place Congress and the Administration in front of the Mirror of Truth to see if any truths arise from their acts and plans. The Mirror of Truth brings forth many items couched in verbiage reportedly for the good of the people, which really tend to solidify a political base.

What Made America Great?

Maybe we need to stop a moment and ask what made the United States the leading world power. Was it through handouts, by social programs that distributed wealth from the few to the many? Was it by attempt to promote mediocrity as the benchmark or norm for success? Was it instilling in all children that to excel over other children in school or in accomplishments is negative? Was it because we did not keep score in children's games to remove an idea of losing? Was it when we felt that winning is bad?

One of the ironies found in children's games where no score's are kept so they will not feel bad if they lose is the children know the reality. They know they lost, they know by how much they lost and they feel like they lost. At least our children understand the importance of winning and knowing you won. They know that when they lose they feel bad and they do not want to feel that way again.

Maybe they practice harder, maybe they still lose but they are not letting it go as they will still try to win until some well meaning but clueless adult tells them don't worry, it's not so bad to lose. Oh yeah, it is bad to lose. We do not want loser children; we do not want a loser Country. We learn how to win, we learn how to lose in our games as children and we learn that to succeed you must try harder. It builds character, which builds the future of any country.

The Mirror of Truth Revisited

It is time to place all parties, GM and UAW and Congress and the President in front of the Mirror of Truth one more time. Maybe this time the lesson learned by GM and the UAW would inspire Congress to act as good Managers and the President not to repeat the history lesson of the UAW leadership in contributing to the bankruptcy of a company that once led the world in auto sales. No country or company is too large to escape the penalty resulting from intentional decisions that violate basic principles of money handling or social reform.

We will examine many topics at The Black and White of It All website. Stop by to share thoughts, ideas and suggestions. http://tcsimonsviews.blogspot.com/

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=T._C._Simon

http://www.pippoproducts.com

Political Book Review - The US Transfer of Top Secret Military Technology by Bill Clinton

By Lance Winslow

Every once in a while you find out that what you think you know about politics and current events of the time, turn out to be a complete 180 of the reality. Then sometimes you suspect foul play but cannot put your finger on it. Well, what if I recommend a very good book to you that will get you much closer to the truth than you probably wanted to get? Please read:

"Betrayal - How the Clinton Administration Undermined American Security" by Bill Gertz (also a reporter for the Washington Post specializing in defense and national security issues); Regency Publishing, Inc, an Eagle Publishing Company, Washington, DC. 1999. ISBN 0-89526-317-3

In case you've wondered exactly what all the fuss was over the Chinese and Clinton Administration and the transfer of top secret technology, but never thought to ask. Well, this is the book for you. And it is well documented, footnoted and enough to scare the hell out of you, and wonder why treason hearings were not conducted. Apparently, there is so much executive power in America that you can cover up just about anything as Gertz demonstrates in the first two chapters.

But is it really all politics and will we ever know you'll ask yourself? Well, keep reading, as it gets better, or worse, as he goes into the implications of nuclear technology, stress on the Korean Peninsula, missile and satellite technology. And how the Russians play a part and how the US is played off against the game.

Indeed from a political perspective one could say, as Bill Gertz does, what will become of the Clinton Legacy, and how will history portray the betrayal? I recommend this book to anyone that studies history, the flow of nuclear arms knowledge or the rapid advancement of the Chinese Military war machine. Please consider this.

Lance Winslow enjoys community philanthropy - Lance Winslow likes small business. Lance Winslow has also been involved in the Oil Industry; http://www.oilchangeguys.com/aboutus.shtml/.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Lance_Winslow

http://www.pippoproducts.com

Facts About the Democrats You Should Know

Do the democrats really believe what you believe? Is Democratic Party a misnomer? Do democrats really believe in freedom? Find out more: http://historyofdemocraticparty.blogspot.com/

http://www.pippoproducts.com

History of American Divorce

By Steven D Miller

Once upon a time, The United States was a society where marriage could not be divorced. The 1888 US Supreme Court decision in Maynard v. Hill stated that when the Constitution was written, New York (as a colony or a state) had never divorced anyone in over one hundred years. Even in harsh conditions when men never returned from the wilderness, the family remained as an undivorceable institution for more than 100 years in a land where courts were required to enforce traditional marriages.

Imagine life under Constitutional law. Imagine a time when courts, for better or worse, enforced marriage until death you do part. Imagine living where no one had to go through a divorce. No reward for adultery. Children never torn by remarriage. No weird policies about the care, custody, or maintenance of the children. In a land of the free, families were protected by law, not regulated by law. Courts used terminology like "sustain all such relations where possible" and "the best interest of society ... the preservation of the home and family".

Back then; adultery was a felony that was also the greatest of civil injury. Imagine a culture so opposite of today's culture. Today an innocent spouse is often forced to pay kidnapping ransom as a reward to the adulterer, with no hope of the children being returned.

In the Constitution there is a clause that prohibits States from impairing contract obligations. Even though it had never been used in any divorce case, law textbooks insisted that this clause prevents forced divorce.

The U.S. Supreme Court had already ruled that to divorce a man without his fault would amount to a flagrant violation of justice.

The divorce industry has tried to reverse roles established by God.

Marriage was originally defined in the Garden of Eden as man and a wife united until death. Now the divorce industry deceives you into thinking that a marriage lasts only until a spouse becomes disposable. In 1979 they changed the law dictionary definition of Marriage. The Biblical definition was removed from American law dictionaries.

But there are still some concealed marriage laws the divorce industry is hiding from you. Traditional Marriage remains a relation for life. This remains true today if you can avoid their traps. Legitimate marriage must still be upheld by courts. Government cannot discriminate against your religion. Did you know that divorcing a Christian couple might meet every element of the crime of genocide?

Here is some history.

Christ confronted lawyers when they asked him if divorce was lawful in Mark 10:2. The question was answered by Christ. The Christ of the Bible said in Mark 10:9 and Matthew 19:8 that divorce is never lawful, not even since the beginning. And in Matthew 19:6 Mankind cannot put asunder a marriage. According to Christ himself, divorce was never lawful.

Christ did not claim that adultery was a grounds for divorce. Fornication is not adultery. In Matthew 19:9 he said that fornication, which can only occur prior to the wedding, was the ONLY cause to put away a wife. Only after the wedding is an illicit sex act adultery, not fornication, which would violate the 7th Commandment. This verse was never misconstrued prior to the English law in 1857 that created the first Christian divorce court (Title 21, Victoria, chapter 85) where the husband could obtain divorce for the wife's adultery, and a wife could obtain divorce only when the husband's adultery was accompanied with extreme cruelty.

But the legality of English divorce was based on the questionable assumption that Christ must have somehow meant adultery, in the verse where he used the word (porneia) that means fornication.

Yes, the Bible mentions divorce. But Biblical divorce only refers to living separately. In the Bible there is NO mention of any divorce that cancels a marriage. Everywhere in the Bible remarriage is always adultery (Matthew 5:32, Luke 16:18, Romans 7:3, Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:11-12). Adulterers cannot inherit the kingdom of God 1st Corinthians 6:9.

Throughout the history of Christian societies, traditional marriage vows would include phrases such as: "till death us do part", or "as long as you both shall live", or "all the days of my life". These are enforceable vows by every court. Enforceable, not divorceable. State Supreme Courts repeatedly stated that the family must be preserved. They are solemn vows to be upheld.

In 1803 America, State courts could annul incestuous marriages only. Courts did not possess jurisdiction in any other matrimonial case whatsoever.

An American 1873 Law Encyclopedia on Contracts states that proof of a church wedding should stop any divorce case.

And US Supreme Court decisions up into the 1890's also confirm this. As William Blackstone so eloquently concluded in his Law Commentaries: Neither could any other law possibly exist.

In 1888, The U.S. Supreme Court, using English divorce law as precedence, legalized legislative divorce of something called intermarriage, yet they proclaimed that traditional marriage was a relation for life. Ever since then, ungodly lawyers have worked steadily to remove this key of knowledge.

In 1923, The US Supreme Court still ruled that marriage is a guaranteed Constitutional right, and that it is within their definition of Liberty. Guaranteed by the Constitution.

The original definition of marriage, established in the Garden of Eden, was acceptable until liberal lawyers changed the definition in 1979. But their new definition is something that had never existed. They want you to think that divorce cancels a marriage. Marriage pre-existed prior to any human government. They cannot change the pre-existing definition of marriage anymore than they can change the pre-existing definition of gravity. If the Bible is correct, then divorce does not cancel a marriage.

No Supreme Court has never ruled that marriage is cancelled by divorce. Because it is not. That's not what divorce is. Divorce is a court determination that the marriage was always invalid because of a flawed original contract.

Steven D. Miller is the author of the book Defense of Marriage: A Textbook of Traditional Values. The book is available from http://www.marriage-truth.com/ebook.htm

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Steven_D_Miller

http://www.pippoproducts.com/

Who Runs the Country and Who is Responsible For the Economy?

In American history there have been two great defining elections. All other American elections are insignificant in comparison. The first great defining election was the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 that ushered in the great period of Republican Party dominance, which lasted from the civil war until the Great Depression. The second great defining election was the election of Franklin Roosevelt in 1932, which ushered in the great period of Democratic Party dominance.

This dominance has just been re certified by the recent election of President Obama. After the historic election of 1932, the Democrats faced a shattered opposition. Just as they do today. The Democratic Party then dominated politics at every level of government. The overwhelming majority of all the mayors in the country were Democratic . The overwhelming majority of all the state legislatures were Democratic. The overwhelming majority of all the state governors were Democratic. Democrats dominated both houses of Congress and the president was a democrat. Nothing has changed in 77 years. Eight decades later the dominance of the Democratic Party at every level of government is almost as total as it was in 1932.

Nothing better demonstrated their strangle hold on political power than their absolute domination of the House of Representatives for 62 straight years from 1932 to 1994. Under our system, command of the house alone granted Democrats perpetual blocking power over all legislation.

What two party system are people talking about? The simple truth of the matter is that we do not have a two party system in this country and have not had one since 1932. What we have is a one and a half party system, which is pretending to be a two party system. The only level of government at which the Republican Party is competitive is the presidency. Remove that and there is nothing left.

The question that has to be asked is how has the press missed this? Are they really that stupid or are they just pretending to be that stupid? The truth of the matter is that I just do not know. Both presumptions seem equally plausible to me.

As for the Democrats, the Republicans serve a very useful purpose. They are the perpetual fall guy and whipping boy of the Democratic Party whenever things go wrong. Just ask yourself what would the Democrats do if it ever dawned on the people that the lion's share of everything that has gone wrong in this country since 1932 was the fault of the Democratic Party? Things could get very ugly. Besides they like having the Republicans to kick around.

We now come to the vexing problem of the alleged power of the presidency to influence the economy. This idiotic belief is something that the Democrats have had a field day promoting ever since they rose to power in 1932 with their vicious attacks on President Hoover. Since their control of congress since 1932 has been almost perpetual and the presidency is the only branch of government in which the Republicans are competitive. There are enormous rewards for the Democrats in shifting the blame for economic hard times from congress where it belongs and in promoting the myth of presidential economic responsibility.

This domination not only extends to their control of the press but to popular beliefs as well.

Consider this, all my life I have wondered why the Hoover Dam was called the Hoover Dam

instead of the Roosevelt Dam. After all, we all know that after the stock market crash of 1929 President Hoover and the Republicans sat around in a stupor and did nothing while the country went to hell. Don't we? Then the heroic Democrats took over and saved the country in the 1930s with their huge public works projects. The most massive of which was the Hoover Dam and the magnificent Golden Gate Bridge.

Recently, I was stunned to discover that the Hoover Dam and the Golden Gate Bridge and god only knows what other major public works projects of the 1930s were authorized not under Roosevelt which is what we all believe but under President Hoover!

How sweet it is!

This is domination, total and complete.

When the Democratic Party took control of the country in 1932 their position was ideal. They had assumed power when the country was at rock bottom. Things could not possibly have gotten any worse. The stock market had lost 91% of its value and 5,000 banks had failed. The unemployment rate was at 24%. If they had done nothing for the rest of the decade except giggle stupidly at themselves the economy would have improved.

They instead embarked on the most advanced economic thinking of the day. Keynesian economic theory, which held that vast government public work programs was the solution to the depression. It should have worked but it didn't.

I would have supported these programs. Just as I support public works programs for today's recession.

The failure of these public works programs to end the depression is astonishing. The unemployment numbers are so bad that it is hard to believe them. In 1932 the unemployment rate was 23.6%. In 1933 it was 24.9%. In 1934 it was 21.7%. In 1935 it was 20.1%. In 1936 it was 16.9%. In 1937 it was 14.3%. In 1938 it was 19%. In 1939 it was 17.2%.

Then salvation came. It was the armaments production of World War Two that saved the day. Not Keynesian public works projects.The 1929 GDP was not exceeded until 1943 well into the war. It was not until 1955 that the 1929 stock market peak was exceeded.

The Democratic propaganda machine is a Juggernaut. Almost everyone believes that the Democratic Party and its vast public works projects saved the country in the 1930s after the stupid, do-nothing Republican Party had wrecked it.

The Republicans don't stand a chance. They don't have a chance!

The American people in their ignorance have been adamant since day one that when the economy goes south the person to blame is the president. The problem with this cherished belief is that when the economy blows up the president cannot possibly be blamed because the constitution does not grant the president economic powers. Only congress is granted economic powers. There can be only one possible explanation for this belief. At least 80% of the American people must have been in a stupor when the constitution was being explained to them in civics class.

The president is commander-in-chief of the armed forces and the chief executive officer or CEO of the federal bureaucracy. And he is the co-equal with the congress in diplomacy and foreign affairs. And that is where his powers end. His powers to influence the economy for good or ill are zero, Nada, zip.

The constitution grants congress total political power to influence the economy through its monopoly power to write laws effecting the economy and its power to spend money. Consider this; congress has the power to remove the president from office. But the president cannot remove one single member of congress from office. Congress can override the president by overriding his veto and thus impose its will on the president.But the president is powerless to override the will of congress if his veto is not sustained.

At this point some cretin will step forward and allege that while all this is true it is usually the case that congress follows the will of the president. You cannot be serious! What fantasy land have you been living in! Everything depends on which party controls congress. If his party controls congress, the president has a reasonable chance of getting something that vaguely resembles his proposal through. And this holds true only if you do not make the mistake of reading the legislation. If you read the legislation you are in for a rude disappointment. You will find that there is a yawning gap that looks like the Grand Canyon between what the president proposes and the legislation that he finally ends up signing. If on the other hand the president's party does not control congress, forget it.

Recently, we have had a textbook demonstration of who holds the whip hand. When Treasury Secretary Paulson on September 20, 2008 presented President Bush's now notorious $700 billion TARP program to congress. The proposal was written on three and a half pages. After he got through whining and begging the imperial congress presented the president with its own TARP program. A 450 page detailed document that after the president signed it had the force of law. Case closed!

Who runs the country, the Democratic Party? Who is responsible for the economy, the United States Congress?

Fred Carach is the author of the book, "Forty Years A Speculator" and his essays and pod casts can be viewed on his blog at http://www.fortyyearsaspeculator.blogspot.com

Fred Carch is the author of Forty Years A Speculator. His blog is http://www.fortyyearsaspeculator.blogspot.com

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Fred_Carach

http://pippoproducts.com