Author: publius911

The Mueller investigation is over and the report submitted. After 2 ½ years looking at Russian influence over our election, the summary states the President didn’t collude or obstruct. How it morphed from Russia to our President will continue to be the source of “news” stories and endless theories. If you thought the mass media was full of “maybe”, “could be”, “appears as” statements and the like, hold on to your seat. The left mob is not going away anytime soon.

Absent any evidence for a criminal indictment, the left will use its formidable media cudgel to indict the President in the court of public opinion. Having failed to use the weight of the Federal government to bring him down, they will continue to badger him with negative propaganda knowing that a gullible electorate can easily be swayed by  an incessant barrage of innuendo and flat out falsehoods. The adage of telling a lie often enough turns it into truth is the main plank of their game plan.

House Democrats will feed the media with “information” gleaned from never ending hearings to continue the bloodless coup. Many of us would like to know how it is that if, as the Mueller report states, Russia did influence our election, why it wasn’t addressed when first noted during the Obama administration. Further, why did the investigation circle around a candidate and then President rather than on the Russians? Unfortunately, the House committees won’t be looking at these particulars but then, the people spoke when they put these men and women in office. Our fellow citizens’ primary reason in making that vote was to eliminate President Trump. Well, it’s not over yet.

Why would governments spend millions of dollars setting up new systems and organizations to collect millions? Why not just raise the amounts/rates of current taxes? Most states already have several revenue streams that include income and sales taxes and a host of fees. Why not just increase those to get more from their constituents?

In addition to an insatiable thirst for holding sway over we citizens, new revenue streams provide cover for increases in the other revenue sources. That is, you don’t have to bear the resistance of raising income tax rates when you have another couple of million and more coming in from legal marijuana or tolls or whatever the next thing to be taxed is. Most new revenue sources are sold as “one time”, dedicated to addressing (fill in the blank), or to save us stupid citizens from doing something bad to ourselves like drink pop. Recall most lottery money was to go to education. Here in Connecticut, it ended up in the general fund only to be lost in the morass of state government. Now they want to set up a Toll Authority with the intention of toll money going to roads and bridges. How are those previous “lock boxes” working fellow Nutmeggers? You can probably ask a similar question of any state or taxing authority. Just where did the money I already gave you go?

Having dumbed down recent generations of children and their parents through an educational system slanted toward socialism and away from our Judeo-Christian form of capitalism, Democrats are now pressing to disrupt the very system that allowed them to be. The latest forays into locking up the path to and perpetuation of power are eliminating the Electoral College and changing the voting age to 16. Both would require changes to the Constitution and while they seem far-fetched, there are far too many who think these are good ideas.

The change to the Electoral College essentially pits urban against rural areas. The demographics are obvious with population centers dominating where voters reside. The Founders knew very well that small states would be ignored if there were no balancing mechanism, hence the Electoral College and to a certain extent, the Senate. It would be nice to dismiss out of hand the notion of a popular vote deciding the Presidency, but there is no bottom to the deviousness of those seeking control.

I was around when the voting age was lowered to 18. (It coincided with changes to drinking laws that came and went at just the right time for me!) The argument made then was if boys can go fight and die in the jungles of Viet Nam, they sure as hell should be able to vote. I suppose a similar argument could be that 16 year olds are old enough to drive therefore they should be able to vote. Could free video games be the next campaign promise?

Follow up polls to the 2016 Presidential election showed that Trump did not fare well with suburban females. The constant bombardment labeling him as a misogynist, racist, etc. had its intended impact. My thoughts are that if these women are really concerned about the future, they would do well to look very closely at how their children are being taught.

A recent confrontation of elementary and middle school children with Senator Feinstein is a carrion call to all who want our children to be critical thinkers and not parrots of the teacher’s union. Armed with propaganda on “climate change”, they challenged the Senator to take immediate action to prevent the earth from crumbling in the next 10 years. Egged on by their teacher, they refused to let Feinstein off the hook.

It appears that science curriculum comes from a group called, “Next Generation Science Standards”. It is used by 19 states with another 21 having “embraced some of the material with modifications”, according to a Chicago tribune article titled “Climate Deniers turn heat on schools”. I was unable to find the actual curriculum but from this article, no alternative viewpoints on climate change are being offered nor is the science behind them. The result is indoctrination rather than educating. Children being susceptible to propaganda do not understand there are two sides to the story. Indeed, University of Illinois climate scientist, Donald Wuebbles was quoted as saying, “You can’t talk about two sides when the other side doesn’t have a foot in reality.”

Climate change is just one subject where our children are being force fed versus nurtured. American history, economics and a host of other base subjects have been slanted to impose a biased understanding. Moms, you may want to attend a Board of Education meeting to find out for yourself just what your children are being taught. It may fit your reality but then again, it may not.

The problem with a balanced budget is that it can be balanced by raising revenue. Politicians of all colors have seldom turned away a voter who needs something. Our rising debt loads at every level of government, local, state and federal, are proof that trying to halt the slide into fiscal oblivion will take real concrete limits. Leaving spending controls in the hands of the very people who are doing the spending is folly. Every previous attempt in my lifetime (Congressional Budget Act ‘74, Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, and “Sequester”) has failed to put a curb on federal spending. There are a myriad of ideas to rein in spending. Here is mine.

A constitutional amendment saying total federal government expenditures (includes entitlements) are limited to revenues equal to 18% of GDP as calculated on the day the amendment passes into law. The amount can only be exceeded by a declared war and with 3/4 of both houses approving the additional, specific excessive amount that must be deducted from the number of future annual budgets equal to those impacted once the declared war has ended. A 5 year war means you have 5 years to recoup the money.

Eighteen percent is nearly 2.5 points above average of spending over the past 78 years and recognizes that more demands have been put on the federal government over that time. (https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/historical-tables/ Table 1.2 – SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS ( – ) AS PERCENTAGES OF GDP:  1930 – 2024). The allowance for a single reason to exceed this amount is to put serious curbs on getting around the law. Lawyers will need to put in language that cements the expenditure intent and recuperation process. Knowing politicians don’t like perpetual wars hopefully acts as a deterrent to thwarting the law.

What do you think?

The President has issued his budget proposal. As usual, the Democrats have dismissed it as cruel and unusual punishment. Ignoring the fiscal calamity that is before us, they insist that nothing be cut, except for our national security, and everything else be increased. Entitlements have long been identified as the elephant in the room but neither party in their quest for power is willing to do what must be done. That is, revise benefits and raise revenue for those programs.

According to the WSJ, “Defense spending is about 3% of the economy, down from 6% in 1986. That compares to 15% of GDP in 2017 for “payments for individuals,” such as transfer programs like Medicare and food stamps, up from 6.2% in 1970 and 11.7% in 2005.” This reversal of where federal dollars are being spent is very telling. While the Constitution says the primary role of the federal government is the security of our nation, we have allowed the “promotion of the general welfare” to be the foremost mission of the political class that includes both political parties.

The soaring debt caused by unabated spending has resulted in critical financial distress. In 2018, interest payments on our federal debt were $523,017,301,446.12 (https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm). While the arguments continue over where to spend money, the real issue is what money? Continued financing of spending through debt will ultimately lead to even more difficult decisions of where to spend the money. It won’t be guns or butter but neither.

Alicia Glen was on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” this morning (3/1/19). She is the Deputy Mayor of New York City. The topic was the pull out of Amazon from moving to Long Island City New York. (https://www.cnbc.com/video/2019/03/01/how-gov-cuomo-is-trying-to-bring-hq2-back.html) While defending her city she said that if women lead more companies, there would be a different way of engagement with the community. Host Joe Kernan said that was sexist which Ms. Glen quickly dismissed as “not at all” and defended her position including that only 1 large company in NY is run by a woman. I’m not sure how Ms. Glen defines sexist but when you say somebody is better at something merely because of their sex, it fits the raw version of the term.

This fits a pattern I have noticed when applying any of the derogatory labels including racism, homophobic, misogynist et al. That is, the many on the left feel free to apply these to anyone and at any turn, this morning included. But when accused themselves, they deflect and deny any criticism.

This is classic Sal Alinsky who said to label your enemies and repeat it until it sticks. Deny any attempts to label you and turn it back on the accuser. Watch for the “you’re a (fill in the blank)”; “no I’m not. You’re the (fill in the blank)” back and forth and who’s on the side of the actual definition.

Democrats are about to reveal the heavily leaked “Medicare for All” plan. All the great totalitarian states started with a utopian idea. Democrats/Socialists, (they are one in the same right now), want to control your life. They understand that they have dummied you down sufficiently through the education system they control, to be able to dominate you. You very body is now on the hit list. This cabal’s only true reason for imposing this kind of control is power. Some actually believe that they know best and you do not have the ability to make important decisions on your own. If asked, “Is it ok for the government to deny a health related procedure you and your doctor think you need?”, I suspect the overwhelming answer would be “No”.  Under a universal health plan, this and other issues are real but you won’t see the answers in the “reveal”. There are sufficient examples of the problems of distribution and control in countries with government health care programs. All will be ignored by the power grabbers.

Obamacare was the camel’s nose in the tent. It was always a baby step towards state run health care. I’m still looking for a government run program, any one, which is well run. Leaving my health in the hands of a group whose driving ambition is to have power over other people leaves me cold. This is the party that says it can leave the decision to kill a baby till its birth. I prefer to be free to choose everything, including how to treat my body. After all, isn’t that at the heart of the inalienable rights our Creator endowed us with?

There are hundreds of thousands of people flooding across your lawn and breaking into your house. They are eating your food, taking up room in your school and using your hospital like it’s their primary doctor’s office. Some of them are stealing, robbing, selling drugs they brought with them, trafficking in sex slaves, some of whom are children, and raping and murdering US citizens. Once they got on your lawn, even the police, who you depend on for your security, can’t (or won’t) remove them. If you’re unlucky enough to be a sanctuary for these marauders, you can expect to see even more of them in your neighborhood.

This is no emergency. The oceans might rise an inch over the next 100 years. Locker rooms aren’t open to anyone who cares to enter. Taxes aren’t high enough for the rich. Some people, especially men, make more money than others. There are far too many restrictions on killing innocent unborn, and now even born, children. These are real emergencies!

I was born into a Democrat household. My father was a truck driving teamster who later became a patronage state worker and Democrat precinct man. I was a Young Democrat and attended both state and national conventions into my 20’s. So how is that I am today a self-labeled “staunch conservative”? Is it, as my father said, because I have a few bucks in my pocket?

I studied international political and comparative economic systems in college in the 70’s. One of my economic professors was a communist. We had many sessions both in and out of the classroom where we would discuss the worth of communism and capitalism. He was of the mindset that ordinary people are incapable of the delivering goods and services in the most efficient manner. I countered that human nature insists that no person(s) controls the life of another human and that freedom is at the heart of capitalism. As I write this, I still find that capitalism is all about freedom and little to do about efficiency.

While the new waves of “progressives” harbor thoughts of reining in individual freedom in return for some utopian outcome, they will learn that the human spirit dries up when throttled. Efforts to tell citizens of the freest country the world has ever known, that you MUST do (fill in the blank) will eventually be met with resistance of the kind seen in previous violent actions. We humans thrive on self-worth yet easily fall prey to the path of least resistance. Getting handouts like “free income” devalue the person and will only lead to self-loathing. The individual will become a possession of the state.

I am a conservative because I want to fail on my own.  I want the euphoria of having made my way through a struggle to a successful outcome. I need to have challenges that give me the opportunity to excel. That is what being a human is all about. Long before there were government organizations, there were individuals who made their way. They may have been very inefficient but they survived. I too can survive on my own thank you very much. So I am a conservative and I believe that the less a government governs, the better off I am. After all, I was endowed with certain inalienable rights and I want to be free to exercise them.