tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2291051481537155202024-03-13T07:29:01.043-06:00Sylvia Bokor CommentsSylvia Bokorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11689374905250957182noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-229105148153715520.post-42898067320164260592011-09-29T08:49:00.004-06:002011-09-29T09:23:33.385-06:00Taxes & Regulation: The Black Hole of Government Waste and Corruption"Washington will spend $2.6 million training Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly on the job." So stated an October 2009 report written by Brian M. Riedl, a Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation---http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/10/50-examples-of-government-waste<br /><br />Businesses are forced to provide that money. But Obama refuses to cut such spending. He demands more revenue.<br /><br />Tea Party Republicans argue against raising taxes and for spending cuts. But Warren Buffett wrote that the very rich should be taxed more.<br /><br />John C. Goodman, president and founder of the National Center for Policy Analysis---a free-market think tank---stated, "Consider that when Warren Buffett is consuming, he's benefiting himself. When he's saving and investing, he's benefiting you and me. Every time Buffett . . . puts his money in the capital market, he's doing an enormous favor for everyone else. A larger capital stock means higher productivity and that means everyone can have more income for the same amount of work."<br /><br />The following day Jeff Carter, an independent speculator, published "The Buffett Deception." Mr. Carter wrote, "Mr. Buffett has had a great career buying companies and integrating them into his empire. He ought to stick to that. His recent editorial in the New York Times shows the flaws in many arguments that come from the left. . . . Buffett's logic also discounts how many Mom and Pop small businesses pay at the highest marginal rate."<br /><br />Mr. Goodman and Mr. Carter's articles are premised on free markets economics. Obama and Mr. Buffett's views are premised on the political philosophy of Marx and Engels.<br /><br />Free market economics is concerned with the production of values. It recognizes that individuals must be free to think in order to build businesses and create values. Businesspeople---employer and employee alike---must be efficient, organized and resourceful. Their efforts swiftly raise the standard of living for everyone when government does not interfere. When government does interfere, businesspeople's efforts are stifled and the standard of living is slowed,then curtailed, and finally reversed.<br /><br />Leftist's political philosophy is focused on distributing the property of those that have created and/or earned it to those who have not. Such a focus relies on government-enforced distribution, which means government interference in the economy primarily through taxes and regulations.<br /><br />Taxes and regulations do not increase business. They do not create more enterprises. They do not create values or jobs. They do not raise the standard of living.<br /><br />But Obama refuses to cut spending. He demands more revenue.<br /><br />Taxes are spent to finance government officials and their programs. They are spent to pay government salaries, which on average exceed that of most businesspeople. They are spent to maintain the offices of almost a thousand government agencies, each with large staffs. Taxes are spent on duplicate programs, inefficient work and mismanagement. For instance, "Washington spends $25 billion annually maintaining unused or vacant federal properties." Taxes are wasted through fraud: "The federal government made at least $72 billion in improper payments in 2008."<br /><br />But Obama refuses to cut spending and instead demands more revenue. When he does talk about cuts in spending he names Social Security, which owes those who were forced to pay into it out of earnings. He does not mention the 70+ programs that could be cut to save over $4.2 trillion without touching Social Security.<br /><br />Taxes should be spent to pay for the three proper functions of government:<br />the police, the military and the courts. When tax money does not go to the proper functions of government it goes to improper functions.<br /><br />Mr. Riedl writes, "A GAO audit classified nearly half of all purchases ongovernment credit cards as improper, fraudulent, or embezzled.<br />Examples of taxpayer-funded purchases include gambling, mortgage payments, liquor, lingerie, iPods, Xboxes, jewelry, Internet dating services, and Hawaiian vacations. In one extraordinary example, the Postal Service spent $13,500 on one dinner at a Ruth's Chris Steakhouse, including "over 200 appetizers and over $3,000 of alcohol, including more than 40 bottles of wine costing more than $50 each and brand-name liquor such as Courvoisier, Belvedere and Johnny Walker Gold." The 81 guests consumed an average of $167 worth of food and drink apiece."<br /><br />In addition, recall the millions of taxpayer money that Obama spent on a 500-man entourage to visit Great Britain.<br /><br />But Obama refuses to cut spending. He demands more revenue.<br /><br />Andrew K. Dart writing "The Pork Page," <a href="http://www.akdart.com/pork.html">http://www.akdart.com/pork.html</a>, lists a hundred misuses of taxpayer funds. Here are two examples: <br /><br />"Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) while claiming to be a fiscal conservative, requested 149 projects worth $1.6 billion for authorization and appropriations bills for fiscal year 2010." <br /><br />In December 2010, a bill "written by . . . members of the Appropriations Committee proposed spending nearly $8.3 billion." The earmarks included $349,000 for swine waste management in North Carolina; $413,000 for peanut research in Alabama; $235,000 for noxious weed management inNevada; and $300,000 for the Polynesian Voyaging Society in Hawaii.<br /><br />Onerous taxes and strangling regulations do not create prosperity. They obliterate it. Taxes drain business resources into a black hole of government avarice, corruption and waste. <span style="color:#330033;">Regulations do not protect the consumer. They strangle the producer.</span><br /><br />Taxes and regulations ravage the nation's savings, suffocate ambition, undermine business operations, erase certainty and penalize the successful while rewarding the indigent.<br /><br />Tea Party Republicans are attacked almost every day on various interview shows and in the news. They are attacked because they refuse to give in to the Left's political philosophy of tax, spend, borrow,tax. Let us make certain to increase the number of Tea Party Republicans come 2012.Sylvia Bokorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11689374905250957182noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-229105148153715520.post-77167626850305142092011-08-26T13:44:00.005-06:002011-08-26T14:06:05.481-06:00Whose American Dream?<span style="font-family:georgia;">Maybe some of you have read an August 19, 2011 e-mail from Levana Layendecker, Communications Director of Democracy for America, with the subject "Join the movement."
<br />
<br />The opening sentence reads: "Democracy for America relies on you and the people-power of more than one million members to fund the grassroots organizing and training that delivers progressive change on the issues that matter."
<br />
<br />Five parts of that sentence are immediately curious. You have to wonder what's going on.
<br />
<br />For instance, democracy" means mob rule. Is the writer of the e-mail advocating anarchy in America? In a democracy the individual is a cog of no importance residing in a form of government that almost immediately fizzles into oligarchy or dictatorship. There can never be a "democracy" for any appreciable length of time for the simple reason that a mob cannot figure out what to do or come to agreement on anything without one or two individuals moderating and organizing the numerous conflicting ideas and wishes that characterize a mob.
<br />
<br />If the DFA really does have one million members and if those one million members really are "grassroots," you might feel some dismay that they achieved such a giant slate without being called "astro turf." However, dismay quickly dissolves when you read the phrase "progressive change." You know much of MSM is peculiarly sweet on Progressive ideas, so they are surely not going to tag Progressive "grassroots" as false and synthetic.
<br />
<br />But then you read "issues that matter." You pause. What issues matter to the DFA? They are listed in the ten goals of the "Contract for the American Dream." And here is where we get down to the nitty-gritty of what the "American Dream" means to the progressives.
<br />
<br />For most of us, the American Dream is being free to earn your own way, unoppressed by government. That's what most people seek in immigrating to America: freedom of conscience and freedom of action. That's what our Constitutional freedoms are all about. That's what individual rights are all about.
<br />
<br />That is not the Progressives' Dream.
<br />
<br />For the Progressive, "the American Dream" is getting rid of the principles of American government. What else can it mean when one advocates universal health care? Universal health care has to disregard the moral principle of individual right to life and property. As such it reveals the DFA's desire to force the entire medical profession into virtual slavery under government control.
<br />
<br />The same disregard of moral principles is seen in the rest of the DFA's goals. "Invest in America's Infrastructure," "Create 21st Century Energy Jobs", "Invest in Public Education," "Make Work Pay." Does this mean that one million Progressives are going to dig into their own pockets to put up the money to fix bridges and tunnels, create energy jobs, straighten out the horrendous problems of public education?
<br />
<br />Don't bet on it. It means passing laws that force taxpayers to pay more into government projects---to the tune of more waste, more corruption and more mismanagement. So the inclusion of "Make Work Pay," "Secure Social Security," "Return to Fairer Taxes" and "Tax Wall Street Speculators" reduces the entire list to one thing: higher taxes and less liquidity in the securities markets---which endangers the portfolios of almost every investor, including retirees, those about to retire and those saving for retirement, the group that consists of those who earn their own way.
<br />
<br />Ms. Layendecker asserts that in attaining these goals, "we can stop Republicans from killing the American Dream and build a future based on liberty and justice for all."
<br />
<br />They might succeed in killing our American Dream---the actual American Dream---if we do not remain vigilant and ready to assert and defend American ideals and principles, in particular the most basic principle of our Republic government, individual rights. We should recognize that the Progressives' "American Dream" deserves to be killed---and drawn and quartered---without reservation.
<br />
<br />There can be no liberty---which is the right to move about freely without coercion---and no justice---which is the virtue of treating men as they deserve---should Progressives attain their fetid collection of goals, which seeks to hog-tie and drain those who earn their own way.
<br />
<br />For a lot of information about DFA's specific goals and training programs to gain seats for Progressive Democrats on all levels of government, access http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_for_America </span>
<br />Sylvia Bokorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11689374905250957182noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-229105148153715520.post-66611406455461919322011-08-11T12:34:00.003-06:002011-08-11T12:56:16.902-06:00The Achievement of the Tea Party MovementIt was the first two years of protest. Others had taken the initiative to start a Tea Party. We joined them and supported their efforts with our time, our work, our ideas and dollars. We helped to organize events and rallies, make signs, distribute thousands of flyers, print hundreds of petitions and wove our way through rally crowds to gather signatures.
<br />
<br />We visited our Congressmen's offices, wrote our Senators, phoned Legislators, attended City Council meetings and commissioner and district meetings. We joined parades and yelled ourselves hoarse for our chosen candidates. We sweated bullets during summer events and froze our fingers and toes during winter's. We registered voters and became poll challengers and poll workers. Sometimes we worked through the night answering queries and often rose in the morning to start work without taking time to change out of our pajamas. We cheered when others honked in support of our efforts and laughed at our own exhaustion.
<br />
<br />Today, seasoned and still dedicated to our principles, we <strong><span style="font-family:georgia;">are</span></strong>, each and everyone one of us, the Tea Party Movement.
<br />
<br />The Tea Party is a movement of many different kinds of people coming together spontaneously and voluntarily: Capitalists, Objectivists, Conservatives, Republicans, Democrats and Independents. We hold similar ideas and share a common goal of seeking to restore individual rights, Constitutional freedoms, limited government, and to establish free-markets and fiscal responsibility. For these reasons we are united against big government, against the intrusive, regulatory government of the welfare state. We hold a basic point of view: in order to realize the American Dream, each individual must work to earn it, and not look to government to hand them what others have earned.
<br />
<br />During the Tea Party's infancy our concerns regarding big government were too obvious to ignore; so, the Leftist media and Leftist politicians tried to ridicule the grassroots by calling the Tea Party Movement "astro-turf."
<br />
<br />Since the 2010 elections, the Left no longer uses that slur against us. They got the picture. During the "debt talks" Sour Harry had to scramble about for another slur. He thought he found one.
<br />
<br />He bemoaned "Tea Party Republicans" and their refusal to compromise. He flatly stated that Mr. Boehner's proposal was "the worse piece of legislation ever written." How could one know he was speaking the truth? He did not allow the Senate to read it. He instructed them to vote no without seeing it. Like sheep they followed their B.O.-Peep without a baaa. As Reid's statements became shriller against "Tea Party Republicans," so did those of his fellow Leftists.
<br />
<br />One Leftist spat out something about a proposal that would have gone through except for "a few right-wing nuts." The New York Leftist Charles Schumer complained that the Tea Party Republicans' refusal to compromise amounted to "It has to be their way or the highway . . . or no way." (He got a little confused in the heat of his moment.)
<br />
<br />Tea Party Republicans. It is a tag to be embraced. It is a clear distinction that separates us from politics-as-usual-Republicans and Democrats.
<br />
<br />Tea Party Republicans stick to principles. We do not compromise them. We can be accommodating when non-essentials are involved. But principles are basic. They are derived from ethics. We do not give in on them. Because of that, the Tea Party Movement attained something far more important in the long run than an insufficient budget agreement.
<br />
<br />Tea Party Republicans understood this. A few others did, too. Last night, August 10, George Wills stated in an hour-long interview, "The Tea Party brought the issue of limited government and free-markets into the arena of public discussion."
<br />
<br />A formidable achievement, in view of the welfare state talk that has dominated public policy since 1933.
<br />
<br />Confirming Mr. Wills observation, this morning, August 11, GOPUSAMedia sent an e-mail advertisement paid for by Steve King, Iowa Member of Congress, which included the statement, "To preserve America as we know it, we have only one option: to return to the principles of limited government and free market capitalism this nation was founded upon."
<br />
<br />Following the conclusion of the debt talks, many Leftist commentators attacked the Tea Party for a variety of things. A number of commentators came to the Tea Party's defense. For instance, Brent Bozell---Founder and President of the Media Research Center, the largest media watchdog organization in America---reported that John Kerry "shamelessly labeled [the S&P's action] a "Tea Party downgrade" . . .although it is known that "while Obama was tripling the deficit with trillions in new spending, Kerry happily endorsed" the spending spree. <a href="http://townhall.com/columnists/brentbozell/2011/08/10/tea_party_blame_and_fairy_tales">http://townhall.com/columnists/brentbozell/2011/08/10/tea_party_blame_and_fairy_tales</a>
<br />
<br />As someone remarked recently, "The Tea Party Movement succeeded because we avoided the danger of becoming centralized, which would have been an invitation to politicians to take us over." We avoided "the divisiveness inevitable from focusing on narrow social values," which would have diluted our dedication, energy and focus.
<br />
<br />If we hold firm to our principles Tea Party Republicans will take the White House and the Senate in 2012. We can start to cut spending, downsize government by closing regulatory agencies and terminating at least a third of federal government employees. We have achieved a great deal. We can achieve more.
<br />Sylvia Bokorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11689374905250957182noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-229105148153715520.post-27134890983007757662011-07-24T16:18:00.003-06:002011-07-24T16:38:23.427-06:00Cut, Cap & Balance the BudgetIn his July 17 newsletter Steve Pearce, a New Mexico Congressman, mentioned his participation in the Congressional Baseball Game for Charity. He wrote:<br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">"On Thursday, I played in the Congressional Baseball Game for Charity, an annual tradition reaching back to 1909. We raised over $150,000 for local charities. During this difficult economic time, I am happy to spend my time helping charities who are struggling with limited resources. My hit in the 6th inning ended the Democrat teams' no-hitter, and I was named the team's MVP."<br /></span><br />That's not the extent of Steve's MVP status. Monty Newman, Chairman of the Republican Party of New Mexico, expressed his gratitude to Steve for <span style="font-family:arial;">"supporting the Cut, Cap and Balance legislation that passed the US House this week."<br /></span><br />In the House, Pearce voted for Cut, Cap & Balance Act; other New Mexican Congressmen, Ben Ray Lujan and Martin Heinrich, voted against it. In the Senate 46 Republican Senators voted for the Cut, Cap & Balance Act. Fifty-one Democrat Senators voted against it---including Jeff Bingaman and Tom Udall, both New Mexico Senators.<br /><br />Bingaman asserted the bill "did not achieve shared sacrifice." Lujan declared that the act "would cut the deficit on the backs of New Mexico's seniors and working families." Heinrich stated something about "breaks for the ultrarich, while making dangerous cuts to Social Security and Medicare."<br /><br /><span style="font-family:georgia;">To be blunt, such remarks are dishonest.</span> <span style="font-family:arial;">The bill, HR 2560, states: <span style="color:#ff6666;">Exempt</span> From Direct Spending Limits - Direct spending for the following functions is exempt from the limits specified in subsection (c):`(1) Social Security, function 650.`(2) Medicare, function 570.`(3) Veterans Benefits and Services, function 700.`(4) Net Interest, function 900.`(c) Limits on Other Direct Spending<br /><br /></span>The entire bill can be read at Politisite.com.<br /><br />Evidently, Democrats did not read the bill. Harry Reid deemed it "the single worst piece of legislation to hit the Senate floor." <a title="http://www.thenewsstar.com/article/20110724/OPINION02/107240315" href="http://www.thenewsstar.com/article/20110724/OPINION02/107240315">http://www.thenewsstar.com/article/20110724/OPINION02/107240315</a> That was good enough for Democrat Senators.<br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"><span style="font-family:georgia;">Politisite writes:</span> "They actually didn't even get a chance to vote on the actual bill. Reid used a parliamentary maneuver to force a vote on whether to allow the bill to come to the Senate floor to be debated. That motion to "table" a "motion to proceed" is what passed 51-46. Once again, rather than debate the actual bill, so everyday Americans could "see what's in it," to borrow Nancy Pelosi's famous words, Democrats didn't even want to talk about it."</span> [ibid]<br /><br />It has been made clear---particularly during last week---that Democrats are not trying to solve the debt problem. Yet they characterize Republican proposals as either (a) ridiculous, á la Obama, or (b) disastrous, á la Harry Reid, or (c) does not achieve "shared sacrifice" á la Bingaman.<br /><br />An Op-Ed in the July 23 <em>Albuquerque Journal</em> offered an explanation for this curious behavior, although that was not the author's actual theme.<br />Carl P. Leubsdorf, former Washington Bureau Chief of <em>The Dallas Morning News</em> compared the difference in attitude toward problem solving among politicians of the past and present day.<br /><br />He wrote that problem-solving on a large, national scale is not the motive of most politicians these days. Instead, their approach to politics is partisan. Today, politicians are wedded to their political party. They seek to maintain party unity rather than solve a given problem besetting the nation.<br /><br />But partisan politics is neither productive or predictable. Mr. Leubsdorf pointed out that <span style="font-family:arial;">"Barack Obama's disdain for Republicans in 2009, when he told them pointedly he could call the shots because he "won" in 2008, backfired when the GOP won House control in 2010."<br /></span><br />Partisan politics boils down to "my gang is bigger than your gang; so, you have to do what I say." This is the hallmark of the gangster, the dictator, the totalitarian---call it what you will. It is an attitude that does not approach problems with a solution but with an edict.<br /><br />This has been the attitude of Obama and his supporters during the debt talks. They have refused to cut the 70+ programs the Republicans proposed, which would save $2.4 trillion. They chorus one melody: "Tax the rich. Raise the debt ceiling." That's not a solution. It's an extension of the same problem of reckless, wanton spending, without thought, without plan, without concern for tomorrow.<br /><br />Obama and his supporters continue to claim they need money for "seniors and the poor and the unemployed and the sick and the disabled and the maimed and the blind, for oppressed Haitians and Samolian's, for Afghan and Iraq politicians, for Libyan and Syrian and Egyptian rebels, and for anyone else they can dream up.<br /><br />But not for the American earners who produce the values that pay for it all. If you're tired of politicians stampeding into your pocketbook with their pretended concern for everyone except the American producer, we need not wait for 2012. We need to start calling and writing the Democrats now and simply say, "No more money. Pass Cut, Cap and Balance the Budget."<br /><br />And if they should say, as some do, "Leave me alone! You're not my constituent." Simply respond, "Thank goodness for that. I plan to convince those who are, not to return you to office."Sylvia Bokorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11689374905250957182noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-229105148153715520.post-39605666113397706722011-07-11T05:11:00.003-06:002011-07-11T05:23:54.435-06:00Freedom, Profit and ProsperityA reader sent me 5 photographs of people in Arizona in front of the capitol building. Many American flags had been placed on the ground. Graffiti of some sort was scribbled on some of the flags. Men, women and children were shown striding across the flags, stomping on them, spitting at on them and burning them. <br /><br />There are many things one could say about the mind-set of those who desecrate a nation's flag. Intelligence is not one of them. <br /><br />Desecrating a nation's flag is not argument to persuade others to your point of view. It is not a demonstration to show that your actions have merit. It is not even a show of loyalty to an opposing principle, such as those who might rip apart a Nazi flag to show loathing of fascism. <br /><br />To try to debase the flag of the United States by throwing it whole upon the ground and stomping on it, is the attempt of the mindless, savages who stick pins in dolls or drink his enemy's blood---as if such actions were power-enabling. <br /><br />The flag of the United States is unique among nations. And most people know it. It symbolizes freedom. No other flag, save perhaps that of Great Britain, carries so powerful a message. To desecrate the flag of the United States of America means one has no regard for freedom, and more: no regard for the human life freedom protects and advances. <br /><br />What does freedom mean in action? Freedom is the absence of cocerion; therefore, in action it is the opportunity to live one's life, to achieve happiness. What provides us with material happiness? Prosperity. How is prosperity achieved? Through profit.<br /><br />When I was a free-lance artist working in Manhattan, in order to live, profit was essential. I had to have money to buy oils, canvas and stretchers, illustration board, brushes, and all the other materials and equipment necessary to running an artist studio. There were also models' fees to pay and my own rent and groceries. <br /><br />When I was paid for my illustrations and/or paintings, the price I received had to be at least a bit more than my combined expenses. To be paid less than my expenses, or to break even meant I could continue to produce paintings only by going into debt. If such a situation continues for any length of time, the business goes into bankruptcy. <br /><br />Profit, even a little profit margin, kept me afloat. The same is true of any business whether you are a free-lance businessperson, or own a small company or a middle-size or large one. Profit is not "surplus income." It is not "gravy." It is the muscle and bone, the essential means of doing business. It is the means to keep on going. Without profit, business is impossible. If one takes in a bit more than the cost of one's own expenses, it means the business can stay afloat without undue strain. If it earns a lot more than its expenses, it can expand, offering more values to a larger clientele, creating more jobs improving services and so forth.<br /><br />Many people, including businesspeople, do not understand the virtue, purpose and need of profit. We have been led to believe profit is somehow "dirty" or "usurious" as if making more than one's expenses was somehow "dishonest." <br /><br />The truth is, profit is essential to doing business. Profit, since it supports a businessperson's life and that of his employees, is a virtue. By means of efficiently producing values and keeping a business' product desirable, profit says: "You're doing good. You're benefiting life." <br /><br />The attack on profit is ancient. Today, Leftist habitually attack profit as a sure-fire way to create conflict between those who earn their own way and those who do not. Mr. Obama does the same, feverishly trying to make Americans hate "the rich." Such individuals try to convince us profit is some kind of evil that destroys society. The opposite is true. <br /><br />Profit is what makes prosperity, improving and increasing the number of values that businesses offer---whether in manufacturing or in service industries. It is profit that raises the standard of living for everyone. <br /><br />It is the lack of profit that is destructive. A lack of profit destroys a business, a neighborhood and a society. But profit requires individual freedom. One look at the difference between North and South Korea, or again, during the Berlin Wall the difference between East and West Berlin, attests to that. Those cities demonstrate the individual's need of freedom and the prosperity possible when he has it. Profit generates prosperity.<br /><br />Our flag symbolizes freedom. It is the portable display of what our Statue of Liberty represents. When one sees the stars and stripes, one immediately thinks of freedom, of opportunity, of happiness. People the world over know that. Those who desecrate the flag of the United States of America are making an explicit statement. They are not stomping upon a mere piece of fabric. They are stomping on a symbol of man's need for freedom and the best that he can achieve. What do you call a creature who seeks to destroy the best in man? A criminal? A heinous monster? That which feeds and breeds upon a corpse? Whatever description you choose, he is a killer. <br /><br />Not even anger is any longer possible toward such creatures. What remains is only a cold contempt re-enforcing a determined resolve to never give in to those who would kill freedom, the profit it can generate and the prosperity that follows.Sylvia Bokorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11689374905250957182noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-229105148153715520.post-90143226089814433252011-07-08T11:13:00.005-06:002011-07-08T11:49:00.175-06:00Politicians Call for Sacrifice to Solve the Mess They Created<span style="font-family:arial;">Jeff Bingaman is one of New Mexico's Senators. On July 07, 2011 he sent a newsletter to his constituents. It is a very long newsletter, filled with many questionable statements, premised on the usual Leftists' view of man as a sacrificial goat. </span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">I'm posting here only some of Senator Bingaman's paragraphs and my comments. The Senator's paragraphs I've chosen to post here do not necessarily reflect the Senator's worse demands. They do, however, reveal his worse premises. <br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:arial;"><strong>Senator Bingaman writes:</strong></span> <span style="font-family:georgia;">1. There has been a lot of discussion in Washington and around the country about how we can sustain and strengthen our country's two <span style="color:#ff0000;">federally-funded</span> health insurance programs - Medicaid and Medicare - even while we rein in <span style="color:#ff0000;">our </span>budget deficit.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Note Senator Bingaman's characterization of who pays for government health programs. "Federally funded?" Surely, the Senator knows the source of "federal funds." Is it possible he's trying a bit of sleight of hand?</span><br /><br />2. Medicare and Medicaid are extremely important to New Mexico. <span style="color:#ff0000;"><span style="color:#ff0000;">Medicare pays</span> </span>for the bulk of health care provided for Americans age 65 and older as well as people with disabilities; <span style="color:#ff0000;">about 300,000 New Mexicans are enrolled in Medicare</span>.<br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">"Medicare pays?" No. Earners pay. Through their taxes. Why does Senator Bingaman ignore the fact that taxpayers pay those costs?</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Out of New Mexico's population of 2.1 million, with only about 1/3 the population being producers/earners and about 9% of these out of work, 300,000 enrollees are a mammoth number. The cost to earners who are expected to foot that bill will be onerous.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Senator Bingaman and his colleagues are adroit at making citizens pay for politician-created problems. Notice how they pretend Medicare is absolutely imperative, the totally essential life and death remedy to care for "the children," "the elderly" and "the disabled." Without Medicare, Senator Bingaman seeks to convince us, these helpless and dependent souls would horribly suffer for eons and/or die in a New York minute.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"><span style="font-family:georgia;">3. As we take the necessary steps to address <span style="color:#ff0000;">our </span>budget deficit . . .</span></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">The budget deficit is not ours. It is Senator Bingaman's and his colleagues'. They are the ones who voted for the reckless spending, the stimulus packages, the bailouts and buy-outs and forced lending and approval of risky loans and "affordable housing" and implemented Fannie Mae and Freddie Max corruption. They created it. Let them dig into their own pockets and pay for it.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">But, of course, for Senator Bingaman and all such politicians, such an idea is not <em>de rigueur</em>.</span><br /><br />4. Medicaid primarily provides health care coverage to Americans with low incomes, for example children and the elderly. <span style="color:#ff0000;">It will come as a surprise</span> that two-thirds of Medicaid funds go toward care for low-income seniors and the disabled.<br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Why on earth would anyone be surprised? The entire "affordable" health care law is undisguised robbery of those who earn in order to support those who do not. It's not about the children and seniors and the disabled. It's about politicians' lust to control the entire medical industry, including pharmaceuticals and insurance. It's a wholesale attack on the medical profession and the innumerable charitable foundations and organizations---to which Americans generously give---in order to place those skills and those funds under government control.</span><br /><br />5. I believe we must ensure that <span style="color:#000000;">the burden of sacrifice</span> is shared broadly and not placed largely on the backs of <span style="color:#ff0000;">our most vulnerable populations</span>, such as seniors and children.<br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Seniors and children are our most vulnerable? Not true. With the numerous taxes, regulations, restrictions, guidelines, ruled by thousands of agencies and thousands of bureaucrats, our most vulnerable population is producers/earners. They are the ones who work to create values that we all need and buy. They are the most burdened with government's intrusive laws, which make them virtually helpless, vulnerable to any government official's whim demanding bribes, "kickbacks" and the like. Our businesspeople are the ones who take the risks and sink or swim on their own judgement. Who is it that goes down the drain if they are not protected? The entire nation, including the children and the elderly.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">You can bet that politicians who are paid salaries 3 to 4 times more than the average earner most assuredly will not carry on their backs "the children" and "the elderly." Instead, as the Senator amply makes clear, it is earners that must bear the "burden of sacrifice." Why? </span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">The call for producers/earners to "sacrifice" has worn thin. Senator Bingaman and his colleagues, snug in their taxpayer financed retirements, taxpayer financed pensions and self-exempt status, continue to demand that producers/earners "sacrifice"---counting on that word like some holy moral principle that will work its magic by making producers and earners feel guilty if they protest. Politicians such as Senator Bingaman seek to flood taxpayers with guilt should anyone dare say they have not the slightest interest in using their hard-earned money to help strangers when they want instead to help their own higher values, their loved ones. </span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">The demand for sacrifice is long past needing to be expunged as a solution to politically generated problems. In the name of common sense and the well being of those who work and work and work and pay and pay and pay, the demand for sacrifice must be ended. Senator Bingaman and his colleagues created the problems. They should solve them without demanding that taxpayers' "sacrfice." </span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Congress voted for and created terrible problems as a result of their own negligence and excesses and lack of aforethought. They should cease demanding that earners/producers "sacrifice" to save politician's rear ends. </span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Determined to make producers/earners pay for politician's errors of judgement, Senator Bingaman of course is not at all in favor of Paul Ryan's proposed budget. He claims Paul Ryan's proposal does "not require a shared burden"---by which he means: not enough sacrifice. </span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">There is more to object to and reject in Senator Bingaman's Newsletter. However, nothing Mr. Bingaman says is new or news or even a letter. It is a prolonged complaint that earners pay for Congress' devastating mistakes and dreadfully bad judgement. </span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">I hope producers/earners say, "No way."</span>Sylvia Bokorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11689374905250957182noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-229105148153715520.post-14544107163753286582011-06-11T08:31:00.005-06:002011-06-11T09:29:05.204-06:00Barbara Walters & Jane FondaIn connection with an honorarium paid to Jane Fonda as one of ABC's "100 Women of the Century," on or around September 14, 2,009, Barbara Walters stated on The View, "I hope that we have all forgiven Jane Fonda for what she did during the Vietnam War and specifically when she visited the Hanoi Hilton."<br /><br />Regarding this, many readers left comments. I downloaded eleven. Of the eleven, one defended Ms. Fonda because "she was a kid" at the time. Another asked, why was the issue being talked about again now? Nine wrote in the vein that Ms. Fonda committed treason and cannot be forgiven, despite her apology many years after the Vietnam War ended.<br /><br />I am in agreement in principle with those nine.<br /><br />We all know what Ms. Fonda did: Her disgraceful words to our soldiers, her shameful conduct toward their captors, her servile allegiance to values and ideals that our Founding Fathers rejected when they wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.<br /><br />Is there any excuse we might consider in Ms. Fonda defense? Can those who take the side of the enemy in time of war be defended or excused?<br /><br />Given the Leftist influence on our government-run education system, given the Leftist influence in the media, it's certain that Ms. Fonda was as much a victim of collectivism as she was a perpetuator of it. Yet I and countless other Americans, were subjected to the same Leftist influences in government-run public education, and Left-leaning media. We did not accept the view that Communism was superior to individualism. We did not like the idea of our men fighting a war that was not in our interests. We did not like them dying so that politicians could pose as "against communism." <br /><br />Some point out that Ms. Fonda was "only 18" at the time, too young to know differently. Too young, or too thoughtless? If too young, the fact is that many of us were as young as Ms. Fonda was at that time. But they did not take the side of the enemy. Neither did we burn our flag, although we were opposed to the draft. Nor did we spit at our policeman and call them "pigs." We did not interrupt speakers or yell indecent epithets at them, or refuse to allow them to speak at all. We, too, were not happy that our men were sent to foreign lands to die and/or linger in heinous conditions. But we did not turn on our soldiers, chastising them for fighting a disagreeable war.<br /><br />Neither education nor age is the deciding factor here. What, then, was the difference between Ms. Fonda and us?<br /><br />Ideas. The ideas Ms. Fonda acted upon. The ideals, principles and values that Ms. Fonda accepted and which guided her actions.<br /><br />The consequences of Ms. Fonda's ideas was to denounce American soldiers and POWs, to call them liars because they reported being tortured and beaten, to spitefully chide suffering American POWs with questions such as "are you proud to have killed babies?"<br /><br />Consider what this nation's ideals are: No man is above the law. Freedom and justice for all under the law. Habeas corpus. Innocent until proven guilty. A jury of one's peers. The sentence of guilt to fit the crime. Debtor's prison outlawed. A division of powers. A limit on presidential terms. The Constitutional freedom of speech, assembly, worship and press.<br /><br />Consider this nation's basic principles: individual rights, limited government and free markets. Consider this nation's fundamental ruling values: Reason. Purpose. Self-reliance. Self-confidence. Individualism. Lifting oneself up by the bootstraps. The work ethic of "a better mouse trap"---i.e. think of a better way to do something and work like the dickens to achieve it---and putting your "nose to the grindstone."<br /><br />What are the Communists ideas Ms. Fonda extolled? Man must live for the state. The state knows best. No one may descent from government decree. All rulers are above the law, exempt from the laws all citizens must follow. All citizens are without rights. The government has total control over everyone and everything: how many babies one may have, where one may work, what one may study, where one may live, what meetings one must attend, the able must support the indigent, how many acres of land may be farmed, how many cars may be produced, and so forth. All this Ms. Fonda accepted and fought for <strong><em>against a government that stood for the opposite</em></strong>.<br /><br />Ms. Fonda acted in exact accordance with the ideas she accepted. She damned those who fought against totalitarianism. She condemned those who did not accept the rule of brute force. She insulted the loyalty and bravery of free men who chose to protect the innocent against the savagery of dictatorship.<br /><br />We are asked to forgive Jane Fonda. I do not. Moreover, I consider Barbara Walters' "hope" as abysmally lacking in thought as Ms. Fonda's actions during the Vietnam War.<br /><br />Another joins these two: the individual who left the comment: "Why the heck was this year old post bumped?" This is the same sort of question savages ask about the Holocaust: "Why bring up that old stuff?"<br /><br />One reason alone: Lest we forget and forgive those who err beyond reason.<br /><br />Yes, Ms. Walters comment took place about 2 years ago. Yes, Ms. Fonda's actions took place almost 50 years ago. But like the Holocaust, one does not forgive those who acted upon the ideas that made possible such grievous evils.<br /><br />There is a postscript to this exposition: Why <strong><em>was</em></strong> this two-year old Barbara Walters statement revived? My opinion is that the boiling anger many of us feel against Mr. Obama's actions to change this nation into a collectivist welfare state reminded someone of what such a state means in practice. It means the ideas of Hanoi Jane in charge of us while our best and bravest and most productive are imprisoned, regulated, controlled and ultimately destroyed. We must not allow this to happen.Sylvia Bokorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11689374905250957182noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-229105148153715520.post-82382049464028494802011-05-13T11:42:00.008-06:002011-05-13T13:29:53.658-06:00The Establishment Clause<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">In 1802, Thomas Jefferson sent a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in response to a query from that body. In the following Library of Congress transcript, Jefferson's spelling and punctuation have been retained as well as the bracketed material which ultimately he deleted before sending.<br />---------<br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><strong>Mr. President<br />To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.<br /><br />Gentlemen<br />The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.<br /><br />Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.<br /><br />[Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.]<br /><br />Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.<br /><br />I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.<br /><br />(signed) Thomas Jefferson<br />Jan.1.1802.</strong></span><br />----------<br /><br />An anonymous writer claims that Jefferson's remarks echo those of Roger Williams, the founder of the first Baptist church in America, who wrote in 1644 of the need for "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world." Whatever the case, Jefferson's expression of "a wall of separation between church and state" led to the shorthand phrase "Separation of church and state."<br /><br />Although the phrase does not appear in our Constitution, the idea it embodies is a governing principle of our culture. The phrase represents the essentialized meaning of the opening passage of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." This is known as the Establishment Clause.<br /><br />From the beginning of our nation, Americans recognized the principle of separation of church and state as a safeguard against religious intolerance and protection of one's right to choose to believe, or not. Our courts followed suit.<br /><br />In its 1879 Reynolds v. United States decision, the court allowed that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment."<br /><br />In the Everson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1, 8 decision, Justice Hugo Black wrote, "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."<br /><br />Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun wrote: "When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some."<br /><br />Another court stated that "A large proportion of the early settlers of this country came here from Europe to escape the bondage of laws, which compelled them to support and attend government-favored churches."<br /><br />Because of the many different religions and the many different convictions of atheists and agnostics that comprise our American culture, the separation of state and church assures that no one elected to office can lawfully impose his particular views as "the state religion." To further deflect such a danger, Article VI of the Constitution specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."<br /><br />Today, however, some commentators question the validity of the separation of church and state, claiming "It's not in the Constitution; so, we can disregard it." But a brief look at man's history underscores the need for such a separation.<br /><br />The first forms of governments among men---Sumer and Ancient Egypt (c. 5000 BCE)---were both centralized authorities, in which the ruler held both powers of king and priest. The Pharaohs of Ancient Egypt, for instance, claimed they were the embodiment of "god-kings," or "priest-kings." They held both titles absolutely, sometimes appointing a priest class to perform various tasks, but always retaining the prerogative of supreme authority over men's beliefs and actions.<br /><br />For millennium nothing changed---except in Ancient Athens. Pericles (c. 495 - 425 BCE), for example, was an elected ruler whose leadership did not usurp that of Athenian priests. But in all other nation-states around the world and throughout time, absolute authority over both secular and religions affairs remained exclusively in the hands of the ruler.<br /><br />For instance, during the Roman Empire, (c. 31 BCE - c. 284/313 AD) emperors were treated as divinities and some declared themselves gods. During the Medieval period (c. 313 AD to c.1265 AD) the church dominated both secular and religious affairs. Even the great, enlightened Elizabeth I (1533-1603)---alone among monarchs finally to break with the Pope---while granting wider freedom to her subjects nonetheless retained absolute control of her powers which included being the spiritual head of the Church of England.<br /><br />Cromwell (1599-1658) justified his religious intolerance, the use of force, massacres and cruelty as necessary to hold together the body politic. Louis 14th (1638-1715) the "Sun King," imposed religious uniformity, persecuted the Huguenots and revoked the Edict of Nantes, which led to the exodus of many Protestant merchants and skilled artisans, accelerating economic decline. Napoleon crowned himself at his coronation (1804), thereby declaring that as emperor of France he was to be considered supreme ruler over both secular and religious affairs.<br /><br />Similarly, the Emperors of Japan and China were considered direct descendents of the Gods, thus empowered as divine ruler on earth, supreme over all men's actions and beliefs. The sheiks, caliphs, and ayatollahs of Arabia, India and Asia were no different.<br /><br />And so it went. With few exceptions, leaders claimed total authority over both religious and secular affairs---most clearly exemplified by "the divine right of kings" and "the infallibility of the Pope." The result was fines, imprisonment, torture and/or death levied on any that dared oppose the ruler's edicts and beliefs. The Inquisition was only one expression of such crimes against the mind of man. The slaughter and mayhem of the Crusades was another. The arbitrary beheading, dismemberment, disfigurement and proscribed suicides of dissenters or the disrespectful, was characteristic of the rulers of Africa, India and Asia.<br /><br />Then came the United States of America, an extraordinary achievement that broke with all precedent and stunned the world with its Declaration of Independence and its Constitution, which are the fountainhead of the wealth that cascaded from the minds and efforts of free men.<br /><br />The Declaration of Independence identified man's individual rights. The Bill of Rights---the first ten Amendments of the Constitution---secured those rights in specific actions. But it was the formulation of the Establishment Clause that addressed the difficult and complex issue of protecting man's convictions and beliefs without intruding upon his right to believe as he chose, or not. The governing principle of "a wall between church and state" was a stroke of genius that protected the American citizen from the deadly juggernaut of combined political and religious power.<br /><br />The Founding Fathers gave us this nation, a child of the Enlightenment, Ancient Athens surely being our grandparent. As beneficiaries of such a gift, let us not allow our nation to fall to barbarians---either foreign or domestic---by ignoring the lessons of undivided absolute power over our lives and nation.</span>Sylvia Bokorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11689374905250957182noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-229105148153715520.post-79586064005063481472011-03-15T13:05:00.003-06:002011-03-15T13:10:50.855-06:00DistrictingDistricting is a Constitutional requirement that must be done every ten years following the census. <br /><br />The requirement has become a political tool. It is believed that If one can corral many of one's own party into one district, reaching them will be easier. This assumption guides most if not all of the planning of those who refer to themselves as "Politicals." <br /><br />"Politicals" generally are campaign managers, lobbyists, and candidate promoters. Through a variety of marketing techniques, they promote a given candidate either for pay and/or for conviction. That means they spend money. And that means their central concern is how to get the biggest bang for the buck in order to get their candidate's name recognized and ultimately elected. <br /><br />For this reason, some statistics are considered important: (1) It is widely accepted that 20% to 25% of the electorate vote the straight ticket;<br /><br />(2) if many of the same political party are corralled into one district, that district is thought to be assured of 20% - 25% of the vote for the party. The advertising dollar thereby does double duty as it focuses on the other 75%. Districting in one party's favor is thought to make more effective use of campaign money. <br /><br />Whether districting does or does not help a given political party, ask yourself who does most to get out the vote? Individuals who want their candidate to win and are willing to talk to others to elect him or her. <br /><br />Who is the electorate today? It is not only Democrats and Republicans. It comprises a significantly large number of Independents or DTS and other parties. <strong>And</strong> it comprises many that are registered as one of the foregoing but who in fact stand for individual rights, limited government, free-markets and fiscal responsibility. In other words the principles that guide most Tea Party supporters---whether they call themselves Radicals for Laissez faire Capitalism, or Classical Liberals, or Conservative, or Democrats. <br /><br />Surely, if most of one's party is in the same area, then one can reach them more easily. But reach them how? Ultimately the electorate is reached by the individual precinct captains, individual ward chairmen who organize and motivate the individual neighborhood walkers to go door to door and explain what a given candidate stands for and why voting the straight ticket is detrimental to one's self-interest.<br /><br />How does one persuade an individual to refrain from voting the straight ticket, and instead to vote for individual candidates? Would you buy a quart of strawberries if you saw that some of them were rotten? It's the same idea with voting the straight ticket. If you vote a straight ticket, the danger is you'll be voting for a number of rotten candidates. Better to vet men individually. The collective approach is never a good idea in anything.<br /><br /><div align="center"><span style="color:#cc0000;">------------------------------------------------------------</span></div><br />For those who would like to learn more about districting, I recommend the following web site where you can download a number of documents dealing with aspects of it. <a href="http://www.janicearnoldjones.com/Redistricting/tabid/180/Default.aspx">http://www.janicearnoldjones.com/Redistricting/tabid/180/Default.aspx</a>Sylvia Bokorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11689374905250957182noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-229105148153715520.post-35690181576668880022011-03-15T12:57:00.002-06:002011-03-15T13:05:05.454-06:00How to Kill a BillThe Democrat members of the Voters and Elections Committee had a good time at the RoundHouse today, Thursday, March 10.<br /><br />Democrat Representative Chairman Mary Helen Garcia did not lead her committee in all the festivities. She kept good order during the first two hearings; so, the deliberations of House Speaker Democrat Representative Ben Lujan, Sr. and fellow Democrat Representatives James Roger Madalena, W. Ken Martinez, Danice R Picraux, Debbie A Rodella and Edward C Sandoval proceeded---at a noticeably snail pace.<br /><br />But toward the end of the hearings of SJR 11/d things started to get a little out of hand. The relieved atmosphere among the Democrat Representatives became nearly palatable as they unabashedly expressed their delight at the end of the hearings. Laughing and smiling, their chatter becoming a little louder, one almost expected them to burst into song.<br /><br />They had good reason to celebrate. After all, they are not necessarily engaged in representing the wishes of New Mexicans. Something else evidently moves them.<br /><br />Take a look at the set up. The Voters & Elections Committee is comprised of seven Democrats and six Republicans. Thus, the Democrats will always dominate if they vote along party lines. The agenda clearly was stacked against hearing a particular bill---HB577 (Voter Photo ID). HB535 was heard first, followed by HJR 12/d, SJR 11/a HB517 and last, HB577. The committee was supposed to start at 8:30 AM. It was called to order a little after 9:00 AM.<br /><br />Discussion of the first three bills was delayed by long pauses, as Representative W. Ken Martinez meditated upon "unforeseen consequences," and Representative Rodello declared she was confused, and during the hearing of SJR 11/a ("Transfer of State Owned Property") the sponsor, his expert witness and a clerk were actually allowed in situ to engage in editing of text which was repeated three times. Some jolly exchanges regarding abbreviations and commas also took place.<br /><br />Clearly someone was dragging the lower appendages. But why?<br /><br />All will soon be clear. The first discussion---of HB535 was serious and polite as Republican Representative Jane Powdrell-Culbert introduced her bill to "Create a Bond Selection Day." Representative Powdrell-Culbert was joined by Secretary of State Dianna Duran and Bobbi, Director of Elelctions. Although it was obvious to observers that the discussion was stuck in low gear, both Secretary Duran and Representative Powdrell-Culbert remained alert, attentive and immediately responsive to the committee's questions. After about 45 minutes of discussion, Chairman Garcia declared that the committee "seemed in favor of HB535," but because four changes were required, the bill would be "rolled over" to March 15 to be discussed again then.<br /><br />There followed discussions of HJR 12/d ("Recall of Certain Public Officials") and SJR 11/a ("Transfer of State Owned Property"). It was 11:30 AM when Chairman Garcia called for a hearing of HB517 (Financial Disclosures of Legislators). The bill's sponsor, Republican Representative Cathrynn N. Brown, apologized that her expert witness was absent. She therefore requested that HB577 be heard next.<br /><br />"No, it's late," said Chairmen Garcia, "It would be better to hear it on Tuesday. You'll be first. I promise you." "Could we discuss it on Saturday or Sunday?" asked Representative Brown. "Not possible," quickly said Democrat Representative Ken Martinez "Tuesday is best."<br /><br />Tuesday is March 15. The end of the 2011 General Session is March 19. If HB 577 wins a Do Pass, it won't get to the House Floor until Thursday March 17. It would then still have to pass the Senate. Postponing of the hearing on HB577 to Tuesday March 15 is a virtual killing of Voter Photo ID, which Republicans have requested perhaps 4 or 5 times in response to 83% of New Mexicans wanting this protection at the polls.<br /><br />Committee members Republican Representatives Thomas Anderson, Nate Gentry, Conrad James, Bill Rehm, James A Smith and Shirley Tyler said next to nothing during these hearings. It is obvious why. They did not want to contribute to prolonging the hearings. It was clear to most observers that the Democrat majority of the committee had deliberately wasted time in order to avoid a hearing of HB577. As one observer remarked, "They were nit-picking and dic-dic-dic-ing all over the place."<br /><br />This, in the face of some New Mexicans having traveled over 3 hours to take part in their government. Is it any wonder that many New Mexicans are taking a second look at the veracity and trustworthiness of Democrats? Is it any wonder at the growth of the Independent segment of our voting population?Sylvia Bokorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11689374905250957182noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-229105148153715520.post-77930599340081187242011-02-01T15:06:00.004-07:002011-02-01T15:26:39.283-07:00Trouncing CREDO With CapitalismCREDO is the name of a political activist organization that has replaced ACORN.<br /><br />It has an nice web site---<a href="http://www.workingforchange.com/">http://www.workingforchange.com/</a> Using only black and a soft blue-green pastel, it looks fresh and clean and invites easy reading without many distracting colors, boxes and bars. The layout is simple and easily navigated, the content is provided in a good size font easy to read.<br /><br />On the left side of the site is a list of current events with brief paragraphs stating what CREDO is against or for, and includes admonitions to take various actions. On the right side of the site is a feature entitled "Mobile CREDO."<br /><br />Here's an overview of some of the "issues" on the site. The lead paragraph links to a blog entitled "Praying for Palin." The blog post is a sanctimoniously cowardly attack blaming Mrs. Palin for the Tucson shooting. The site writer then hops to filibuster reform, then abortion, then declares that "We must put a stop to the escalating hate rhetoric of the right and its very specific calls to armed violent act." Then back to filibuster reform, to the riots in Egypt, to bashing John Boehner and the Tea parties. Next it's the Koch brothers "and their Tea Party funding cabal," then over to "U.S. evangelicals spreading hate in Uganda," and on to the Chamber of Commerce. And so forth and so on.<br /><br />The funniest statement on this site is the charge that Ayn Rand "secretly applied for Medicare and Social Security." The statement is, of course, merely the writer's public announcement of the absence of gray matter between his own ears.<br /><br />The Left's "argument" boils down to the claim that those who were forced to pay into a system over which they had no say and no control may not request return of their money in the form of Social Security payments, nor seek redress of funds through Medicare. In other words, the robbed has no right to request a return of his money from the robber.<br /><br />To the Leftists, to want your money back "contradicts" your view that Social Security and government health care is wrong. That point of view certainly squares with Leftist's philosophy, which is that only those who <strong>did not</strong> pay into the system should be given government money.<br /><br />As in almost everything else, Leftists do not have a grasp of principles. Their frantic demand to be taken care of has caused in them a serious break with reality. The extent of that break is evident in CREDO's harangues to run from "crisis" to "crisis." Let them.<br /><br />Meanwhile, those of us who advocate individual rights, limited government and free-markets will make significant strides. How? By showing people how capitalism works, and that it is <strong>for </strong>them <strong>as individuals</strong>---not as a nest of ants.<br /><br />I started doing that on Twitter some months ago. I was surprised that the number of followers jumped from zero per day to 2 a day. A lot of people are interested in learning how capitalism works and why it's the only moral system devised by man.<br /><br />Here are some Tweets I posted in the past and will be posting in the future:<br /><br />Capitalism allows men to rise by choice---not by force--to whatever level they can. The ambitious create large markets.<br /><br />The welfare state hampers the ambitious through regulation.<br /><br />In capitalism, small businesses proliferate, supported by large businesses. Support industries surrounding large companies are an example.<br /><br />The welfare state hinders small business employment by taking money from the able to give to the less able, thus encouraging stagnation.<br /><br />Capitalism frees men to function to the best of their ability.<br /><br />The welfare state penalizes the able through regulation and progressive taxes and forces the less able into dependency.<br /><br />To phase out gov't interference in the economy and to phase in capitalism, the first step is to de-regulate.<br /><br /><strong><em>---End Tweets-------</em></strong><br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">FYI:</span></strong> An acquaintance of mine reminded me of the following quote, which identifies a principle that is applicable to many contexts. Because I have touched on differences between capitalism and the welfare state, it is highly appropriate here.<br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;color:#000000;">“The highest manifestation of life consists in this: that a being governs its own actions. A thing which is always subject to the direction of another is somewhat of a dead thing.” --- <em>St. Thomas Aquinas 1225-1274, Italian Scholastic Philosopher and Theologian </em></span><br /><br />===###===Sylvia Bokorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11689374905250957182noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-229105148153715520.post-6700164321243111932011-01-25T15:00:00.005-07:002011-01-27T14:27:47.471-07:00New Mexico Politics: Speaker of the House<div align="left">On January 18 the New Mexico State Legislature met for its first session of 2011. At that session an important election took place: the election of the Speaker of the House.<br /><br />Democrat Ben Lujan was the sitting Speaker. He had been speaker for a number of years. He had become increasingly authoritarian, deferring Legislators' concerns and stating repeatedly that whatever they said "was not germane." He had gone so far as to break and/or to ignore House Rules. Finally, the Legislators en masse threw down on the floor their copies of the Rules in protest.<br /><br />The November 2 election increased Republican numbers in the House to considerable strength, but not to majority. They wanted Ben Lujan voted out as Speaker but knew they did not have enough votes to nominate a man of their own.<br /><br />Enter conservative Democrat Joseph Cervantes who wanted the Speaker seat for himself and offered the Republicans a deal.<br /><br />It is this deal and the New Mexican Tea Parties organizers rejection of it that caused a stir on line and in the media to the extent that the Tea Parties were roundly criticized by pundits and even by their own supporters for not taking the deal and getting rid of Ben Lujan. Even I, who am no longer affiliated with any one particular Tea Party, came under strong attack for taking the Tea Parties' side.<br /><br />In response to an article in which I suggested that the State Legislature should change their rules, one of my readers asked a good question. The following is in answer to that question and a discussion of why the Tea Party was right to reject the deal.<br /><br /></div><div align="center"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>-------------------------------------------------------</strong></span></div><div align="left"><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;"></span></strong> </div><div align="left">Regarding my suggestion to change Speaker responsibilities so that the leadership of each party appoints his choices to committees, rather than the Speaker having total control of both party appointees: A reader wondered how that could happen. </div><div align="left"> </div><div align="left">In New Mexico a House rule is changed by a Legislator introducing a bill on the House floor. The bill is read into the record. The Speaker of the House then assigns the bill to one or two committees---sometimes three committees. The committees review the bill and its action is reported to the floor. At this time, the action of the committees may be questioned. If the committees all state "Do Pass," the bill is placed on the House Calendar in the order it was reported to the floor. </div><div align="left"> </div><div align="left">When the bill comes to the floor, House members may accept or reject the actions of the committees by either a majority vote, or 2/3s of the House. (I've not yet found which is required). </div><div align="left"> </div><div align="left">So, it is possible that a House rule affecting the duties of the Speaker can be changed. But given the present make-up of the House---Democrats 36, Republicans 33 and 1 Independent---it is probably that Mr. Lujan would exert considerable pressure to assure he does not lose his power as laid out under the present House Rules. </div><div align="left"> </div><div align="left">The bill could, for instance, be sent to committees that state "Do Not Pass." Or other tactics would squash chances of the bill being voted on by the House. In other words, the Rule would likely not be changed because </div><div align="left">generally Democrats vote in support of Mr. Lujan as a party block.<strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">*</span></strong> </div><div align="left"> </div><div align="left">This is why many have criticized the Tea Parties for refusing to agree with the Republicans to make a deal regarding the recent election of House Speaker. Critics say that the House Rule will not be changed as long as Mr. Lujan is Speaker, and the only hope of getting the Republican Leadership to appoint their own members to committees would have been a deal with Mr. Cervantes who promised to allow Republicans to appoint their own committee members. </div><div align="left"> </div><div align="left">I remain convinced that criticism of the Tea Parties' stand is short-sighted and unjustified. Three essential factors are overlooked in such criticism: (1) the rule would remain in place; (2) the Republicans would be held hostage by means of their supporting Mr. Cervantes---Mr. Cervantes could change his mind at any time; (3) Mr. Lujan could and would overturn any such arrangement simply by annoyance tactics or---more probably---having his party cohorts sandbag Republican efforts inside of committees. Chaos more than usual would result. </div><div align="left"> </div><div align="left">But most important was the reason why the Tea Parties refused the deal. Rather than go for the quick fix, they stood united against Mr. Cervantes on principle. That is far healthier and more constructive in the long run for them and for the Republican Party itself, even if many don't seem to understand that. </div><div align="left"> </div><div align="left">Arguing from principle can change people's minds. One can show an individual that your principles should be supported. But one cannot change anyone's mind if principles are non-existent and crony-government is the modus operandi. To have accepted the deal would have been, in effect, to have approved crony-government. </div><div align="left"> </div><div align="left">There are no favorites in favoritism---save the man holding the leash. And as Ayn Rand wrote, "a leash is merely a piece of rope with a noose on both ends." The Tea Parties were right not to deal. </div><div align="left"> </div><div align="left">Besides, there is a fact that many have overlooked. Mr. Lujan's "victory" was a public bashing. A 33-36 win is a margin hardly something to crow about. That Mr. Lujan felt the blow was evident in his frantic rush to strip one man who opposed him of an important committee chair (plus a couple of other committees, I heard) and to empower another with the chair of an committee that can be used to crush New Mexico's extractive industries. It was an obvious way to "punish" the Republicans---who he knows want to be business-friendly---for daring to stand against him. </div><div align="left"> </div><div align="left">Mr. Lujan's spiteful and malicious conduct is hardly becoming to his position as Speaker of the House. One must wonder whether those in his own party will soon recognize the need to censure him or at least simply to say "No" to him. Whatever the case, it is certain that those in his own party recognize that he is not a noble figure worth emulation but merely a frightened little old man who knows he's treading on increasingly wobbly terrain. They must surely know that at any time, in any case, he could thrown another fit of ire and turn on them for whatever imagined threat he believes they pose. It would be well if they took steps before that happens. </div><div align="left"> </div><div align="left">However the Speaker behaves, it is clear as spring water that it is up to individual Legislators---whatever their party affiliation---to be courageous and resist Mr. Lujan's machinations and/or threats. </div><div align="left"> </div><div align="left">That's where we the electorate come in. We must seek out and vote for those who will be courageous and be their own man and refuse to kow-tow to Mr. Lujan. A Legislature should be a deliberative body with each individual thinking on his own to the best of his ability, unencumbered by threats, bribes or cajolery. </div><div align="left"> </div><div align="left">Republicans have made some strides. We can make more---but only if we choose to be guided by principles, not short-term deals. </div><div align="left"><strong>===###=== </strong> </div><div align="left"><span style="color:#ff0000;"><strong>*FYI:</strong></span> When a political party votes as a block, it is called party politics. Psychologically, it's called tribalism---which identifies a particular kind of mental stagnation wherein instead of thinking for oneself, one "goes with the flow." As a well-known conservative stated: "The only thing that goes with the flow is a dead fish." </div><div align="left"></div>Sylvia Bokorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11689374905250957182noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-229105148153715520.post-44316951971122337002010-12-23T15:47:00.003-07:002010-12-23T15:59:31.348-07:00Shell GameThe following is a slightly edited article I posted to my New Mexico Newsletter in response to actions taken by some shadowy background figure who some people describe as a crook, a corrupt political figure who hates the Tea Party Movement and likes to bully people to do what he wants. Once again I was pleasantly surprised by the quick and plentiful support responding to my writing. ========================================<br /><div align="center"><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">Shell Game</span></strong></div><br /><br />Unless you're completely bored by the posturing of the so-called "influential" you might find it sort of interesting to watch how they squirm in the face of a few facts and of a few people who don't like power plays.<br /><br />I suggest you buy Moriarty's Mountain View Telegraph [a local newspaper on the east side of the mountains from Albuquerque] to follow the shell game surrounding the banning of the East Mountain Tea Party from the Lions Club and Wild Life West. The latest gyrations of this on-going saga is the sort of thing that will surely warm your blood---or give you a laugh---as you wait for that scrumptious ham & turkey Christmas dinner.<br /><br />As I reported yesterday, the editor of the Mountain View Telegraph contacted me regarding my letter to him and my comments on the sudden banning of the East Mountain Tea Party from the use of a couple of facilities. The editor said he was going to write an article about the situation and present the Lions Club and Wild Life West points of view side by side. He invited me to re-submit my letter in response to his article. <br /><br />Since I'm a bit snowed under right now, I asked him to go ahead and print my original letter. I said that I was certain that this situation had generated so much interest in my readers that they would reply to his article and thereby answer for me.<br /><br />Okay.<br /><br />This morning I heard something that caused me to speculate that the heebie-jeebies may have entered the knees of a certain individual, which would explain why it's likely that this same individual is telling his followers to switch gears. They are now contradicting themselves backwards and forwards in order to cover the backside of their---or his---lower anatomy.<br /><br />Here's the latest in this sorry show of wobbly principles and authoritarian shenanigans. The Lions Club and Wild Life West told the Moriarty newspaper that the "reason" for their banning the EMTP from their facilities was that renting to the Tea Party violated their 501(c3) status. [FYI: a 501(c3) refers to the tax status of a non-profit organization.] Hmmm. Now, how come these up-standing followers of government orders did not check that sort of thing at the beginning of the year when they rented to the EMTP without a quiver of concern?<br /><br />I mean it's odd, isn't it? We were originally told the Lions Club and Wild Life West feared what other people would say, that they had been "accused" of being part of the EMTP. Then we were told that donors threatened to withdraw support. Now we're told that their "decision" was motivated by the absolutely incontestable, inarguable concern for abiding by tax regulations.<br /><br />Uh-huh.<br /><br />And both said, and I quote: "It's nothing against the Tea Party."<br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">! </span></strong><br /><br />Initially, I had given both organizations the benefit of a doubt despite their spinelessness in bowing to what I perceived was clearly the dictates of some behind-the-scenes figure calling the shots. I did so because I hold property rights absolute and I would have defended both the Lions Club and Wild Life West's right to rent to whomever they chose. <br /><br />But this switching-the-pea-under-the-shell game of "explanations," this yellow-bellied fear of being "accused" of being part of an organization that seeks freedom and fiscal responsibility, this kow-towing to the dictates of others is about as zombie-like and un-American as one can get. This is not the attitude of Americans who responded to the demand for surrender with, "Nuts!" It is not the sense of life of Americans who say, "Don't Tread On Me." And it most certainly is not the sense of pride and firm dedication to the right and the good of Americans who say, "Give me Liberty or give me death."<br /><br />To such Americans a different chain of actions arises from a different motivation resting quietly within. I speak of those Tea Party workers around the nation who will not rest simply because November 2 was a good step forward. I speak of those Americans who work to place more new leaders on local levels, to develop campaigns to run for school boards and city councils. I speak of patriots who give speeches and write books and articles on the importance of individual rights and the need to de-regulate business, demanding that government cease intruding upon our lives. I speak of patriots---too many to name here---some of whom you will see in Santa Fe on January 18 to celebrate the election of Susana Martinez and Dianna Duran to Governor and Secretary of State, respectively, and to remind our Legislature of some streamlining and de-regulation work to be done. <br /><br /> As one American said, "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead." I agree. So does the East Mountain Tea Party. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.Sylvia Bokorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11689374905250957182noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-229105148153715520.post-5158531307898488452010-12-03T08:48:00.003-07:002010-12-03T08:58:32.347-07:00GOVERNMENT REGULATION IS KILLING BUSINESSThis morning, I received a letter from a businessman who had been strangled by government regulations. As he puts it, "I lost two companies due to the state's regulators and federal regulators misconduct." <br /><br />Fed up, he moved his company to Texas where the climate is business-friendly. Many businessmen have done the same. For instance, Marita Noon Executive Director of CARE, fighting tooth and nail for the right of New Mexicans to develop their natural resources, often writes about the disastrous consequences to our state of our business people moving to Texas because of the EIB. <br /><br />The attacks on our oil men, our miners, our ranchers and farmers, our retailers and wholesalers, our mom and pop stores, our independents and our chains---business people of every kind---add up to thousands. Thousands of regulations and thousands of business people are harassed by government regulations to the point of anger, frustration and emotional drain that cannot be calculated by any measure save stroke or heart attack.<br /><br /> It is not only the new health care law that looms over us like a vulture ready to feast on what's left of us. American businessmen are interfered with by OSHA, by Anti-trust, by the gross receipt tax, by the unemployed labor tax, by the demand for fees, permits, and licenses, and so forth ad infinitum. <br /><br />The multitudinous practices, guidelines and rules of regulatory agencies are little more than legalized extortion. <br /><br />Think of the waste of time and money that government demands of those who are providing us with services and products that make our lives comfortable. Think of the emotional and intellectual drain that are forced upon the minds and souls of those who provide us with values. Values such as getting a hair cut or having your teeth cleaned. Values like going to a movie or eating out or having a pet. Values like computers or having our car serviced or buying clothing for our families without having to spend our time doing such things ourselves. <br /><br />Business people do all that---plus a good deal more. And business people include employers and employees. Remember that. When businesspeople are attached, it means all of us are attacked. <br /><br />I wish to say it is not right, it is not just that the very men and women who work to make a profit by providing us with so many good things, that raise our standard of living and provide us with jobs are saddled with regulations that demand an unproductive use of their time. They are forced to do paperwork because of regulations. They are forced to wade through reams of pages of bureaucraeze trying to understand those regulations.<br /><br />Such a waste of time and money decreases profits, which means decreased savings, which means reduced business expansion, which means a decreased number of raises that can be given and the number of jobs that can be created. <br /><br />I wish to say that we must demand that regulations be repealed, that regulatory agencies be closed, and that those bureaucrats being paid a salary that businesspeople provide, be terminated. <br /><br />If you want to know what the January 18 rally is all about, <strong><em>this</em></strong>* is what it's all about. <br /><br />I encourage you to send this e-mail to every individual you know: business associate, customer, stay-at-home parent, senior retiree, student, friend and neighbor. Let us ask every New Mexican in the state to join us. Rent a bus or borrow one, car pool, ask your local community club to pitch in and join you and rent a van. Get to Santa Fe and bring the New Mexican population with you. <br /><br />Christmas is right around the corner. We are all very busy. We want to be joyous and free. But I say to you that the most joyous thing, the most liberating and freest thing we can work for is to make Christmas 2011 the Christmas we celebrated knowing that 50% of our regulations are repealed, their agencies closed and those working in them let go.<br /><br />* FYI: A group of New Mexicans are organizing a massive rally for January 18, the first day of the 2011 Legislative Session. We are calling it We The People. It will be held in Santa Fe, New Mexico from 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM on the Capitol Steps. I am writing a "Decree," modeled on the Declaration of Independence that will call for limited government, fiscal responsibility, de-regulation, free-markets and restoration of individual rights. <br /><br />But this call for de-regulationn of businessmen need not be confined to New Mexico. I encourage Americans who care about American ideals of individual rights, limited government and free markets to call on both the federal governement and their state government to begin to de-regulate.Sylvia Bokorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11689374905250957182noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-229105148153715520.post-54908090294182350562010-11-14T15:45:00.003-07:002010-11-14T15:51:17.476-07:00Tweets Posted Last Week<strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">Nov 8, 2010:</span></strong><br />Understanding what capitalism is: “Capitalism is a social system in which all property is privately owned.”<br /><br />At present we have a “mixed-economy,” meaning some freedoms and many regulations. <br /><br />Capitalism is founded upon the moral principle of individual rights. Regulations violate rights by imposing limitations upon freedoms. <br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">Nov 9, 2010:</span></strong><br />Capitalism is a process of voluntary trade. It requires men be free to choose, set goals and decide how they want to achieve those goals.<br /><br />Capitalism means those with capital are free to voluntarily take risks and make a profit or not.<br /><br />Capitalism means that investors & businesses are not to be bailed out if they fail. Capitalism requires individual responsibility<br /><br />Capitalism means those who seek loans take responsibility for re-paying them & that lenders are not forced to make loans they deem risky.<br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">Nov 10, 2010:<br /></span></strong>Capitalism means that men have the right to save their money & will not be forced to support those they do not choose to support. <br /><br />Capitalism means that those who choose to help the indigent will not be stopped.<br /><br />Capitalism means that those who offer a product consumers want won't be penalized as some companies presently are---e.g., Microsoft. <br /><br />Capitalism means that Americans will not be forced to subsidize a product consumers don't---for example, modern art. <br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">Nov 11, 2010:</span></strong><br />Capitalism means that those who want to farm their land are free to do so but may not force others to support them---i.e. gov't subsidies. <br /> <br />Capitalism means those who want a good education are free to seek one but may not force others to pay for it.<br /> <br />Capitalism means that those who want a house are free to build or buy one but may not force others to pay for it. <br /><br />Capitalism means individualism. Individualism means a military dedicated to freedom---in intellect & physical courage. Thank you, American military.<br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">Nov 12, 2010</span></strong>:<br />Capitalism means that those who want a job are free to create or apply for one but may not force others to provide one. <br /><br />Capitalism means that one requests a raise in salary but mat not force an employer to give it, or vote themselves one, e.g. gov't officials. <br /><br />Capitalism means that those who want to form a union may do so but may not force a company to accept it or an employee to join it. <br /><br /><strong><span style="color:#cc0000;">Nov 13, 2010:</span></strong><br />Capitalism means that those who want to build a library for a community are free to do so but may not force others to support it.<br /><br />Capitalism means that disputes be settled in courts of objective law and that lawmen & judges be held accountable for their actions.<br /> <br />Capitalism means that the initiation of force is prohibited and those who initiate it are punished---including gov't officials.Sylvia Bokorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11689374905250957182noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-229105148153715520.post-18626774322792001402010-11-01T10:34:00.003-06:002010-11-01T10:41:29.375-06:00Raise Money by Cutting GovernmentOn Sunday night, October 31, CBS 60 minutes reported, "David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's budget director who once preached tax cuts, is now in favor of putting a one-time surtax on the rich."<br /><br />Mr. Stockman said more. He remarked "both the Democrats and the Republicans were lying to the American people regarding the need to lower taxes."<br /><br />He said that it would be the worse thing to do at this time because of the trillion+ dollar debt. He listed Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, food stamps and other welfare programs that had to be taken care of. <br /><br />At the same time, on the same program small businessmen in Newton, Iowa were interviewed, their story sympathetically reported. The story reported a truly devastating situation in a town (population 14,000) that had once been a busy and important supplier to other businesses. Now it is being destroyed by Obama's socialist policies.<br /><br />Clearly Mr. Obama and Mr. Stockman have something in common. They both are in favor of "soaking the rich"---the one sphere where savings and investments could re-establish loans and free-markets. One has to wonder at this alliance. Both Obama and Stockman clearly believe that money can be magically generated in American pockets ad infinitum to pay for risky mortgage loans, irresponsible bailouts, propping up government agencies and failed business, such as AIG, another child of government intervention in the economy.<br /><br />What neither mentions is that there is a very good way to raise money and not raise taxes. But no government official and/or employee---ex-or otherwise---ever mention the obvious.<br /><br />Yes, things are in shambles---thanks to government intervention in our economy. But there is nothing realistic about raising taxes on anyone---the rich included.<br /><br />Consider the following. <br /><br />1. Literally hundreds of regulatory agencies and commissions employ thousands of workers. American taxpayers pay their salaries. Discontinue their employment and stop a sink-hole of wasteful spending.<br /><br />2. There are at present over 2 million government workers. American taxpayers pay their salaries. Discontinue their employment. Another dollar drain stopped.<br /><br />3. Elected officials are given on average $164,000 per year for the highly questionable "work" they do. Multiply that average by 535. American taxpayers pay for that. Cut elected officials pay 75%. Get rid of the jets and the helicopters and the free meals and travel expenses. More money saved.<br /><br />4. The cost of maintaining government buildings in D.C. alone comes to staggering millions of dollars. American taxpayers pay for that. By shutting down government agencies and discontinuing the employment of federal workers, those buildings can be rented out or sold to private enterprise. This would save more millions of dollars.<br /><br />5. The government claims that it owns millions of acres of our nation's land. Sell the land to private individuals. Use the money to pay the bills the government has incurred.<br /><br />Why is it that the American taxpayers are forever forced to pay for government fiascoes? Why is it that government officials never think of cutting their own salaries and expenses but expect American taxpayers to tighten their belts instead?<br /><br />Time to set out priorities properly. Get rid of big government and save a trillion dollars or so of irresponsible, useless, wasteful and damaging spending.Sylvia Bokorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11689374905250957182noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-229105148153715520.post-56053335237270326662010-10-31T10:30:00.004-06:002010-10-31T11:06:03.465-06:00Ideas Have ConsequencesRon Radosh wrote in PJM an article entitled "The Disappearance of The Emerging Democratic Majority." For that article, access<br />http://pajamasmedia.com/ronradosh/2010/10/29/the-disappearance-of-the-the-emerging-democratic-majority-the-failure-of-a-thesis/<br /><br />Having outlined a number of facts that show the falseness of the view that America now constitutes a Democratic majority and that the GOP has been obliterated, Mr. Radosh's concludes his article amusingly.<br /><br />But his article is worth noting for another, deeper reason. It is typical of many commentators' assessment of today's political situation in that it fails to explain the fundamental ideas that are shifting Americans toward the GOP. Instead it dwells on present economic conditions to explain Americans' disenchantment with the Democrat's socialist policies and programs---best exemplified by the ill-conceived and atrociously unconstitutional new health care law.<br /><br />While Mr. Radosh refers to things that are prompting Americans to turn toward the GOP, the absence of a discussion of the fundamental ideas behind those things is unfortunate. Those ideas need to be stated because without grasping them explicitly they can become lost in superficialities.<br /><br />Two such ideas are best summed up in Joe the plumber's slogan: "Distribute my work ethic, not my wealth."<br /><br />Americans have come to realize that it is wrong---morally wrong---for the government to forcibly take the earnings from those who produce values (products and services) and give that money to those who have produced nothing, or are financially irresponsible.<br /><br />An example is the destructive consequences of Barney Frank's Affordable Housing. In conjunction with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, it caused our economic slump. It forced banks to provide risky loans to those who could not afford such a loan. The money American producers were forced to hand over caused them to sink into debt, while those who were handed the money are now being excused from their mortgage responsibilities.<br /><br />That entire fiasco showed that you cannot create a healthy work ethic by forcing men to give handouts. It is wrong to insist man live for the group, the collective, other men---in short, for the state.<br /><br />Another idea contained in Joe's slogan is the recognition that wealth is created by working and thinking. A work ethic refers to a certain code of values that guide those who choose to work to earn their way.<br /><br />Understanding this idea is also fueling the shift toward the Republicans. In seeing their jobs disappear, Americans realize that those who are scrambling to start fresh and create a new career are the thinking backbone of our workforce. Not only do they exert the effort to create wealth. They also accept the responsibility of thought, which creates new businesses and new jobs. They recognize, at least implicitly, that thinking is necessary in order to live. They are the self-starters. They are the spiritual brothers of the frontiersmen and 19th century producers who built this country. It was not built by welfare recipients.<br /><br />Such are the two ideas that Americans have come to recognize:<br />1. it is wrong to force the earner to give his money to others; <br />2. a propersous economy depends on free men thinking of new ways to earn money.<br /><br />Both ideas are essential to a free capitalist society. <br /><br />We need to make certain the GOP leadership recognizes these ideas---and applies them. We must demand that they repeal the new health care law, lower taxes, begin phasing out the welfare state and begin to de-regulate. These are some of the practical applications of these two ideas. Some of the consequences will be prosperity, more freedom and less government.Sylvia Bokorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11689374905250957182noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-229105148153715520.post-50479809216332216352010-10-18T15:13:00.004-06:002010-10-19T05:01:37.635-06:00Government and Moral ValuesI recommend that one read Selywn Duke's entire article, "Yes, Folks, We All Would Legislate Morality (Psst, Even You Libertarians)" dated October 17, 2010, which can be found at <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/yes_folks_we_all_would_legisla.html">http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/yes_folks_we_all_would_legisla.html</a><br /><br />My comments run too long to be posted to the site where it appeared. For this reason, I have chosen to comment here on my blogspot.<br /><br />From that article, I have excerpted the statements that I answer.<br />-------------------------------------------------------------<br />To begin with, Mr. Duke's title is ambiguous. Is he claiming that government should impose moral values? Or that government imposes some moral values in the act of passing some laws? If the former, one cannot agree. If the latter, such a statement immediately raises the questions: what moral values are being referred to? Are they in keeping with man's life or opposed to it? Mr. Duke does not say.<br /><br />He wrote: ". . . for a law to be just, it must have a basis in morality."<br /><br /><span style="color:#cc0000;"><strong>COMMENT:</strong></span> The problem here is that Mr. Duke does not clarify what he means by morality or what moral values he is referring to. One assumes that he means the morality of altruism, which is the moral doctrine most in vogue these days, accepted by virtually all religions and other types of groups.<br /><br />At issue is the kind of values lawmakers accept and hold and which guide their choices in making law.<br /><br />So, if Mr. Duke is referring to the altruist morality, then most laws are unjust since they ignore the moral principle of individual rights. To make a true statement, therefore, one must say, "For a law to be just, it must have a basis in objective morality."<br /><br />"[Morality] is a code of values to guide man's choices and actions---the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life." (Ayn Rand, "The Objectivist Ethics")<br /><br />Mr. Duke writes: "... a law states that there is something you must or must not do, ostensibly because the action is a moral imperative, is morally wrong, or is a corollary thereof [emphasis added].<br /><br /><span style="color:#cc0000;"><strong>COMMENT:</strong></span> Again, this is ambiguous. Does Mr. Duke mean that it is morally wrong for a law to state you must or must not do something? Or is he saying that a law that commands an action is a moral imperative?<br /><br />It is true that those who make laws do claim such laws are "right." For instance, the belief that you are your brother's keeper is considered by some to be a moral value. Such a moral value is the basis of all welfare state laws. Such a value made into law claims it is "right" to take from earners and give their earnings to non-earners, and "wrong" not to do so. Not to fulfill your brother's need is therefore considered morally "wrong." All welfare statists base their laws on the claim that it is "right" to take from the producer and give to the non-producer.<br /><br />Alluding to his statement quoted above, Mr. Duke writes: "If this is not the case, with what credibility do you legislate in the given area? After all, why prohibit something if it doesn't prevent some wrong? Why force citizens to do something if it doesn't effect some good?"<br /><br /><span style="color:#cc0000;"><strong>COMMENT:</strong></span> Government officials surely do seek credibility by claiming that government care from diapers to dentures is "good." They did claim that Prohibition would prevent alcohol abuse, drunken violence and family neglect. In fact, it heightened criminality and encouraged gang warfare in daylight, and increased drinking.<br /><br />The Crusaders deemed it "good" to kill infidels. The Puritans deemed it "good" to burn witches. The Soviets deemed it "good" to impoverish producers. The Taliban deems it "good" to kill Christians. The Palestinians deems it "good" to kill Jews.<br /><br />The problem is that Mr. Duke does not question whether the legislation government enacts is objectively right---i. e., in keeping with reason, man's means of survival. He simply accepts that when government passes a law, claiming it's "for the common good," it therefore surely will "effect some good."<br /><br />But that something is held as a moral value by someone, does not make it objectively morally right. In the same way and for the same reason, a reliance on some amorphous "Absolute Truth" does not make something true.<br /><br />Mr. Duke correctly recognizes that "to prevent some wrong" such legislation based on non-objective values becomes non-objective law and therefore necessitates force. Ayn Rand discusses this in "Faith and Force: the Destroyers of the Modern World," which curiously Mr. Duke does not refer to, although he claims knowledge of Miss Rand's words to the point of "quoting" her sentences I've never heard of or read anywhere else. One must wonder did he make them up?<br /><br />If one holds the view that man is a volitional being whose rights are natural---i.e., acquired by the fact that he exists as a man, and that his nature as a volitional being requires that he must use his reason in order to survive---then laws based on that view would shun the initiation of force, precluding the welfare state entirely.<br /><br />Laws would not be passed that forced others to live by legislators' values. Laws would not be passed that morally obligated one to help others against one's own better judgement---a thing altruism demands---which includes bailouts of failed companies and government created institutions such as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and rushing to the aid of every disaster around the globe with taxpayer money at the ready, but curiously unable to maintain and repair the infrastructure across our own nation.<br /><br />Mr. Duke writes: ". . . we couldn't credibly prohibit force, protect property rights, or prevent harm in the first place unless unjustly using the first, violating the second, or causing the third wasn't "wrong." Ergo, morality.<br /><br /><span style="color:#cc0000;"><strong>COMMENT:</strong></span> Mr. Duke fails to recognize the context of proper law: to protect the moral principle of individual rights. Law based on a proper moral code prohibits the initiation of force. The use of police force in the protection of property, for instance, is proper because it is retaliatory. Those who <em>initiate</em> force against others violating their rights, forfeit their own rights. Therefore, the use of police retaliatory force against them is morally right.<br /><br />There should be no objection to the use of police force retaliating against violators of rights. There is mighty objection to the use of government force against non-violators of rights, which altruism in the guise of the welfare state daily initiates.<br /><br />Mr. Duke writes: "Another argument I heard was that not all law reflects morality; the example given was law mandating that we drive on the right side of the road. Yet this is where the "corollary thereof" part comes in. Without such a law, more people will be harmed in accidents, and we believe it's "wrong" to allow people to get harmed.<br /><br /><span style="color:#cc0000;"><strong>COMMENT</strong></span>: Such issues as which side of the road one drives on---including other traffic regulations---are fundamentally procedural issues, not moral issues. While the consequences of not following them can cause harm, the event of harm is not the source of morality. It is questionable journalism to introduce such procedural matters into an article on morality and the law.<br /><br />Mr. Duke's argument then devolves into the tiresome equivocation of preferences in ice cream to moral values as if this puerile parallel had originated with him and as if it proved Objectivism and its author are "moral relativists." But in a serious discussion of morality and the law, it is important to recognize that individual men hold personal values as well as fundamental moral values and that these are not the same in the face of ultimate alternatives.<br /><br />Philosophically, "moral relativism" refers to a subjectivist view of morality, which finds its origin epistemologically in holding the primacy of consciousness. To accuse Miss Rand of moral relativism shows a dreadfully vast ignorance of Miss Rand's philosophy.<br /><br />Mr. Duke writes: ". . . Insofar as our government does legislate . . . it must impose morals, not just "values" (which can be positive or negative).<br /><br /><span style="color:#cc0000;"><strong>COMMENT:</strong></span> Another ambiguous statement. Does Mr. Duke means that any legislation by its nature is applied moral values? Or does he mean that the government should make laws that identify, choose, direct, and control moral choices?<br /><br />A proper government has only three functions. And it does not involve itself in welfare programs. It is concerned only with the function of protecting and defending individual rights. If any legislation violates individual rights---such as a welfare program---then it is an immoral law and should not be imposed upon citizens.<br /><br />He writes: For it is only when government imposes morals residing within its legitimate domain that laws are just; when it imposes merely values, they may be unjust.<br /><br /><span style="color:#cc0000;"><strong>COMMENT:</strong></span> Mr. Duke does not specify what he holds is government's "legitimate domain." So there is no way to know whether such laws he refers to are just.<br /><br />However, if you know that the only legitimate domain of government is the protection and defense of individual rights, then you know that any law that upholds that moral principle is just. If you know that today's government hardly recognizes the existence of individual rights, you know that today most legislation is unjust.<br /><br />It is quite true that if the government imposes "merely values" it will be unjust---no maybe about it. There can be no right to violate rights. Forcing men to buy health insurance, for instance, is imposing values. Such a law is unjust.<br /><br />That said, I am puzzled by Mr. Duke's ignorance of or perhaps contempt for individual rights. It is this that makes his views suspect. His unspecified "laws" and undefined usage regarding the relationship between morality and the law indicates that he believes government should impose moral values. Such a view must lead logically to tyranny, despite his protest that he is "a man who proposed the Defense against Tyranny Amendment."<br /><br />Government's insertion of moral values---beyond the protection of the moral principle of individual rights---has resulted in the creeping socialism that started at the end of the 19th century when government demanded that earners must financially support those who had not earned their way. It was, it was said, the "right" thing to do. This view took more rabid form in the 1930s when, in addition, government withdrew part of men's paychecks to "secure" their future. It was, it was said, the "right" thing to do. Then government proceeded to loot that alleged security.<br /><br />From the 1940s to the 1990s, the ballooning welfare state in this country and around the world showed the extent to which government's imposition of moral values perverted education and bankrupted producers. Anti-Trust, it was said, was the "right" thing to do---although it is one of the most unjust of our laws. It strangles businessmen and lowers the standard of living across the board. Affirmative Action, it was said, was the "right" thing to do---although it hindered the group it was suppose to help and lowered the standard of professional and academic excellence. Medicare, it was said, was the "right" thing to do---although it is bankrupting families and all levels of government, and wasting the time of skilled medical personnel forcing them to care for malingerers while true emergency cases wait with little hope.<br /><br />Today, the new health care law, it is said, is the "right" thing to do. But Americans have awaken to the fact that government imposed morality is the wrong thing to do. When you tell men what they must value, you are telling them how they must live. And that is tyranny. The original Tea Parties patriots knew it. Americans today know it, too.<br /><br />Mr. Duke wrote: ". . . first and foremost, understanding what morality actually is.<br /><br /><span style="color:#cc0000;"><strong>COMMENT:</strong></span> I agree that "first and foremost, [we must understand] what morality actually is." But to understand what morality is, one must understand the standard of value of the good. One must grasp the volitional nature of man and his means of survival. One must understand the role that reason and freedom play in one's life, in production, in capitalism. Not to understand that is to be where we are today.<br /><br />To demand that people value what government officials declare they should is the harbinger of statism in government and the Middle Ages in culture. During the Middle Ages both state and church oppressed men relegating them to thousand years of poverty, disease and ignorance. Today, the danger is that the state and church will once again struggle for authority resulting in a similar consequence.<br /><br />If we allow this blending of church and state, together they will bring about another Middle Ages. This will happen, however, only if people accept the notion that morality should be imposed by government. The Inquisition tried it. So did Hitler and Stalin. They all "accomplished" only slaughter. One must conclude that that is the goal of every such advocacy.<br /><br />Mr. Duke ends his article by stating, "So people who want [Ayn] Rand can have her. I'll side with George, James, and the rest of those Taliban, neocon socialists of dead-white-male fame."<br /><br /><span style="color:#cc0000;"><strong>COMMENT:</strong></span> I definitely will take the philosophy of Ayn Rand. As many Americans are discovering, her ideas must be implemented if we are to restore individual rights and prosper.<br /><br />Mr. Duke has made it clear where he stands.Sylvia Bokorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11689374905250957182noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-229105148153715520.post-30007722980917862552010-10-02T07:36:00.003-06:002010-10-02T07:42:40.028-06:00Tweets on TwitterHere are some Tweets I posted this past week:<br /><br /><strong>Posted 9-27-10</strong><br />To establish capitalism, man's need to be free, & therefore prosperous, must be recognized. <br /><br />We should demand de-regulation of our economy. We should declare the new health care law unconstitutional.<br /><br />We should begin to phase out some of the most strangulating regulations, such as the Anti-Trust Laws. <br /><br />We should begin to dismantle the welfare state. We should restore individual rights, limited government and free markets.<br /><br /><strong>Posted 9-28-10</strong><br />Gov't does not create values. Only free minds working voluntarily create values---such as food, shelter, clothing, transportation. <br /><br />Gov't does not create jobs. Offering values, private individuals create jobs, which they offer to other men.<br /><br />Big gov't stifles innovation, strangles free competition, invites corruption and wastes money. <br /><br />The present number of gov't employees is about two million individuals. Their salaries range from $50,000 to $150,000 per annum.<br /><br />2 million times an average of one hundred thousand dollars = $20,000,000,000,000 per annum that taxpayers pay for.<br /><br /><strong>Posted 9-29-10</strong><br />To restore individual rights and implement capitalism, we should start to de-regulate the economy. <br /><br />We should de-regulate transportation, returning buses, subways and trains to private enterprise from which they were confiscated. <br /><br />We should start to de-regulate the banks, savings and retirement accounts. Get the gov't out of our pocketbooks.<br /><br /><strong>Posted 9-30-10</strong><br />To restore individual rights and implement capitalism, we should get gov't out of education and gov't control of textbooks. <br /><br />We should start to phase out gov't regulation of agriculture, trucking, shipping, the importing and exporting of goods. <br /><br />We should start to de-regulate real estate, mortgages, land, business and residential development. Close Fannie and Freddie Mae.<br /><br />De-regulate communications including radio, TV, telephone and telegraph.<br /><br /><strong>Posted 10-1-10</strong><br />Gov't employees number about 2 million. Average salary is $75,000 per year, which sums to $150,000,000,000, which taxpayers pay.<br /><br />Terminate all the jobs held by those individuals presently in the agenices that regulate the economy.<br /><br />Sell or rent to private enterprises the buildings that presently house the regulatory agencies. <br /><br />The money saved and the revenue gained should be used to off-set and lower income taxes on all Americans.<br /><br /><strong>Posted 10-2-10</strong><br />Spending earnings increases trade; saving earnings expands production. Both actions raise the standard of living.<br /><br />Gov't salaries don't raise living standards. Elected officials salaries exceed taxpayers', whose taxes pay gov't salaries.<br /><br />Reps and Senators number 535. Salaries range from $160K to $237K. Average is $198,500 times 535 = $106,197,500 per annum taxpayers pay.Sylvia Bokorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11689374905250957182noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-229105148153715520.post-82512959641026332742010-09-28T11:24:00.002-06:002010-09-28T11:30:29.944-06:00The Enormous Cost of Big GovernmentWe have some 2 million plus government employees at present. They are only the tip of the statist flames consuming our republic. I plan to post more information on the salaries and size of scores of regulatory agencies, department heads, elected officials and appointees and the extraordinary expensiveness of maintaining the White House, its building, grounds and kitchen staff.<br /><br />Those figures will NOT include millions spent on Ms. Pelosi's personal jet and its fuel, nor the countless perks she deems herself "entitled" to. Nor will it include mention of the <strong>TWENTY</strong> attendants that make up part of Mrs. Obama's personal entrourage and costs the taxpayers in the neighborhood of $2 million.<br /><br />All that feeding at the taxpayer's expense, while the government wants to increase taxes on our businesses, small and large, introduce a "transaction tax" on all bank dealings, loot our retirement funds and force us to buy things we do not want. <br /><br />However, I've not written that report yet because I've been a bit busy with political activism; so, I print below an e-mail I received this morning, Tuesday, September 28, 2010.<br /><br />FYI: I have already voted for cutting spending by acessing <a href="http://republicanwhip.house.gov/YouCut/">http://republicanwhip.house.gov/YouCut/</a> <br /><br />If any of you also are interested in voting I would appreciate your comments here or on Facebook to let me know what you think. Thanks. Here's the e-mail from YouCut.<br /><br />-----------------------------------------------------------------------<br />The policies put forward by President Obama and Speaker Pelosi over the last 20 months have caused the size and reach of the government to grow exponentially.<br /><br />Since President Obama took office, the Federal civilian workforce has grown by approximately 188,000 new employees (this number even excludes temporary census workers) or about 15 percent. Meanwhile, the private sector has lost millions of jobs and the unemployment rate hovers around 10 percent.<br /><br />This week's winning YouCut item, supported by Rep. Lummis of Wyoming, would save the taxpayers $35 billion over the next ten years by reining in the growth of the federal workforce.<br /><br />We need to cut spending immediately and we need to end the uncertainty that has paralyzed our nation's economy. Click [ <a href="http://republicanwhip.house.gov/YouCut/">http://republicanwhip.house.gov/YouCut/</a> ] to vote on the next five YouCut projects and we will bring the winning item to the floor for a vote.<br /><br />Regards,<br /> Eric Cantor<br />House Republican WhipSylvia Bokorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11689374905250957182noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-229105148153715520.post-16692559622625301322010-08-25T11:56:00.007-06:002010-08-26T08:30:39.654-06:00A Tale of Two PartiesFollowing is an Op-Ed I submitted to <em>The Albuquerque Journal</em>. It was rejected; so, I posted it to an on-line discussion group and to an activist group. I now post it here for the same reason that it was worth writing: it is a story that illustrates a particular modus operandi that is becoming characteristic of a group of individuals for which such a characteristic should be anathema.<br /><br />When you encounter in your friends an indifference to your personal values, you can be sure such individuals are not your friends. When you perceive that the values your firiends claimed they shared with you are merely mouthings, you can be sure you are better off without them. Such dissembling will in time devolve into a serious threat to your well-being. It is better you call their bluff and go your separate ways.<br /><br />What happened during a particular "Meet the Candidates Forum" in New Mexico revealed an instance of a smilar kind.<br /><br />My Op-ed is meant to call a bluff.<br /><br /><div align="center"><span style="color:#cc0000;"><strong>==================================== </strong><br /></span></div><div align="center"><strong></strong></div><div align="center"><strong>A Tale of Two Parties</strong> </div><br />On August 15 the East Mountain Tea Party held a "Meet the State Candidates" Forum at the Moriarty (New Mexico) Lion's Club. Democrats and Republicans alike were invited.<br /><br /><strong>Democrat Invitees:</strong> For Governor (Denish) and Lt. Governor (Colón) candidates, the Colón office responded that someone from Colón's office would represent both candidates. Secretary of State Mary Herrera early in August confirmed she would come. State Auditor Hector Balderas said he would get back to the EMTP, and yet subsequently did not respond to several emails and phone calls. State Treasurer James B. Lewis said he would try to come personally, if not, would send a representative. Attorney General Gary King called said he definitely would have someone from his office at the event. State Commissioner of Public Lands Ray Powell said he was unable to attend.<br /><br /><strong>Republicans Invitees:</strong> For Governor (Martinez) and Lt. Governor (Sanchez) respectively, Mr. Sanchez confirmed he would come and would represent both candidates. For Secretary of State Dianna Duran confirmed to come. For State Auditor Errol Chavez confirmed to come. For State Treasurer Jim Schoonover confirmed to send someone from his office. For Attorney General Matt Chandler said he would send someone from his office. For State Commissioner of Public Lands Matt Rush confirmed to come.<br /><br />Therese Cooper, co-founder of the East Mountain Tea Party (with Char Tierney) was to act as a moderator to introduce the candidates. Dr. Rick Morlen, President of the Board of the Albuquerque Tea Party, agreed to moderate the question and answer session.<br /><br />Everything seemed A-Okay. Everyone was excited. The unusual forum featuring both Republicans and Democrats promised to be an interesting and orderly exchange of views. The prospect electrified voters.<br /><br />But something happened, the cause of which can only be guessed at.<br /><br />Two days before the event Mary Herrera's office called to say she could not come and that they would get back to the EMTP. A similar call regarding Denish and Colón came from the Colón campaign---again, two days before the event. Neither office contacted the EMTP again.<br /><br />When the time for the Forum arrived, not a single Democrat candidate nor his representative appeared. All Republicans, except two, came as promised. Matt Chandler's representative e-mailed the EMTP to explain his failure to appear. The next day he telephoned, apologizing further. Errol Chavez sent word that his doctor recommended he rest and that he would not be able to attend.<br /><br />But from the Democrats, candidates and representatives alike: silence.<br /><br />Nonetheless, the forum went forward on schedule. Three questions were asked of every candidate. Each was given five minutes to answer. At the end of the round, the audience was given opportunity to ask questions. Each candidate was given two minutes to answer.<br /><br />One hundred and seventeen New Mexicans filled the room, eager to discover what each candidate had to say for himself. They heard what the Republicans had to say. But what happened to the Democrats? Why did all they all bow out?<br /><br />Did the Democrat Party leadership tell Democrats not to appear? Was there an agreement among the Democrat candidates to sandbag the Tea Party forum? Was it the hubris of the incumbent dismissing his challenger? Or was there a deliberate effort to side step what they feared might be questions that put them on the spot?<br /><br />Yet each question would have been asked of both party candidates. That was the purpose of the forum: to compare answers to questions, such as: "Corruption has become widespread on both federal and state level. Tell us your plans to put an end to this national and state scandal and to protect the citizens of NM from further corruption."<br /><br />The inarguable fact is that the Democrats left the public in the dark about their motives for quitting the forum---and about their views. Does this indicate that Democrats generally cannot be trusted to keep their word? Does it suggest that Democrats do not like being pinned down to what they really think? Is it possible that the Democrats were frightened of their Republican opponents as has been widely discussed?<br /><br />Whatever the case, at the most charitable it was discourteous behavior. The Democrat invitees showed poor judgement in accepting the invitation and/or promising representatives in their stead, then all---politician and representative alike---failing to appear without a word to the East Mountain Tea Party organizers, their Republican colleagues, or the electorate.<br /><br />Someone remarked, "It is hard to vote for someone when they don't show up to their job interview." One might consider such things when deciding whom to vote for come November.<br /><br />(FYI: A list of the questions asked the candidates can be read at www.eastmtteaparty.com)Sylvia Bokorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11689374905250957182noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-229105148153715520.post-43679713585215204122010-07-28T11:39:00.004-06:002010-07-28T12:17:06.908-06:00Prohibition RevisitedSurvivalists, or "Preppers" as they sometimes call themselves, see a bleak future. They could be right…or not. It depends on which road we take: acquiescence or resistance.<br /><br />Prohibition made it illegal for Americans to buy alcohol. It did not stop them from drinking. It increased it. Going to a speakeasy was groovy, as collegians -- even high school students -- sought new adventures. Others started to drink in sheer defiance of the heavy handedness of the federal enforcement of the 18th Amendment.<br /><br />Prohibition interfered with individuals' choices. So does the healthcare law. ObamaCare interferes with the relationship between doctor and patient. The new law will not stop suffering. It will increase it. The Affordable Health Care Act (Public Law No. 111-148) forces doctors to give free examinations and preventive treatment. In some cities, doctors are currently paid as little as $8.00 a visit. That fee can be expected to decline further under the new law. The number of doctors taking Medicare/Medicaid patients has dropped from over 70% to approximately 50% in 2009.<br /><br />This percentage is expected to continue to sink farther, as doctors withdraw or refuse to take part. One hopes so. They have formed a Tea Party and are advocating the repeal of the healthcare law. Most doctors know that capitalism would fairly reward the highly skilled. Welfare states on the premise that the able are obligated to care for the malingerer, do not.<br /><br />Prohibition increased criminal activity. So will the healthcare law. As the number of doctors decline and the safety of medical practices is sabotaged by corruption and fraud, criminal activity in black markets will erupt. The unscrupulous will offer shoddy, possibly even deadly medications, preying upon those tired of waiting in long lines.<br /><br />Those denied access to medical care will surely face extortionists. Donald Berwick, arch-socialist, has been nominated to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. He admires Great Britain's health care system. He supports massive government rationing. Those who accede to politician/bureaucrats' demands will get treatment. Those who don't, won't.<br /><br />Mr. Berwick also supports a massive health care bureaucracy to redistribute the wealth. The wealth he will loot will pass into non-productive hands and unprofitable schemes, disappearing down black holes of spending instead of investment. Mr. Berwick's nullification of individuals' choices guarantees that the productive will vanish.<br /><br />The healthcare law also usurps State sovereignty. It has been widely reported that 21 states have filed lawsuits on the grounds of the unconstitutionality of the healthcare law, that 10 more are planning to, and that 41 states are banning key aspects of it. The infringement on state sovereignty as much as the unaffordable cost prompted Florida, for instance, to act. The Complaint, filed in the US District Court Northern District of Florida, shows that the law will add another 1 million enrollees to Florida's already bloated 2.7 million Medicare/Medicaid recipients. The healthcare cost for Florida will be around $6,700 per person. New Mexico will have to shoulder an estimated 91,000 new enrollees at $7,074 per person.<br /><br />Nationally, the new health care law will add $562 billion to the deficit over the next ten years. Since the costs of implementing and creating state bureaucracies to run the healthcare program are not included in healthcare estimates, the actual deficit is expected to be close to $1 trillion. Former New Mexico Congresswoman Heather Wilson rhetorically asked in an e-mail to several acquaintances, including this author, "Where is that money coming from?"<br /><br />Productive citizens in the private sector are the government's only source of real revenue. To illustrate one way of squeezing that source, a business associate related the following: "A friend was medi-vac'd from St. Vincent's to Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. Her bill there was $106,000. The hospital accepted the Medicare reimbursement as payment in full. That reimbursement was $5,000. The $101,000 then [went] to G & A as overhead to be passed on to other patients with health insurance, [who] will pay higher rates for service."<br /><br />The new healthcare law mandates even lower hospital reimbursements.<br /><br />Prohibition sought to force individuals not to buy a product an individual wanted. The healthcare law seeks to force individuals to buy a product an individual may not want. Both laws violate the individual rights to life and property. Advertisers entreat you to buy a product, or shun a competitor's, but they cannot force you to do so. A government can. It points a gun---i.e. prison and/or a fine if you do not obey---at your head to force you to take actions you do not choose. Since life is a process of making choices and taking actions to sustain your life, such laws violate your right to life by placing politicians' values between your choices and your actions. In the same way, they violate your right to property by forcing you to spend your money (your property) as they dictate.<br /><br />The violation of individual rights is not only a violation of one's political freedom. It is more fundamentally a violation of one's moral values. The violation of one's right to life, for instance, is the attempt to cancel one's reason. Since every man must think in order to live, thinking is a matter of sustaining one's life, and thus it is right to use one's own mind to do one's job and earn one's way. Hence, reason is a moral value. When, however, the government violates your right to life, it violates the function of that moral value. It says, in effect, the government will tell you what to do, you must forgo following your own thinking and choice.<br /><br />The violation of individual rights also violates one's moral virtues. It is no secret that after more than a generation of the welfare state, those bought up in it have a moocher mentality and a malingerer's approach to self-supporting work. Such attitudes show that the virtue of productivity has been destroyed and that the virtue of pride and the virtue of independence<br />---the choice to think for oneself---have been obliterated. The individual who held a sign in Arizona protesting that state's immigration law is an example of what violating moral virtues lead to. Her sign read: "We want free food; free housing. You owe us, America."<br /><br />"They can put me in jail and fine me. I will not comply with that law," Dr. Andrew Bernstein, author of <em>Capitalism Unbound</em>, stated on his Facebook wall. Others have come to the same conclusion. What will happen when a large number of otherwise law-abiding, hard working, tax-paying Americans elect to go to jail rather than comply? Who---or what---is the government going to loot next? Bank and retirement accounts. It has already begun. A proposal is being readied to take over retirement accounts. The productive are the competent. Without the competent to maintain them, electrical grids will break down. Illumination, cooking, heating, cooling, security systems, stock trading, banking, computers controlling myriad operations of all forms of communications, transportation, water supply and fuel pumps, will not function. Food supplies will also be affected.<br /><br />Harvested food will rot in trucks stopped on the roadside for lack of fuel, and in stores for lack of refrigeration. People desperate for food will tear through crops. Whatever foodstuffs remain in the fields will spoil without a means to harvest and transport it.<br /><br />As the supply of goods dwindles, the number of sick will balloon. Different forms of medical help will be offered. The government's extortion racket will surely invite "underground" practices. Like the speakeasies of the Prohibition era, you will have to know someone to gain admission into a trustworthy underground medical facility. Thugs will run another type of facility, offering bogus remedies and butcher-knife "operations." Many people will die unnecessarily. And not on clean sheets.<br /><br />We should be prepared, but our goal should be to retrieve our country. Preppers seek to move to self-sufficient rural areas, isolating themselves as much as possible from what they believe is to come. Let us stay and fight. Let us dedicate ourselves to Patrick Henry's view.<br /><br />We need not accept so dark a future. We need not acquiesce to the meaning and intent of this law---which comes close to near-total control of individual lives. Consider who fashioned this law: Corrupt, grasping, dishonest politicians who have caused crises after crises---such as Barney Frank's "Affordable Housing" which is acknowledged to have been the underlying cause of the economic meltdown. Such men and women have presumed to write a law violating our rights and telling us we must obey it. Are you willing to be ruled by such creatures?<br /><br />Let us repeal the healthcare law. Let us vote out those corrupt politicians. Let us recognize the importance of free-market medicine and individual rights, and that we cannot have one without the other and be healthy and safe.Sylvia Bokorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11689374905250957182noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-229105148153715520.post-32459301189257499862010-07-04T15:01:00.006-06:002010-07-04T15:21:19.952-06:00To Those Who've CommentedI owe an apology to those who took time to comment on my posts in a civilized manner and to those who requested contact information and to those whose idea of commentary is a stream of censored material.<br /><br />To the first two, I truly am sorry. I've been a bit busy with one thing an another and did not get around to reading all your nice, supportive thoughts. Thank you very much for all your comments and very interesting insights and evaluations. I much appreciate your feedback.<br /><br />To those who asked to use my material on their site, please do link up.<br /><br />To those who want to contact me personally, your best bet is to "friend me" on Facebook. Then we can chat privately without a problem and I can give you my e-mail address if you need it for some special purpose.<br /><br />To all of the above, I wish you a most happy July Fourth.<br /><br />To those who've left censored material on my blog spot, I have to laugh at how self-defeating you are. Does it not occur to you that if your material is so foul and coarse that you are totally censored, I cannot read whatever you want to state? I'm delighted to know I am a burr under your saddle.Sylvia Bokorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11689374905250957182noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-229105148153715520.post-61662642897160821732010-06-27T12:52:00.004-06:002010-06-27T13:16:46.633-06:00Political AgnosticismSeveral months ago, I paused to admire a lovely neighborhood. A man and his wife approached and asked if I was putting up flyers on the wall. "No," I replied.<br /><br />"How about this one," the man asked pointing at the shreds of a yellow flyer on a utility box.<br /><br />Perhaps he asked the question because I was standing near that utility box? I explained that it was thought members of Organizing for America had done that and that Tea Party supporters had removed it.<br /><br />The man asked, "Are you one of them?"<br /><br />"Of whom? The Tea Party? Yes, I am. But I am an Objectivist, not a Conservative. No one in the Tea Party is OFA."<br /><br />He said, "You're merely the other extreme. You're all the same."<br /><br />I was taken aback. In today's clear-cut struggle between individual rights on the one hand and statism on the other, I had never met anyone who considered both as anathema. If he were a centrist, he would advocate features of both sides. But he had not. He considered both sides "extreme" and "the same."<br /><br />Did he genuinely believe that both the advocacy of individual rights and government's violation of them were equally reprehensible? What sort of government was he for?<br /><br />I did not discover the answer to my question until a couple of days ago.<br /><br />I had a telephone conversation with a woman who is an officer of an organization allegedly devoted to advancing Albuquerque businesses. I thought an interview with her might be interesting for a radio show I'm helping to produce for the Patriot Activist Network.<br /><br />After explaining why I had called, she asked, "What is your agenda?"<br /><br />Thinking that she meant what was my political perspective, I answered, "I don't like what's happening to my country. I want to help businessmen understand that government should be limited, and that markets should be free."<br /><br />"Are you connected with the Tea Party?"<br /><br />"Yes. PAN is a branch of the Albuquerque Tea Party," I said."<br /><br />"I am tired of anti-everything," she said, implying that Tea Parties are anti-everything. "I do not denigrate the President. I am not anti-anything." She continued in this vein for quite a while. Eventually, she began to tell me about what she undoubtedly considered her accomplishments.<br /><br />She had been interviewed on an Albuquerque public television program, she said. Also the United Nations had hired her to go to China to teach technology. She had worked in Russia, too, doing the same thing. She wanted to be for things, she said, repeating again that she was not anti anything. She ended by declaring that she was for populism and worked "to develop and promote populism as the basis of a safe and strong society."<br /><br />Now, populism is the doctrine that arose in 1891-1904 as a political party advocating among other things, public ownership of utilities, an income tax and government support of unions and agriculture. It is a variant of statism. Her claim that she was not anti anything means she is not anti our government's infringement of individual rights, not anti Russia's slaughter of millions of peasants, not anti China's ruthless suppression of student protests and Tibetan priests, not anti the removal of the clitoris of Islamic women, not anti the Taliban's bombing of the World Trade Center, and so forth.<br /><br />Like the man I had previously met, she was a political agnostic. Not being against anything means not taking sides. What is it about taking sides that the political agnostic abhors?<br /><br />Many people avoid passing negative judgments openly. In personal relationships they might be "sweet" to one's face but scathingly critical behind one's back. In political matters, however, the same people can take a specific stand and loudly protest in defense of it.<br /><br />The political agnostic takes the opposite tact. He will tell you to your face face that you are wrong, but he is loath to criticize the government. Both the man and the woman referred to above told me, respectively explicitly and implicitly, that I was wrong to be involved with the Tea Party, wrong to criticize the government or denigrate the president. They claimed that they were not anti anything but in fact they were anti taking sides against the government.<br /><br />The political agnostic is an authoritarian. He is comfortable taking orders. But only from authority figures. He feels safe to be told what to do. He resents those who question authority. He feels such questioning is a slur on his own self-image of a "good person cooperating with those who know best."<br /><br />Safety to the political agnostic means the absence of public dissent. He does not say, "a plague on both your houses." He says, "Let there be only one house, the central government that tells everyone what to do." The political agnostic does not say, "I don't want to be bothered with politics." He says, "Let a leader decide, which we will all obey."<br /><br />By advocating a central government he feels secure from that constantly moving ocean of different types of individuals, different premises, different tastes, likes, dislikes, opinions, desires, goals, and choices. In that continually teeming roar of ebb and flow, of striving toward different goals that is society, he believes that only a centralized authority will guarantee him "safety"---the "safety" of the straight-jacket---and a "strong" society---the strength of a prison's iron bars.<br /><br />He evades recognizing that men of wisdom, integrity and benevolence are not interested in controlling others and consequently are not attracted to offices of omnipotent government. But vicious, fear-infested, manipulative and shrewdly malevolent men are. As has been seen countless times in an abundance of ghastly acts---the Nazis, the Communists, the Taliban, the Khmer Rouge---the bloodlust of totalitarianism does not stop with the abuse of men, women, children and animals but goes on to erupt in torturing, dismembering, starving and slaughtering all that lives.<br /><br />The political agnostic's role in this mayhem is seen in those who stood by and did not protest the rise of Adolph Hitler and his "Final Solution." It was revealed during the 1920s and for decades following, by those who celebrated the "noble experiment" of Soviet Communism in which countless millions were slaughtered outright or were driven to despair, mental paralysis and starvation by government policies. It is expressed in the intellectual distortions of those who deal commercially with Communist China providing them with western technology, know-how and world wide instant communication. It is seen in the empty-headed shortsightedness of those who declare, "I'll take anyone's money: I'm a businessman."<br /><br />By refusing to take sides, the political agnostic shuns the virtue of justice and damns the good.<br /><br />No one can justly stand on the sidelines and refuse to take sides at any time. Today, no one who makes the effort to arrive at an objective evaluation of the Obama Administration and Congress can justly conclude that Americans are not being railroaded into socialism against our will. And no one can rationally come to the decision that in such circumstances, one should do nothing.<br /><br />The lives and thought of John Locke and the Founding Fathers resulted in the creation of the United States, the freest nation on earth and in history. For a while.<br /><br />To regain the republic they created, one must take sides. Nothing short of that will regain our freedoms and restore our individual rights. And it will not end in November. That is only the beginning.Sylvia Bokorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11689374905250957182noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-229105148153715520.post-84636879523189684792010-06-06T11:56:00.003-06:002010-06-06T12:16:26.862-06:00Terror-FriedHere are two comments made on my blog site responding to my May 27, 2010 post.<br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">May 27, 2010 10:39 PM</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">???? said... ????,?????;????,??????..................................................</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">May 31, 2010 7:18 AM</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">???? said... ????????,?????? ..................................................</span><br /><br />No doubt the web master censored them because they contain foul language.<br /><br />Given my innocuous post, it's easy to identity what prompted these writers to make such coarse and probably illiterate remarks. They are terrified that their days of freeloading would be over should food-stamps and other so-called "entitlement" programs be ended. They are also terrified that should regulations be repealed they'll no longer be able to scream violation of this or that regulation---ignoring the employer and employee rights violated by the regulation.<br /><br />Americans' universally-recognized-and-sometimes-sneered-at-generosity is a matter of choice. That choice can be withheld. The malingerer knows it. He also knows that after decades of screaming that the productive owe him for being needy, the productive are beginning to realize they owe him nothing---especially because he's needy.<br /><br />Now that would indeed be very terrifying to know, if one has the soul of a malingerer, or a killer. One would surely start using a half dozen four-letter words in place of tears and sores. That's what "entitlements" have always boiled down to: when whining doesn't work, use insults and get the government to force productive workers to provide for malingerers.<br /><br />It would be even more terrifying to know that no matter how loudly the grasping and the envious cry, their pleas might one day bounce off of indifferent ears. Surely indifference would be warranted---especially after a century of hearing the virtues of productivity and profit attacked as greedy blood sucking.<br /><br />But more deeply, those two who posted foul-language comments on my blog site are terrified that the days of self-sacrifice as a moral good are coming to an end. Slowly Americans are beginning to recognize that government has no right to loot Paul to give to Peter, and that to do so is a vice, not a virtue.Sylvia Bokorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11689374905250957182noreply@blogger.com0