THE ANSWER TO SAVING THE NATION FROM THIS DEBT AND BAD GOVERNMENT

As we approach $14 trillion dollars in national debt, the question looms “How do we ever get out of this?”  We always hear, let’s cut spending, but what exactly do we cut?  Do determine this we must first establish what the true function of government is.

Ronald Reagan said “Government is there to protect us from each other, the problem begins when government tries to protect us from ourself.”  The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution as the basis for a government for the people by the people.  The transition from the federalist papers to the Constitution was based on addressing the problems of providing for a common defense, effective foreign policy, coordinated interstate commerce, a common currency, and a judiciary that would provide citizens with a fair and just legal system.

 And they gave the Congress the power to tax for the purpose of fulfilling these tasks.  We must return government to this foundation.

So first, we decide what is the government here for.  The presidents must important and clearly defined role is a Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces.  So whatever is needed for this task, for ensuring that the USA is the most powerful military in the world, as we are charged with defending history’s most virtuous cause; freedom.   Before any other aspect of the budget is dealt with we must fortify our military to its highest level necessary.

Because it doesn’t matter how much money you spend on wind turbines if you have been invaded by people who want to kill you.  And yes, there are people who would attack us and kill us if we did have the military that we have today.

Next, an apparatus must be established to protect the citizens internally.  We don’t like to say from each other, as most upstanding citizens do not want to hurt each other seriously enough to warrant state prevention.  But there are those who renounce their membership in the Civil Society, and someone has to stop them.

Some want a “live free” situation where there is no government at all.  Problem is we already tried this. In Europe, during  the dark ages, the so-called Romantic knights and swashbuckler were really gang members and thugs, who called the shots locally.  The monarchy’s control was limited, as it relied on the nobility to contribute its fighting force to fight wars. 

This meant that the knights were able to set up protection rackets on their land, taking payments from the farmers in exchange for protection from other knights. However, instead of protecting them, they usually used the just robbed the lands of the knight who robbed the peasants who were under him.  The people really never got much real protection, unless they became thugs themselves.

Eventually, the peasants decided that they preferred the authoritarian rule of a strong king over the chaos of local nobility competition.

We don’t want this, so we will not do this.  SORRY FELLAS, IT JUST  DOESN”T WORK.

So law enforcement has to be paid for.  Though the local municipalities have a responsibility, we do need a justice department to unify practices and standards throughout the nation.  And they must be compatible with our overall security apparatus.

The government is given the power to create currency, and to regulate interstate commerce.  The Department of Commerce has a role, but it should be an extension of the Treasury, not a separate Department.  Currently, the states handle most of the work in attracting foreign business to American.

We also need to make sure that there is a currency that works for everyone.  There are some, including economists who we greatly admire, who advocate allowing the people to determine what currency they want to use. But history has shown that if the people are not protected, the government can be used to allow large cooperation to manipulate this choice against the citizens. 

Also we have not been provided with a proven working model for this, so until then the best option is to stick with the Constitution’s enumerated power of coinage.

Finally, the judiciary’s purpose is to protect the people’s Constitutional rights, not to make them up as we go along.  The courts have the power to protect free speech and the right to bear arms.  But suing a dry cleaner for $15 million for losing or ruining a suit because of the potential impact on a future career, well that is not what the judiciary should be doing.  

George bush gave a compelling dissertation on this matter, and if we had implemented his Constitution inspired reforms it probably would have saved or helped to create trillions in lost nation revenue due to superfluous law suits and legal obfuscation. 

But the Bar Association and the phony civil rights crusaders like Jackson, Sharpton, and Ballentine would have to find something productive to do with their time.  Maybe they could anchor MSNBC programs.

These functions defense, law enforcement, currency, and the facilitation of profitable interstate commerce should be the exclusive basis for taxation.  Other ancillary processes involved in these primary roles, such as highway infrastructure and special technical military relevant training, should be developed as extensions these budget requirements. 

So the Department of Transportation may be somewhat useful, if funded where private enterprize cannot adequately conduce the urgent needs of these four vital pillars.  But general infrastructure spending just to get people working is out of the question.

Once you determine the financial requirements of these functions, you can then decide how  much you need to tax the citizens.

NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!  DO YOU HERE US,  BOONDOGGLE BARRACK!

The Greyfalcon calls for the complete  elimination of the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Labor.   Combined with the Economic Recovery Act, the Department of Education has a 2010 budget of $129 billion dollars.  Every dime of that money should go into paying off the debt, as well as the rest of the $300 billion going to these unproductive agencies.

When the private sector business performs as poorly as they do, it usually goes under.  It’s time for these disgraceful aberrations to do the same.

The Department of Health and Human Services  should be limited to handling REAL emergencies, and facilitating  matters involving our national security. Creating an H1M1 panic, then demonstrating that you would be inept in handling it, is not an appropriate role of government.

Hey Kathleen, we don’t need you to tell us how to sneeze! 

The Agriculture, and EPA Department actions should be handled by the Justice and Commerce division of the Treasury.  Currently the Agriculture Department is going back over 14,ooo claims of discrimination that were “not pursued” by the Bush Administration.  Obama has spent nearly 10 million dollars on experts to examine these cases, and the director of this project said that “we found that at least 20 to 30% of these cases were valid.”  Not only did his people admit that up to 80% of the claims were bogus, but that almost on all of those cases, the statute of limitations has run out.

And of course, the EPA is being used to attempt and illegal and unconstitutional circumvention of the Congress to impose Cap-and-Tax like burdens on american business, in light of the Copenhagen scandal.

The Greyfalcon has determined that we could easily save $500 billion dollars on  this year’s budget if we eliminated government service that was not defined by the Constitution.  And that’s just for starters. 

We could also reduce what we tax our citizens.  We would purpose that no person have to pay more than 32.99% of their income after all city , state, and federal income taxes are paid, no matter how much they make.  The ultimate goal would be the end to the progressive income tax, which was first proposed by Karl Marx. 

Contrary to this anti-growth administration’s position on “the rich”, when someone in America makes money it doesn’t hurt people who have less than them.  It goes to stocks, bonds, bank accounts, inventory replacement, capital investment, and public bond purchases that help the people of this nation at every income level.

UNLESS YOU HAVE THESE CLOWNS IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND CONGRESS, THEN IT GOES OUT OF THE COUNTRY!

Lee Presser, the creator of “Conversations with Lee Presser”, sees the overall issue at hand as a simple issue. Lee says “We need to get back to what we were best at for the last century, Wealth creation.”

In order to do that, the American Awakening must stop the progressive authoritarians campaign against that very goal.

COMMENTATORS WHO DISPARAGE SARAH PALIN PROCEED AT YOUR OWN RISK.

Sarah Palin bailed out the floundering McCain presidential campaign.   Then she became the media phenomenon and is now running at a higher approval rate than the embattled Barrack Obama.  Yet some “conservative” media figures have taken it up themselves to promote the same unfounded charges against her that are typically levied by the Left’s smear merchants.

A Republican woman, a strategists on the Leon Charney show actually said that she was a drag on the McCain ticket.  If you do not like Sarah Palin or do not think she is ready to be president, that is one thing, but to observe that campaign and suggest that McCain would have come closer to winning without her defies good sense.  He would have done better than 47% with Romney?  Even with Hutchinson?  Making such a claim brings ones own powers of perception into question, thought a suspect the young lady was more a victim of what she wishes were the truth.  She also criticized the Republicans for not going along with the Presidents massive budget request, though now it turns out that is one of the sources of the Party’s higher approval rating.

Haven’t heard from her lately.  Oh well.

Then there’s David Brooks.  He said of Sarah Palin “She’s a joke.  The president has got two wars to fight,” and that he didn’t have time to worry about her.  Yet in that time his approval rate has plummeted even further, and he hasn’t exactly engaged the Afghanistan War with vigor and resolve.  But when Brooks makes this kind of statement, he shows that it is he who is the joke.  Either he is insulting the intelligence of those who support her, or her is somehow unaware of this m movement’s embrace of Palin.  If he insults our intelligence, then he is a fool. 

Recent polls show  the Tea Party has moved ahead of the Democrat and Republican Party.  And if he was so good and gauging the landscape he would know that Palin extremely popular with this movement, gaining approval from many would say they may not vote for any other Republicans.

And if he doesn’t understand the depth of her appeal with us, then he obviously isn’t very good at what he does.  I get same questions from members of the St. Louis School.  “What’s he ever done?”  and “Like he is relevant?”.  So Mr. Brooks, it is you who are now irrelevant.  You have made the mistake of putting your “record” against a Sarah Palin who actually did something economically viable in Alaska with the oil company renegotiation. 

David Brooks, you have marginalized yourself.  It is we who do not have time for “conservatives” like you.

We have a nation to save.

BARACK DOES JACK FOR BLACK ASK MAXINE WATERS

Barrack Obama won the 2008 presidential election largely on the strength of a record high black turnout, of which 95%  voted for him.  His advocates often said “It’s about time for a black president”, or “this is the realization of Martin Luther King’s dream”, and “this will help black people believe they can do anything”.  Many black pundits even said that Obama would be able to do something about the one million black males who are in prison.

Yet Obama showed no signs of being a transformative president, instead pursuing same anti-growth economic policy and the same blame America first foreign policy that has become the new progressive DNC platform.  And as we conservatives,  including many of us black conservatives, predicted this platform would  result in a step backward for low-income blacks.And when the Tea Party movement and town hall protesters rose up to challenge this agenda, the  mainstream media, as well as high-ranking office holders, denounced us as “racists”, “fascists”, and “the white power movement incarnate”.  One local black St. Louis station’s host declared “they can’t deal with having a black man in charge”.

The assumption is that Obama is doing things right, and that the only reason why there would be organized resistence to him is because white people are afraid of losing “their power”, and that Obama is automatically going to make things better for blacks.

Yet this time the organized resistance is coming from the Congressional Black Caucus.  Last week they walked out on a key vote on financial legislation, and the 40 members threaten to boycott TARP banking reform unless they were given more money for “minority financial interests”. 

“For those of us who walked out, it was absolutely essential that we have parts of that legislation directed toward helping people who have been left out of all of these bailouts,” Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., one of 10 black caucus members in the Financial Services Committee, said.

Since last September, we have continuously voted for bailout and reform for the very institutions that created this devastation, without properly protecting the African-American community or small business,” Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., said on the day of the boycott. “That stops today.” (Of Course Waters has already steered $12 million into her and her husbands bank, OneUnited).

ISN’T THAT WHAT YOU ELECTED THIS CLOWN FOR IN THE FIRST PLACE!

What happened Maxine. What happened.

What happened Diana “the first president who looks like me ” Watson.  Looks like your Heinrich Himmler approach to genetic political profiling hasn’t worked out so well for your people.  It hasn’t work out well for any of us.

Hey Diane, maybe Rush Limbaugh understands what’s best for black people, and all Americans, better than you do.

A Year Later

The Greyfalcon would like congratulate Bob McDonnell, Chris Christie, and Doug Hoffman for their ground breaking performances in the November 3 elections.  Bob McDonnell won the Virginia gubernatorial race in a landside, defeating the incumbant Creigh Deeds by 20 points.   Chirs Christie triumphed in the New Jersey race, besting  govenor Jon Corzine.  And most impressively, Conservative  Party candidate Doug Hoffman forced liberal compromise Republican Dede Scozzafava out of contention, and nearly won the NY-23 election against the highly funded,  establishment backed Democrat Bill Owens.

McDonnells’ victory was the most decisive, receiving 1.1 million votes.  Last year Barrack Obama became the first Democrat to win this state since 1964.  But McDonnell’s positive, issue backed campaign overcame Deeds, the DNC, and an “always got time for a good fund-raiser” Obama.   The administration claims that this was not a reflection on his performance, and that it was not that big of a deal.  Then what was Obama doing there in the first place?

This is actually an example on the administration’s chronic unwillingness to take responsibility for anything that goes wrong.  If Deeds won, don’t you think that they would have taken credit for his success?   Of course they would.  They’re always good for that. 

Chris Christie’s race was the most colorful in terms of the actual content.  Corzine spent $30 million in one the most negative, ugly, and irreverent campaigns in recent history.  He even resorted to making references to Christie’s weight, comments which he deflected using his media savvy and great sense of humor.  Christie simply outclassed Corzine, identifying the  state’s high taxes and outrageous state expenditures as the sitting governors’ primary weaknesses.  In his acceptance speech, he summed up the Democratic governors’ derisive tactics with the phrase “Enough is Enough”.

Late in the race Obama abandoned Deeds to focus on backing Corzine, seeing that as the more winnable and consequential contest.  It didn’t work. 

Again Obama supporter’s insisted that this was no statement on his agenda.  How does Deed’s or Corzine’s agenda differ from Obama’s, and why did Obama back him?  Was he bored?  I guess he didn’t have anything better to do.

The New Jersey race also demonstrated an important contrast between our movement and theirs.  This new citizenship awaking is driven by politically engaged people who are arguing from an intellectual and historical framework.   Their campaigns are based on name calling, grandious rhetoric, and an association with a pop-culture icon president who is no longer en vogue.   Conservatives have taken the mantle of idealism away from the Left.

Finally, Doug Hoffman’s run in the infamous NY-23 battle is one for the ages.  After entering the race as a concerned citizen to oppose Owens and the GOP pick Dede Scozzafava, he became the hero of principled conservatism.  The Republican old gaurd claimed that Scozzafava had the best chance to win beat Owens, even though she was pro-choice, pro cap and tax, and pro card check.  The district conservatives rejected this notion, embracing the independent Hoffman. 

Scozzafava pulled out, but in a bad faith scorched earth move she threw her “support” to Owens, who in many polls was trailing Hoffman.   This is after the GOP gave her a million dollars.  A million dollars wasted on one of the weakest liberal republican congressional candidates of all time. 

In spite of this double-cross Hoffman persevered, receiving endorsements from Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck.  On Tuesday night he lost to Owens by  four points. 

Geraldine Ferraro and others call this a repudiation of the “far right” and claims it shows that NY-23 are moderate Republicans.   This absurd position actual shows that their movement is politically and morally bankrupt.

Hoffman, just another guy, actually ran against both parties at the same time and almost won.  They are claiming victory over someone who didn’t have any national party support and almost beat their Obama backed Democrat.  

And they needed the Republicans’s  help to beat him.  If this is their idea of victory then they are in serious trouble.