Littlestuff Weekender-2-4-2012

Well, we have survived Groundhog Day and now we focus on the Super Bowl. Bread and circuses, anyone? In the meantime we’ve had the Donald endorse Mitt in Vegas where unemployment runs near 14% which is an actual 20+%. I don’t give Las Vegas and Nevada a lot of credibility. After all, Harry Reid is one of their senators. Their judgment can’t be all that great.

Some people lie about their golf scores, others exaggerate about the size of fish they landed and government lies about economic and employment statistics…….along with everything else. This past week we found that (according to the government) a mere 264, 000 new applications were filed for unemployment benefits…..and the government cheered. Meanwhile in the past month another 1.2 million people slipped off the unemployment rolls into the netherland of “un-countable and non-existent.” This little data point went generally unnoticed. “Real unemployment” is close to 11.4-11.5% and when added to underemployment the total exceeds 21%. That’s one out of every 5 potential workers in the country that is not working or fully employed. Now comes our childish President with a plan to borrow more money and bail out homeowners. This little socialist maneuver will suck more value out of the private sector and retard whatever level of recovery may be underway. I wish that he would stop playing Monopoly with our economy, our money and wealth. Frankly if he wants to play at anything, he should pretend to be a proctologist because he already has a “head start.”

From Bill Hamm: sorry about the numbering. I’m an amateur.

When they try to convince you that the economy is getting better, ask them these questions....

1. If the economy is getting better, then why did new home sales in the United States hit a brand new all-time record low during 2011?
2.  
3. If the economy is getting better, then why are there 6 million less jobs in America today than there were before the recession started?
4.  
5. If the economy is getting better, then why is the average duration of unemployment in this country close to an all-time record high?
6.  
7. If the economy is getting better, then why has the number of homeless female veterans more than doubled?
8.  
9. If the economy is getting better, then why has the number of Americans on food stamps increased by 3 million since this time last year and by more than 14 million since Barack Obama entered the White House?
10.  
11. If the economy is getting better, then why has the number of children living in poverty in America risen for four years in a row?
12.  
13. If the economy is getting better, then why is the percentage of Americans living in "extreme poverty" at an all-time high?
14.  
15. If the economy is getting better, then why is the Federal Housing Administration on the verge of a financial collapse?
16.  
17. If the economy is getting better, then why do only 23 percent of American companies plan to hire more employees in 2012?
18.  
19. If the economy is getting better, then why has the number of self-employed Americans fallen by more than 2 million since 2006?
20.  
21. If the economy is getting better, then why did an all-time record low percentage of U.S. teens have a job last summer?
22.  
23. If the economy is getting better, then why does median household income keep declining? Overall, median household income in the United States has declined by a total of 6.8% since December 2007 once you account for inflation.
24.  
25. If the economy is getting better, then why has the number of Americans living below the poverty line increased by 10 million since 2006?
26.  
27. If the economy is getting better, then why is the average age of a vehicle in America now sitting at an all-time high?
28.  
29. If the economy is getting better, then why are 18 percent of all homes in the state of Florida currently sitting vacant?
30.  
31. If the economy is getting better, then why are 19 percent of all American men between the ages of 25 and 34 living with their parents?
32.  
33. If the economy is getting better, then why does the number of "long-term unemployed workers" stay so high? When Barack Obama first took office, the number of "long-term unemployed workers" in the United States was approximately 2.6 million. Today, that number is sitting at 5.6 million.

The Super Bowl is this weekend and features the New York Giants versus the New England Patriots. Normally, I cheer for patriots, but we haven’t had a decent one from Boston since Samuel Adams. There are two of my beloved Buckeyes on the Giants’ roster (Ballard @ TE, Cordle @ OL) so I’ll sort of lean for them. My main interest will be my son P.J.’s outstanding culinary creations. Sunday’s main event will be a couple of gumbo dishes. Yum yum.

Monday and Tuesday I’ll be sitting in for Brian Wilson from 3:00-6:00pm on 1370 WSPD, the Talk of Toledo. Also, I will do my regular Tuesday evening show from 6:00-7:00pm and David Macko, Libertarian congressional candidate from Solon will be my guest. www.wspd.com

On Wednesday I’ll leave for Washington, D.C. and the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), and will return by Sunday.

Have a great weekend as we lurch into February.

Comments:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Fake Right, Go Left

In football a “counter play” is one where the offense feints as if it is running the ball to one side but actually hands it to a running back that goes to the other or counter side. The defensive players are fooled into reacting for the wrong point of attack thus leaving them out of position and vulnerable at the real location of the offense’s focus. It’s just like politics in America….too many feints, fakes and wrong-way moves while the citizens play defense. In their public pronouncements and campaign material during a primary, Democrat politicians often conjure up the socialist nirvana for their multiple constituencies. When they take office after bribing the voters with candy and promises, they bust their guts to implement their domestic policy dreams and continue the foreign policy of the Republicans.

The GOP, on the other hand, generally finds its candidates in the primaries running much further right than their natural inclinations or political history would suggest. After securing the nomination, the typical Republican makes an abrupt move to the indefinable “middle” in an attempt to win the favor of “independent voters.” It’s as if their model of the electorate looked something like this:

LEFT-----------------------------IND.------------------------------Right

In reality, voter attitudes and preferences follow this model more closely:

LEFT—ind—ind—ind—ind—IND—ind—ind—ind—ind—RIGHT

The so-called independent voters represent a continuum across the artificial spectrum of voter preferences and “leanings.” The tendency toward increased collectivism in our country tends to cluster nonpartisans into the great amorphous middle rather than understanding that many self-identified independent voters may find that their attitudes and beliefs are “right” on some issues, “left” on others and indifferent about the remainder. It follows, therefore, that the anointed “conservative” does not have to veer sharply to the center (which by the way has been moving leftward for the past 100 years) to secure a majority or decisive plurality of votes. So…why do it?

The answer is simple. Most career Republican politicians are centrists (meaning slightly left) or statists. They BELIEVE in big government solutions for nearly every problem faced by humankind. They want to be the Candy Man who delivers the magical elixir to the miserable people. They want to be known as the problem solver who banished the pain from the downtrodden and consequently earns a bronze statue in the capitol city that is a resting and roosting place for pigeons.

http://youtu.be/zRf1Ad_Txsg

Please remember that most politicians are not demolition experts. They want to “fix” things while becoming beloved statesmen. Candidates who compete as ones who would severely curtail and reduce government are branded as “unrealistic,” “radical,” and “extreme.” In essence, despite public outcries for smaller government, those who propose such actions are summarily marginalized and defeated by others who use “counter plays” to deceive the voters. My sense is that many of the voters are not truly deceived. They are fearful of the heavy burden of doing what must be done to save our Republic. So they pretend to be fooled and play along with the big government statists. In their minds…many Americans are constitutionalists, but in their guts and their hearts they willingly accept the statist dream. Self delusion is risky, but when it negatively impacts an entire nation and our progeny, it is dangerous.

Having observed voter behavior for decades (I did my graduate school research in influences on “voter choices.”), I am convinced that most ignorance is self-imposed, and voter rhetoric is often at odds with a voters internalized attitudes. I had hoped that the burgeoning Tea Party-Liberty movement would reconcile the disconnection between beliefs and behavior, but so far, the impact has been minimal. Certainly some new leaders have risen to forge a new pathway for citizens to match their actions with their mindsets, but the numbers are too few and their understanding of constitutional limits is at odds with their preferences for government involvement. They do talk a good game, but when a favored government policy is shown to be starkly unconstitutional, they resort to personal preferences rather than constitutional principles as their guiding compass.

So, while we may be distressed by career politicians who fake right, then go left, we should recognize that our astute public servants are copying the motives and desires of their constituents. Just as the priest or the pastor cannot secure our personal salvation, our politicians cannot restore our Republic as long as voters are not firmly and adamantly rooted and committed to constitutional governance. Talk right, desire left is the unspoken internal mantra of too many citizens. We cannot hold our politicians accountable if we ourselves are unwilling to toe the line and walk the walk. I’ve been laughed at and derided for my support of Ron Paul because of his “wacky” foreign policy. But if the pseudo-constitutionalists among us were truly devoted to the restoration of that document, we would march in the streets …. insisting that Congress declare war before launching troops into harm’s way. THAT IS CONSTITUTIONAL. I have absolutely no doubt that Dr. Paul would use the full power of the U.S. military if the Congress authorized it through a declaration of war. If we find that requirement too difficult, then I suggest that a constitutional amendment is in order.   

Along with many of my fellow citizens, I deplore the fact that our Constitution has become a prop for politicians who give it mere lip service. Our domestic affairs are a shambles because we have blatantly ignored the wisdom of the Founders and the Framers and so too are our foreign affairs. It’s time for all of us to play it straight with no more right fakes and left runs.

Comment: cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

   

The Base and the "Bots"

Many of you readers already know that I am a “reformed” Republican. For 42 years I was an active member of the GOP. I served on the County Central Committee, as a campaign chairman for several candidates and as an elected State Representative in the Ohio General Assembly. My first memorable political activity was as a six-year old handing out “I Like Ike” buttons in front of Groman’s Market in Tiffin, Ohio. Dwight D. Eisenhower gained the 1952 Presidential nomination by defeating an Ohioan, Senator Robert Taft. As a youth, I was proud to claim the former General as my President, but as I have matured---both chronologically and politically—I find that Senator Taft, Mr. Republican, more closely represented the values and principles that I hold dear.

My discouragement with the drift of the Republican Party caused me to suspend my activism for a couple of years until I discovered and researched the principles and goals of the Libertarian Party. If you would do a “Google Search” for Senator Taft, Mister Republican, you would note that he was fighting the Eastern Establishment in the 30’s, 40’s and 50’s for the soul of the GOP. He lost. Following his death in 1953 there was no one with the stature and the credibility to carry the torch for the founding principles of the Republican Party. The “Establishment” took and held control with some blips up until and including today. Constitutionalists are not welcomed in the present-day GOP. Small government advocates are patronized. The party is committed to Big Government and power sharing with their colleagues, the statist Democrats. It is an unholy alliance between two groups of crony capitalists who are absolutely committed to increasing government influence and control over our lives.

Robert Taft vigorously opposed the New Deal and its massive expansion of federal power. Senator Taft sought to curb the power of labor unions. He was a major proponent of an anti-interventionist foreign and military policy. He attacked deficit spending, high farm subsidies, government bureaucracy, the National Labor Relations Board and government health insurance. Senator Taft believed in a strong defense that served to protect the United States….not to be deployed all over the world as the Big Brother/Big Bully of the planet. In short Mr. Republican was a Libertarian. The Republican Party left him behind as it became more global, more intrusive and less principled. The current crop of Establishment sell-outs refer to the legions of conservative GOP voters as “the base.” Apparently they view the base as something to stand on when reaching high for statist power. They must be thrilled because time after time despite their being treated shabbily; the base falls in line like happy sheeple and continues the status quo. Yesiree, they can count on their cowardly base to save their seats of power every time.

The base is those who reside on the bottom of the power pyramid. I left the base in 2004, and this year I chose to become a “Bot.” My greatest concern as an American is our liberty. Every new law, rule or regulation passed by Establishment Republicans and Socialist Democrats erodes my freedom and limits my opportunities. Senator Taft has passed on, but Dr. and Congressman Ron Paul carries the torch for him. I am now a “Paulbot.” The clones and apologists for the status quo establishment Big Government GOP laugh at us, deride us, call us names and try to dismiss us. But we persist. Is Ron Paul the perfect messenger for a theme of liberty? No, he is not. If I were his communication director, I would frequently cringe when his candor trumps his political instincts. He is the best we have on the scene for saving our nation from the ruling class elites who will destroy us.

Fortunately….I’m not totally without ammo in this attempt to save our Republic from certain collapse. If the Establishment succeeds in nominating their anointed preference, then Gary Johnson on the Libertarian ticket is the next logical choice. Anyone who chooses between Mitt Romney and Barrack Obama faces a Hobson’s Choice because they represent the same outcome with only a matter of degrees in difference. I refuse to willingly and actively promote the destruction of our nation. “But Charlie,” you might say,” you’ll split the vote and Obama will win.” Perhaps….but if either Obama or Romney wins, our people lose. I refuse to surrender now….or ever. I would rather go down with honor than to “lose by winning.” I will not be taken for granted and stomped on like the reliable “base.” I am a “Bot.” Deal with it. And if we win and liberty survives, you can thank me and others like me who will never be debased by lying career politicians. Liberty….first, foremost and forever.

Comment: cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

The Big Tent Myth

Each of the dinosaur political parties claims to promote a “big tent” philosophy.  Following their primary and caucus battles for the nomination, they scramble to the “center” to appeal to a broad sector of the American electorate. The flaming lefty Democrats attempt to appear more sane and reasonable, and the great Republican Establishment wants to be viewed as more “compassionate” and “inclusive.” If they were selling breakfast cereal, The Federal Trade Commission would cite them both for fraud and misrepresentation. Historically, two major parties have contended for the hearts and minds of the United States’ voters, and the Republicans and Democrats have dominated the political scene for the past 156 years. There have been attempts by third parties to crack the vise-grip hold of the two parties, but their efforts have altered outcomes without winning the elections.

On a superficial level there seems to be some logic behind the “big tent” mentality. After all a nation of 312 million people is difficult to govern without a consensus, so broadening the party’s appeal to reach a significant portion of the electorate seems to be a valid formula for legitimacy. The problem, however, is that the effort to reach a large portion of the population dilutes the message and purpose of each respective party. They transform from a robust meal of solid menu selections to a one-item fare of gruel. Both of the traditional parties play the game in such a fashion that their gruel offerings are very similar. The only detectable difference is that each type of gruel has a somewhat varying consistency. One grows the size of government geometrically, and the other a tad bitter slower.

The attempt to “be all things” to the most people leads to the erosion of philosophy, principles and standards as the guiding directives for a party. Some of the parties’ central beliefs are diluted to widen their appeal, and other planks are added to attract specific demographic groups in the country. All in all the result is that the two parties surrender their basic core values and become caricatures of themselves and near carbon copies of one another. The strategic efforts to erect the big tent often come down to a serendipitous event, an exposed scandal or a subtle shift in the economy as deciding factors for the peoples’ choosing one party or the other. The big tent approach results in voters not having a true clear choice between the two oligarchic parties. Their decisions are based upon false data and perceptions that are driven by highly-paid marketing and advertising experts. The “big tent” is in essence a big corral as the peoples’ choices and opportunities are limited by the two parties’ simultaneous attempts to convince the mushy middle and the special interests to give them power.

The stratagem employed by the two old parties begs the question: can a party with a strong principled foundation attract enough voters to be viable? Are principles, standards and strong beliefs possible in a nation as large and as diverse as the United States of America? Do strong positions that are based on unchangeable principles cause many voters to be wary and suspicious of the party that promotes them? Or are we condemned to our inevitable slide toward more government control over our lives……a form of socialism or fascism? By continually appealing to a mythical middle and governing via soft tyranny, the desire for bold action or the firm restoration of first principles is thwarted. Minor advances or retreats are hailed as great victories by both parties, and the people know it’s all a mirage. Indecision and cowardice replace morality and principles as the attributes of our “best’ political leaders. We lose sight of what really matters and endorse politicians who can “win.” By living so willingly under the big tent, we lose our view of the horizon.

When the herd is gathered under the “big tent,” true leadership will break from the herd and forge a new direction for freedom. The big tent forces each of us to conform to the assumed will of all the others. In reality the big tent creates a false consensus because we believe that others wish to be there too, and their desires are met under the big top. More probably, each of us yearns to grow, to develop and live in our own fashion without arbitrarily being identified as just like everyone else under the tent. The big tent smothers originality, creativity and individual liberty. The big tent is nothing more than a control mechanism to convince us to submit our own preferences to those of the group….the collective, the society and government. The larger the tent the smaller the opportunity is for individual fulfillment. Big tents create a national consensus that is miles wide, but has no depth or no core. I prefer to live in my own tiny tipi and to not be a burden for my neighbors. Save the big tents for the circus….that’s where the clowns are.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Tuesday night 6-7:00pm, 1370 WSPD, Toledo  www.wspd.com