Snippets of Interest From this Week’s Pundits

Snippets of Interest From this Week’s Pundits

---

Forty-seven years ago Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech was a powerful force in awakening our nation to the horrible sin of racism. But it took much more than an exquisite speech for America to begin to change. It took courage; it took time and money; it took an undying commitment to God and His moral absolutes. And for Dr. King, it ended up taking his life. ~ Rebecca Hagelin

---

Putting more and more wolves in charge of guarding the henhouse might characterize the big problems we’ve now created for ourselves. ~ Star Parker

---

The truth is that there never was any recovery. The stimulus only allowed the statistical masking of the ongoing economic contraction, and a larger stimulus would have further exacerbated what will eventually be known as the return of the Great Depression. ~ VoxDay

---

what binds us together as Americans is not shared blood, race, ethnicity, or tribe; it is the unshakable belief in certain universal principles. The American experience is not attached to men who were flawed, but is instead fixed to ideas that remain flawless. The institutions and symbols of America are reflective of the revolutionary idea that all men are the property of God, created with an equal right to life, liberty, private property, and the free pursuit of bettering their station in life. Martin Luther King, Jr., put it more succinctly: “The American dream reminds us…that every man is an heir of the legacy of dignity and worth.” ~ Joseph C. Phillips

---

Government is growing. The private economy is shrinking. Those wielding political power see fewer and fewer problems they believe private citizens can solve on our own. Soon, each one of us will have our own personal guardian bureaucrat. ~ Star Parker

---

Two decades have passed since Barton wrote "America's Smallest School: The Family." He has estimated that about 90 percent of the difference in schools' proficiencies can be explained by five factors: the number of days students are absent from school, the number of hours students spend watching television, the number of pages read for homework, the quantity and quality of reading material in the students' homes — and, much the most important, the presence of two parents in the home. Public policies can have little purchase on these five, and least of all on the fifth. ~ George Will

---

Currently the government spends $6 billion per year on subsidies for a fuel that isn't environmentally friendly and caused a global spasm of starvation. ~ Matt Purple (on Ethanol)

---

America's social traumas – illegitimacy, juvenile crime, drug abuse, female-headed-households – can all be traced back to the decline of the family, which started with the Great Society in the '60s, accelerated with no-fault divorce in the '70s, continued with the rise of cohabitation and reached its culmination with strange-sex marriage. ~ Don Feeder

---

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. ~ Ben Franklin
(OK - it’s very a very old quote, but it showed up in two different editorials this week)

---

In New York City one percent of the population pays 55 percent of the taxes and that one percent can flee and is fleeing. ~ Herb London

---

many Americans seem to have lost faith in God and in his moral absolutes. We have become selfish and slothful, trading in the timeless values of hard work, personal responsibility, sacrifice and duty for what is expedient, convenient and temporary. ~ Rebecca Hagelin

---

Each of those above snippets would be good places to start a discussion.

Auto Bailout Dollars go to Foreign Manufacturing

Again Bailout of US automaker goes to foreign jobs not US Jobs. Chrysler announced that it will be selling the little Italian Fiat 500 in major cities. This is an efficient mini-car that may do well in today economy, except . . .



The Fiat 500 will be built in Toluca, Mexico.

I'm sorry, but like I said about GM, I will not purchase any Chrysler product again. After we bailed them out they start and expand new productions in another country. If Subaru, Honda,Toyota, Hyundai, Kia, BMW, and Mercedes can all build cars for a profit in America without US tax dollars to bail them out then I expect Chrysler to do the same. The US government shouldn't be borrowing money, that will have to get repaid with my tax dollars, to create jobs in foreign countries.

Maybe there is Hope!

Here in Citrus County there are definite signs of hope. The electorate showed up for the primaries with over 30% of the people and trashed incumbents. The “Good Ol’ Boy” network in Citrus County has been shaken to its core.

We the people of Citrus County Fired:

Commissioner Gary Bartell, and put in John “JJ” Kenney as the candidate of choice. Bartell was a 20-year incumbent who had never lost a political race in Citrus County.

Commissioner John Thrumston a virtual yes man for Republican money men, will not be running again. Rebecca Bays will represent the GOP in the elections in November. Rebecca is a strong conservative with some libertarian leanings and was a far better choice than Thrumston.

School board member Lou Miele, a nice guy but not a leader and will not serve a third term. Thomas Kennedy, a parent with students in the school system, will be a welcome addition.

State Rep. Ron Schultz in a close race lost to Jimmie T. Smith, a conservative Republican with libertarian leanings. Schultz a consummate GOP insider, was hammered on tax issues and his voting record.

Maybe the political elite in Citrus County will see that the people are fed up, and that elections can no longer just be bought.

Now all we need to do is get the Socialist School Board Superintendent fired. If you don’t know, in 2008 Crystal River High School was awarded $100,000 for its innovations by the Gates Foundation, but Superintendent Sandy Himmel wouldn’t allow CRHS to accept it because the other schools wouldn’t be fair to the other schools. CRHS put a lot of effort and hard work into applying for and earning that Gates Foundation grant, but because the other high schools failed (or even tried) to meet the high standards required for the award. CRHS was taught a valuable socialist lesson by the superintendent hard work and innovation are only good, desired, and approved, if everybody wins. Competition is not allowed. This is the same lesson we have taught our kids by ending valedictorians, soon we’ll stop keeping score in football games.

Thank you Citrus County for taking notice of what’s going on and firing Incumbents, there is hope that the people still have some voice and are willing to put people who stand for liberty into office.

Bailed Out GM expands production - In Mexico not USA

The American people in the middle of a historic economic down turn bail out GM, how does GM repay the American people? Expand their production in Mexico. Somebody please explain to me how the stimulus and bailout of GM is saving US Jobs. August 3rd GM announced its plans to invest close to $500 million in its Ramos Arizpe plant in northern Mexico to produce a new line of engines as well as a new vehicle.

The government now owns 61% of GM, so I’m trying to figure out how expanding plants in Mexico keeps US unemployment under 8% as promised. I just don’t get it. Why did we bail out GM, if its expansion is going to be in Mexico not the US. Maybe it’s because Government Motors doesn’t want to hire illegal Mexicans in the US, so to hire them at significantly less than a UAW worker, they are expanding in Mexico. That way the Mexicans they hire are not illegal, and they can pay them what they would pay an illegal in the States, and avoid all that messy UAW employment rules.

It’s funny how Kia just opened a new plant in Georgia, that’s making money and crossovers with 10 year warranty. Isn’t it odd how foreign car companies have expanded in America; Hyundai and Mercedes are making cars in Alabama, and BMW in building sports cars in South Carolina, but GM expands in Mexico. If Kia, BMW, Mercedes, and Hyundai think building plants in the USA without federal government funding is profitable, why doesn’t GM with government funding think they can be profitable manufacturing in the USA? If they thought that they could then wouldn’t they be building and expanding in the USA. Obviously there is something I don’t understand.

Somebody explain to me in the middle of a recession why the government owned car company is expanding in a foreign country. I don’t care how good GM vehicles become, as long as they are owned by the government, and keep expanding in foreign countries abandoning the American worker I won’t buy their product. I’d rather buy a Kia, BMW, Hyundai, or Mercedes, foreign companies that are willing to invest in America, than a GM product made by a company investing in Mexico.

How to be Fair About Soaking the Rich.

I read and often hear that the rich don’t pay their fair share in our society. The middle class is getting killed by excessive taxes, and the rich seem to be able to get out of every tax they can. Just look at John Kerry, Massachusetts Senator, who keeps his new docked dingy in Connecticut, to avoid paying the taxes on it. The rich pay off politicians, and find ways to not pay their fair share, they make their income look like it isn’t income, they have lots of loopholes to hide their money. They get breaks that the hard working people of this country don’t get.

What is the hallmark and primary sin of the rich? Conspicuous consumption. Look at the dollars they spend on toys, vacations, dining, private transportation, and special services that the vast majority of Americans have no hope of ever enjoying. Because wealth may not be “income”, a rich man who didn’t like taxes could choose not to work for years, and still have more and spend more than the guy who has to have two jobs to make ends meet. If a wealthy person choose not work, or not have an income, they could (and some do) get away with paying almost no taxes at all. I know a retired person who managed to get all his money into tax free bonds, and takes home about $400,000 a year in tax free non-reportable money, his only “income” is Social Security, so he pays less in taxes than my just out of school part time employed son pays. This is not “fair”. This person consumes a huge amount of goods and services, gets a disproportionate amount of health care, but because his only “income” is social security, pays minimal taxes.

Globalists complain about our consumption society being unsustainable. The United Nations has provided some eye-opening statistics worth noting here:

Today’s consumption is undermining the environmental resource base. It is exacerbating inequalities. And the dynamics of the consumption-poverty-inequality-environment nexus are accelerating. If the trends continue without change — not redistributing from high-income to low-income consumers, not shifting from polluting to cleaner goods and production technologies, not promoting goods that empower poor producers, not shifting priority from consumption for conspicuous display to meeting basic needs — today’s problems of consumption and human development will worsen.

… The real issue is not consumption itself but its patterns and effects.

… Inequalities in consumption are stark.

Globally, the 20% of the world’s people in the highest-income countries account for 86% of total private consumption expenditures — the poorest 20% a minuscule 1.3%.

More specifically, the richest fifth:

Consume 45% of all meat and fish, the poorest fifth 5%

Consume 58% of total energy, the poorest fifth less than 4%

Have 74% of all telephone lines, the poorest fifth 1.5%

Consume 84% of all paper, the poorest fifth 1.1%

Own 87% of the world’s vehicle fleet, the poorest fifth less than 1%

How do we correct both the problem of over consumption, and the rich being able to manipulate tax code to avoid paying their fair share without compromising individual liberties in the United States? If we give ruling elite the power to determine what consumption is good and bad, we run afoul of a great many constitutional protections and give government more power which it always seems to abuse and would destroy personal property rights. Libertarians believe that no person should have the right to decide for others what goods are necessary for living and which aren't, or that luxuries are necessarily wasteful. If others could decide that it would lead to tyranny.

The solution is obvious - Tax consumption not income. Eliminate the ability of government to track who pays what taxes, so that no tax advantage can be purchased, eliminate all exemptions of any kind for the purchase of any services or new goods. The consumption tax would be collected at the point of purchase just like a sales tax. The problem is that poor and most of the middle class must spend virtually all their incomes to survive and thus would be paying taxes on 100% of everything they make, while the rich who can afford to save would only be paying taxes on what they consumed, so thus proportionally wouldn’t pay as much in taxes as the poor.

If consumerism is a problem, and even the middle class is over consuming, then we can address the problem of the poor pay proportionally more in taxes than the rich, and both the rich and middle class over consuming by identifying a methodology where the poor pay no taxes, and the middle class pay less but are still taxed for over consuming, and the rich are soaked for their over consumption. This method could be simply providing for every person the equivalent of what they would have paid in consumption taxes if they had to spend all their income on the necessities of life. Assume the poverty level for a family of four is $30K, and we taxed over consumption at 30%. Rather than figure out what the necessities are or aren’t, just tax all consumption at 30% and return to everybody what they would have paid in taxes consuming just the bare minimum. So a family of four earning $30K per year takes home about $2100 per month after taxes and spends it all every month just surviving. If all they spent was taxed they would pay almost $650 per month in consumption taxes, which would literally destroy that family’s way of life. So the first of every month send them a $750 check to cover their consumption taxes, thus they would be paying zero taxes. $750 because they no longer would be paying taxes on their income and would have all $2500 to spend every month. Even with 30% consumption tax this family with a $750 tax prebate and zero federal taxes from their pay check would have more money every month than they do now.

Since we believe in the rule of law every family of four gets the same $750 per month prebate, whether rich or poor. Now let’s talk about that rich guy John Kerry again that purchased a new dingy (well it was a $1million dollar yacht), and as a new purchase would be subject to the same 30% consumption tax (remember zero exemptions for anything). He would pay $300,000 dollars in taxes for just that single purchase, the $750 prebate he received, same as the poor guy making $30K, compared to what he paid is so small as to not be noticed. Unless the rich wanted to live like poor they would pay hugely more in taxes. Knowing that there is a 30% tax on everything they purchase, their over consumption would be curtailed because anything they spent above and beyond the poverty level would be severely taxed. Want a new car, the tax on a $14,000 30+mpg economy car will be around $4200, want a be excessive and show off how cool you are, the taxes for conspicuous consumption on a $41K Chevy Volt sports car will be $12,300 dollars. You’ll pay to look cool and abuse the environment.

By taxing the consumption at the point of sale rather than wages, we tax those who don’t have a “wage” but have wealth, we tax those who exist in the underground cash society, and we tax those with wealth far more than those without. Conspicuous consumption would decrease. Most importantly by eliminating the politician’s ability to give out tax advantages to the rich and treating everybody the same, we take away a huge incentive we now have for the rich to buy off politicians.

In order for all men to be equal under the law, justice must be blind, and for that to happen, when it comes to taxes, there must be no means to play favorites, and no loopholes to exploit. If all men are treated equal with regard to taxes – not just in the percentage they pay but in the amount they are exempted or ‘prebated’, then all that remains is the individual taking responsibility for his consumptive choices, be they green, frugal, or excessive. This goal reality is far easier achieved than many might think. Nor is it an new concept. Taxing consumption is not a new idea, in fact nearly 100 congressmen have co-sponsored such a bill in the US house of Representatives. It’s called the “Fair Tax”. Read about it at http://www.fairtax.org

Obama Abolishes Government Position

I never thought I would be able to say it, but under President B.H. Obama a government position has been eliminated. It is a new position that he created, but it’s a step in the right direction. The only problem I have is with the position he choose to eliminate. In this act, and in getting rid of this position, Obama conclusively confirmed that he lied to the American people and has no intention of keeping his promises.

Ethics Czar, Norm Eisen, has been transferred to the Czech Republic to serve as U.S. ambassador. The position has been eliminated, so there is no longer a person in the White House dedicated to transparency and ethical government. Obviously the President’s commitment to ethics is not as substantial as he would have us believe. But at least it’s one less White House position.

A “True” Libertarian

“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting it to come out different.”

That quote is credited to Albert Einstein whose wit and style make it possible. It has also been attributed to Ben Franklin, whose wit and style make that also a possibility. The reality is that it was probably not either famous intellectual’s words but is a distinctly American version of an obvious truth. No where do we see doing something the same way under the same conditions returning different results, this is the basis of the scientific method, that affects of actions (reactions) are observable and repeatable.

This can be seen in every human endeavor. Move your weight to the right and push on the right handlebar and your motorcycle will turn right, every single time. Heat water to 212⁰F at standard pressure and it will boil. Offer rewards to certain behaviors and you will get more of that behavior (Pavlov). It works in politics too, keep electing the same people and you get the same results.

In many ways you can say that the Libertarian Party (LP) is insane. We keep doing the same thing and getting the same results. We lose at the ballot box. It is not that libertarian and constitutionally sound values are not believed in or wanted by the American people. It is the extremist, almost anarchist, voice of some Libertarians, and poor leadership that make the American people doubt the ability of the LP to lead.

Blogs and discussion boards across the net are littered with extremist libertarians, chopping down anybody who claims to be a libertarian, but doesn’t toe some extremist ideological line. The chatter claiming that Alex Snitker isn’t a “Libertarian” is a prime example (Note: neither Alex Snitker nor his campaign had anything to do with this article). Alex Snitker is by far the best candidate running for US Senate. He is a libertarian, he’s also a Libertarian, a businessman, and marine – there is no such thing as an ex-marine, just ask one. His experience and goals are not to abolish the system, but to return it to what it was originally envisioned by our forefathers, and to return to all Americans the unalienable rights endowed by our Creator on which this country was based.

All his platform positions are clearly libertarian, even his immigration policies. As a marine he is mission oriented, and his goals are to achieve that mission. As both a marine and businessman impossible unrealistic and unattainable goals are rejected, nobody willing sacrifices themselves for the impossible. It is impossible to roll back immigration policy and social welfare policy back to pre-1900, neither the international community nor the American people, and especially Floridians will support such a extremist position. Knowing that it is impossible to immediately end social welfare, thus making open borders domestically affordable, his position is not for any new laws, but to enforce the laws we have, and secure the borders so that border crossing criminals do not have access to free services paid for by US taxpayers. His platform is to protect the life, liberty, and property of US Citizens, even from those who would come to this country to take the property and liberty of citizens, which criminal border crossers do. I’m sorry but anybody who enters this country by any means other than through proper channels is a criminal, that’s why they are called illegal aliens.

Listen to his stump speech, his interviews, etc. Alex Snitker personally seems to have what some would call “conservative” views, but because he is a true constitutional conservative he is a libertarian. He believes and will fight for all Americans to be free from undo and unconstitutional excessive government control in all aspects of our life. A true 10th amendment supporter, he believes that most powers are reserved for the states and will work to limit the federal government. To do that he must work within both the political and legal framework we have. Until and unless the massive changes which took over 75 years to enact, are reversed open borders will lead to more not less federal government intrusion into everybody’s lives. Any libertarian candidate running for office that doesn’t have a platform that will lead to real attainable goals and more liberty for Americans is not electable. Floridians will not elect anybody who espouses the clearly impossible. That is not a sign of a good leader.

Claims that Snitker “is not a real libertarian” abound on the net. Old school LP party members and leaders actively work against anybody new to the party, if you haven’t been a Libertarian then you are automatically considered an outsider. Again casual observation of Alex Snitker, shows that he got fed up as a citizen, and was an independent, so started his political career by running for US Senate. Learning everything he could he soon discovered that the LP platform was his platform, and recognized that the LP would be a good home for him and joined the LP, and is running as a Libertarian. The question the LPF should be asking is why was Alex an independent not an Libertarian. The most probable answer is that he was an independent because the LPF does NOTHING to promote itself. In 2009 the entire spending of the LPF was under $3000. In a state the size of Florida, with the third largest number of registered libertarians, with the newly elected socialists, that little spending borders on purposeful neglect.

At this year’s state convention, the members and representatives from the local counties, and Snitker had to shame the EC into doing anything to help local chapters. The leadership of the LPF acts more like a social debate club than the third largest political party in the Florida. A prime example of the ineffective leadership in the LPF is long time party leader, current vice-chair Vickie Kirkland, I personally witnessed her asking a representative from the Florida Tenth Amendment Center what the tenth amendment was and what their group was trying to do. She sincerely did not understand what it was about and had never heard of the “Tenth Amendment Pledge.” Considering the huge coverage in both libertarian and general news concerning States rights and the tenth amendment as a tool to use in opposition to Obamacare, federal gun laws, etc. it is impossible to understand how a person elected to such a high position in the LPF could be that ignorant of one of the most vibrant libertarian themes of the past few years.

Libertarians are insane if they think the same old people with the same old ideas who for decades have kept the LP a mere sideline player or late night comedian’s joke, are going to win elections. “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting it to come out different.” The LP needs new leadership. What the leaders in the LP party, including the LPF, seem to think of as a “True Libertarian” is someone who has put in their time, and is willing to go along with the LP old guard. Leadership, Action, Responsibility, Vision, Competency, Communication Skills, Inspiration, a “Can Get It Done” Attitude, and making realistic choices, appear to exclude a person from being considered a “True Libertarian.” Alex Snitker has a realistic viable and libertarian vision, and he demonstrates true leadership; maybe that’s why the press, old guard LPF leadership, and Libertarian extremists are not supporting him. The statists in government don’t want a real man of the people in office; he will reduce their power if he can. The old guard in the LP doesn’t want a real man of the people to lead and show how pathetic their leadership is. The leftist press sure doesn’t want a real man of the people who holds them accountable and doesn’t dance to their tune. Libertarian extremists, like utopian socialists, think anybody who doesn’t espouse all the extreme views is not libertarian, and if a real leader espousing mainstream constitutional libertarian principles wins, they will be exposed as being extremist nuts.

I’m going to support and vote for a “True Libertarian” for Florida’s next US Senator, Alex Snitker. What are you going to do?

Tom Rhodes
Vice-Chair Libertarian Party of Citrus County,
LPF Newsletter Editor

GOP Todd Long Sues DEM Alan Grayson Over DVD Mailing

GOP Todd Long Sues DEM Alan Grayson Over DVD Mailing
By jim kearney, on August 6th, 2010

The Democrats are at it again. This time it is Alan Grayson in the hot seat. History has shown that Democrats like to “push the envelope” and “bend the law” to their advantage. When they do this, most of the time, there is some sort of ethical violation somewhere. We all know it goes on and for some reason “We The People” do not do anything about it. Well, that is changing this election season.

Republican candidate Todd Long, who is expected to win the Republican primary, and is running against Grayson in the November elections; is now suing Grayson for a mass mailing of DVD’s to his constituents in the Orlando area. The DVD’s are a legislative highlight of his first term in office. The cost of the mailing is a whopping $73,000. Needless to say, when his constituents found out the cost they were in an uproar.

Politics being what it is, Long as taken the initiative to sue Grayson over the affront. This will be an interesting one to watch. Long seeks an injunction against Grayson from using anymore of the taxpayers money to send out future DVD’s and asks the judge to rule Grayson’s use of the funds unconstitutional forcing him to return the $73,000 to the Treasury.

Grayson mailed the DVD’s to some 100,000 homes in the Orlando area (Florida’s 8^th District). He claims they were mailed out and paid for with his congressional franking privileges. Franking allows Congress to use taxpayer funds to pay for outgoing mal. Grayson claims that he is providing a valuable service for his constituents and that they have the right to know what is going on in Washington.

Man what a crock. With the way they are throwing taxpayers money around it is a wonder the country still survives. When does it stop? Maybe Long needs to look at the law and tighten the screws a little bit more. While franking allows Congress to do mass mailings there are stipulations. Some of these changed with the 110^th Congress.

During the 110th Congress, five pieces of legislation have been introduced to alter the franking privilege for Members. H.R. 2788 would require that all pieces of mail sent in a mass mailing include a statement indicating the cost of producing and mailing the mass mailing. H.R. 2687 would prohibit mass mailings in the form of newsletters, questionnaires, or congratulatory notices. H.R. 1614, S. 936, and S. 1285 would prohibit Senators and Representatives from sending mass mailings during a period starting 90 days prior to a primary and ending on the day of the general election for any election in which the Member is a candidate for reelection.

(CRS Report For Congress http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22771.pdf)

Maybe someone should tell Long about these changes. He might have a little fun with the lawsuit along the way. I am sure he will milk it for the publicity, who wouldn’t. Something like this doesn’t happen often but when it happens in an election year so close to a primary, man watch the sparks fly. Everyone will want to get in on the actions.

The Democrats already have enough to worry about with Reid, Angle, Pelossi and the rest of the high muckidimucks of their ranks going down one by one. The people are not putting up with their unconstitutional actions much longer. Sentiment around the country is changing as pocketbooks and wallets feel the pinch of their socialist agenda squeezing the life from the meager paychecks.

Grayson fails to see the ethical principle of his misguided judgment. Typical of almost all Democrats, he spends the money anyway he wants since it is not his. Then, when it comes time to defend it, he doesn’t. He simply blows it off by saying it breaks down to around nine cents per constituent. As if that is a valid justification.

Yes, it will definitely be fun to watch this unravel. Another scandal for the Democrats in an election year where almost everyone is against them, grab your popcorn and enjoy the show.

Yours in Liberty

Why is the Government using Taxpayer Money to Subsidize Upscale Urbanite Toys?

Things are tough, unemployment hovers near 10%; there were only 71,000 new jobs created last month, but with 202 thosand jobs lost in the same period there was a net loss of 131,000 jobs, things don't look good. We are having to borrow money to extend unemployment benefits, and consumer spending is low. In light of this our government is subsidizing $40,000 toys for rich urbanites.

You can get $7500 off your taxes if you purchase a Government Motors Chevy Volt. The Volt is a $41,000 mid size car that is beyond the purchasing power of most Americans. It's limited range and design lead it to be an urban type car. So the extreme rich who can afford new $41,000 cars get to have a feel good toy, at the expense fo the average tax payer. Sorry this doesn't make sense to me. I'm not alone in this feeling,

Kenneth Green, an environmental scientist at the American Enterprise Institute says, "Like the EV1 that GM tried to peddle in the California market, the Volt is a vanity car for the well-off that will be subsidized by less well-off taxpayers at all stages, from R&D to sales and to the construction of charging stations."

Governemnt Motors is already owned and operated at taxpayer expense, the true cost of the volt is around $81,000 dollars according to blogger Doctor Zero So a government owned company is selling the electric car at 1/2 the cost of creating it, and is giving rich elite a $7500 tax credit if they choose to buy this overpriced toy.

I call it an overpriced toy, because the same car configured with a gasoline engine, the Chevy Cruze, costs $17,000 and gets 40mpg. Considering the extra energy and expense that goes into creating and recycling the electric version, environmentally it’s hard to justify the government losing $40,000 per car, and subsidizing its sale. Total cost to tax payers will be almost $47,500 per volt sold (correction: since the taxpayers only own 61% of GM, they will only lose $32,000 per car).

Now the pro-electric car, environmental extremists say that this is necessary to get the electric car industry up and running, and that this will allow technology to make them more affordable. Exactly how long should it take before we realize that the energy density of electric cars make them totally impractical for the vast majority of Americans. We've only been working on this for a little over 100 years.

Here is an ad for an early electric car.



At the time it sold for around $2600, and new batteries cost about $600, A new Model T cost $600 that same year. Note that today the Chevy Cruze sells for about the price difference between it and it's electric version the Volt. Interesting comparison is that to lectrify a car in 1914 cost the same as a basic car did and today electrifying a car cost about the same as a basic car does. Electric cars have been competing with gasoline/diesel cars for a century, they routinely lose for two reasons, they cost too much, and they have too little range. Even the Volt is dependent upon a gasoline engine, to make it a usable toy for the urban elite who can afford to spend $41,000 so they can feel good about the environment.

The volt's target market is upscale urbanites. It's safe to say that upscale urbanites, who are environmentally conscious and would choose to be early adopters of the Volt, are probably liberals. This demographic is one of the few that haven't abandoned Obama. It looks like he is spending taxpayer money to support what little base he has left.

Remember when Obama told Joe the Plumber, “It’s not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance at success too, My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s going be good for everybody. If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re gonna be better off if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody, and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody."

I didn’t realize that rich liberal urbanites who can afford $41,000 cars needed a chance at success too. I’m outraged that to Obama "spreading the wealth" means subsidizing rich urbanites so they can pompously feel good about themselves for purchasing a echo-friendly midsized sedan, that Government Motors is selling at a loss. Would somebody please explain to me why is the Government using Taxpayer Money to Subsidize Upscale Urbanite Toys?

Understanding America

We have a fundamental problem, the political elite, especially the Democrats, do not understand America. When they won power in 2008 and thought America wanted liberal socialistic solutions and the government to take care of her. They didn't realize it was not votes for "progressive" change, but the votes against the leftist turn the party in power, Republicans, had taken.

G.W. Bush was arguably more liberal than Clinton and must be the most liberal republican president in history. Government spending for education, health care, etc. increased sharply under G.W. Bush. The bailouts and "progressive" policies he undertook, and hawkish military involvement in foreign countries is very reminiscent of LBJ's actions in the 60's and didn't look like any other Republican in history.

Republicans and independents threw out the republicans, because of the left turn towards "progressives" the Republican Party took. In 2008 the Republicans offered up an old tired wishy-washy senator whose name, McCain-Feingold, is stamped on legislation (now declared unconstitutional) that limited the freedom of speech around election time. America, when offered the choice of that tired old leftist claiming to be conservative, or a young leftist who was at least is honest about his beliefs, didn’t consider it wasn’t much of a choice. She voted and the old guard liar lost.

America is alive; she is personified in the Statue of Liberty in NYC, and in the statues of Lady Justice throughout her halls of justice. The reason why we have a problem with illegal immigrants is that even the poor unwashed masses of other countries understand America better than the current ruling elitists. America is not about unity, she is about Freedom. She’s about the citizens governing themselves not being ruled by some elites. She’s not about what who your parents were but about what you will make of yourself. America will let you build a life for yourself that is not possible in most of the rest of the world. People are willing to risk, jail, hardship, and their very lives to get to America, because they believe she is worth it.

America is not a democracy. She is not about unity. She is not about making sure that life is fair. She knows that life isn’t fair, and that what’s best is to provide everybody with clear and fair rules, and to enforce them impartially for everybody. She is the embodiment of the rule of law. America knows that this will result in some people being more successful than others, and accepts that people in the free pursuit of what’s in their own best interest will have different outcomes. She is defined by the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and clarified in the founding documents like the Federalist Papers. The totality of the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights is to embrace liberty not unity.

Freedom of Religion – the people are allowed to be Jew, Christian, Muslim or atheist. Dis-unity not unity is protected.

Freedom of Speech – the people are allowed to express themselves differently, whither KKK, Black Panthers, or moon-bat conspiratorialists. Dis-unity not unity is protected.

Freedom of the Press – the people are allowed to publish information that the government doesn’t control, free to criticize and praise not only the government, but movies, sports teams, religions, etc. Dis-unity not unity is protected.

Freedom to Assemble – the people are allowed to freely associate and voluntarily form groups which restrict membership to those who think, act, or believe alike. Dis-unity not unity is protected.

The concept of “Unity” is a joke and contrary to the American ideal. What does the American who wants to be free do when the current ruling elite want us to be “Unified” not free? How does a person who only wants liberty and equal protection under the law exist when the ruling elite believe and have convinced a segment of Americans that they have a “right” to the labor and property of other Americans even though they haven’t earned it?

America is about Liberty!

In order to be free, we’ve got to have a government that acts with a purpose. The leftist elites, have forgotten the purpose of our government, thus America is clearly showing her displeasure. Congress has only an 11% approval rate. 58% of the people didn’t want Obamacare, we got it anyway. Rasmussen polls show that two thirds of the people want smaller government with less government services, fewer government employees, and less government debt. The only people who want or think the government should be responsible for all the citizen’s needs are elitist snobs from Ivy League schools who don’t suffer the implementation of their ideas, and citizens fueled by envy who demand economic rewards they haven’t earned. They don’t understand the purpose of America, a purpose that is unique among all governments in the world, is that she was established to protect the life, liberty, property, and use of that property (happiness) for individual citizens. That all people are free to prosper (or suffer) based on their own individual industry. This unique purpose made America the most prosperous, generous, power the world has ever seen.

We cannot have liberty when elected leaders ignore the purpose of government. With one or two exceptions the current crop of elected leaders act as if they are sent to get re-elected, maintain power, and distribute political favors. Their words are useless because their actions show that they believe that the purpose of government is power over the people not protecting the liberty of the people. The elitists at the top of the social economic ladder fuel the problems of the poor and then promise them economic rewards they haven’t earned. They no longer govern at the consent of the people; they ignore the rule of law, and the purpose they were sent to Washington. The Obama administration is upset at the recent exposure of the memo to effectively grant amnesty to illegal aliens thru executive order by simply failing to enforce the law. You can read it HERE. That is just the latest exposure of the Obama administration ignoring law, and acting like a third world dictatorship, other examples are: extorting twenty billion dollars from BP absent any law or due process; ignoring bankruptcy law and giving unions preferential treatment over creditors who had solid legal claims in GM’s bankruptcy; firing executives of private companies with no law or due process; and exempting Interpol from following constitutional protections for US citizens when working in the US.

Ignoring the plain purpose of our government, the rule of law, and the will of the people is clearly diminishing the trust and faith of America in her government. How can we possibly have a government that works when doesn’t do what it is supposed to do? Why do so many elected officials ignore their oath of office, and forget that the reason they were sent to Washington was to protect the liberty of individual citizens, not control them, not to feed them, not to insure them, not to grant them economic rewards, but protect their ability to enjoy the rewards they have earned for themselves?

A huge portion of American still believes in the old Revolutionary War slogan, “Liberty or Death”, or in the more modern version as seen on millions of biker T-shirts and Tattoos – “Live Free or Die.” The ruling progressive elitists (Democrat and Republican) don’t understand that sentiment and dismiss it as ignorant and irrelevant. That sentiment is the very basis for the formation of the US government. What they also fail to comprehend is that a significant portion of our population is fed up; people are becoming politically active who have never before considered being active. They are buying Gadsden flags at unbelievable rates. The heart and soul of the “Don’t Tread on Me” Gadsden Flag is the rattle snake. Concerning the image of America, the timber rattler found on the Gadsden Flag, it is said that "She never begins an attack, nor, when once engaged, ever surrenders: She is therefore an emblem of magnanimity and true courage. ... she never wounds 'till she has generously given notice, even to her enemy, and cautioned him against the danger of treading on her" ~ some attribute this quote to Ben Franklin.

The timber rattler, the heart and soul of the Gadsden flag, is also the heart and soul of America, who through polls, town hall meetings, Tea Parties, and individual notifications by fax, email, and phone to congress is giving notice and cautioning government against treading on her. If the government persists on treading on the rights of America they will force her to engage, and once engaged she will never surrender until her liberty is restored or she is dead. I hope and pray that the leaders we choose in elections later this year understand America and her purpose; I hope and pray they understand the resolve of America who is once again taking ownership of her foundational principles of Liberty.