To All You Irredeemables in The Basket of Deplorables

To All You Irredeemables in The Basket of Deplorables

© 2016 Rick Adamson

by Rick Adamson 10.24.16

You represent what America once was, hardworking, loyal, dedicated family oriented folks. You no longer fit into the mold of the elite liberal progressive view of "who we are" or "what we represent".

I, for one, do not appreciate it when Hillary or Barack (or any left leaning politician) remind me of "who we are" or "what we represent". This is simply because I do not share their concept of the matter. They may convince those less informed but I think their views are so far removed from ordinary citizens as to be unrecognizable.

For example, a recent survey showed that 65% of those surveyed (white working class) supported stopping mass immigration, providing American jobs to American workers, preserving America’s Christian heritage, and stopping the threat of Islamists.

There is no reason to believe that this sentiment would not apply to other groups of working folks.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/why-trumpism-will-outlast-donald-trump-214166#ixzz4NwCsTSBl

What a protectionist, xenophobic bunch of deplorables! But, this is America albeit with a conservative bent! They do not support Global integration as expressed by President Obama or a western hemisphere completely free of borders or trade barriers as dreamed about by Hillary.

Those surveyed feel a loss of status. Some are concerned by their loss of political status. Others were more frustrated by their loss of social status while many feel like an afterthought.

If the politico’s would try to understand the people and represent their interests things would work much better. But they do not because they have their own concept (dictated by lobbyist who are paid by the donor class) of what America should be.

You deplorables and other traditional Americans are so out of sink with the politico’s that they want to replace you. They want to replace you at the voting booth, replace you in the workplace and otherwise diminish your voice as it relates to determining what 'we" stand for and believe in. They will do this via crony capitalism (1), immigration policy (2), trade policy (3), and divide and conquer tactics (4).

Folks, just keep doing what you are doing and you will shortly see that you no longer matter. See (4) for a reminder.

You still have a choice as to the direction of the country but, depending upon your decision, you may not in the future.

Notes:

1. Just examine the relationship between the government and big banks (Wall Street), the defense contractors, insurance companies and other hugh businesses. The executives of these companies are part of the donor class and they are in and out of government constantly. Who do you think the politico’s are listening to?

2.  Liberal immigration policies for anyone and their family members without regard to the needs of our citizens and an unrelenting effort to confer citizenship upon illegal residents. Too many of these immigrants are unskilled and less educated than the general population. They represent your replacements at the polls.

For a through analysis of our immigrant situation see this:

http://cis.org/Immigrants-in-the-United-States?gclid=CjwKEAjwkJfABRDnhbPlx6WI4ncSJADMQqxdNQl_GSE3S2XkpG71ToIRWQ1PvwXnyrWsxx-4R4vZbBoC3m7w_wcB

3.  Trade agreements that benefit those businesses in (1), but are harmful to many ordinary citizens. Such agreements along with technology have made labor an international commodity not unlike oil or pork bellies. It maybe that the commodity stature of labor was inevitable and, if so, we have failed to properly educate or retrain our citizens for more skilled jobs while the big companies benefited from cheap labor and materials.

4. Convince groups that only FedGov can look out for their interests, e.g., labor unions, immigrants and minorities. These and other groups have voted overwhelmingly for democrats for generations. It just goes without saying.

Once groups are thoroughly convinced, they can be ignored between elections because they would not vote for the other party under any circumstances (regardless of a candidate's color, religion or non religion or policy positions).

And That’s that!

Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Machine

© 2015 Rick Adamson

by Rick Adamson 6.6.15

Who ever came up with the idea for the machine was brilliant. The entire setup is a strategic masterpiece. The scheme is legal and has made the Clinton's very rich.

Just think, you have an arrangement (a marriage in this case) where one partner (or the other) has been on the public payroll for 30+ years, one receives a lavish pension from the government, both receive security services provided by the the Secret Service, one provides lobbying services but accepts no lobbying fees (and, therefore, does not have to register with FedGov as a lobbyist) because speaking fees are arranged instead.

There is no smoking gun or quid pro quo because they are both lawyers and are surrounded by lawyers who know how to avoid it. There is no proof of pillow talk (influence) because they do not sleep together.

The Foundation has collected $2 Billion since its inception but only spends about 10% on charitable grants. Most of the money is spent on staff, salaries for long time cronies and lavish trips (by the Clinton’s, unless Uncle Sam pays, and others) to extravagant conferences.

According to Kyle Smith of the NYPost.com the operation has been “run about as forthright as the KGB”. In 2013 the BBB found the charity failed to meet “minimum standards of accountability and transparency”. While paying for the best legal advice, it’s accountant’s are blamed for the Foundation’s failure to properly disclose donors and donations as required by the IRS. When omissions are disclosed the response is “Ok, we will just amend the tax returns”.

There is no doubt that the foundation has done many good things, however, the overhead associated with those good deeds (making the Clinton’s rich) has been high when compared to the good that the contributed money could have done had it been contributed directly toward the intended purpose.

What a heavenly arrangement.

And That’s that!

Catastrophic Mistake

Catastrophic Mistake

by Rick Adamson 6.11.16
© 2016 Rick Adamson

One of the most significant, if not the most serious, missteps that the federal government has ever taken was its choice to issue Treasury checks to states, entities, and individuals beyond block grants to states.

When the federal government began subsidizing individuals and entities directly, or even states outside of block grants, everything shifted. Suddenly, the federal government became a constant presence in the lives of everyone in the United States. Some individuals, businesses, and states became focused on what financial benefits they could extract from the federal government.

As a result, the political landscape evolved. Elections became increasingly centered around these concerns, leading to a divided electorate. Nowadays, it seems nearly impossible for any President, Senator, or Representative to secure election without embracing the numerous subsidy and grant programs that now dominate the federal budget.

Many of these programs were never envisioned by our founders and arguably fall outside constitutional bounds. The very foundation of the federal government was built by the states and their citizens for specific purposes, the foremost of which is the protection of liberty, resulting in some even contending that they are largely unconstitutional.

This development has come to pass because we, the citizens, and our elected officials often overlook fundamental aspects of human nature. People naturally seek power and control, and when left unchecked, that power gravitates toward those who are determined to claim it.

This is only to be expected.

The issue at hand is that the federal government was never designed to oversee numerous matters. Functions like the military and treasury are clear responsibilities, but local high school policies? And why is there federal funding flowing to K-12 schools in Texas? Isn’t Texas wealthy in oil? Shouldn’t they be capable of funding their own schools? Is it because the federal government takes so much from Texas citizens that they feel obligated to return a portion? Or perhaps it’s about exerting control over educational institutions across Texas and the country.

Schools exemplify just one among countless regulatory schemes created by career bureaucrats and politicians. These initiatives stem from a belief that these officials are better equipped to manage public finances than the local communities.

The reality is that the federal government struggles to effectively handle myriad responsibilities, often failing to improve due to a lack of understanding. Their solution is typically to ask for “more money.” Bureaucrats often resort to guesswork on issues that could be better addressed locally. In short, the federal government is frequently incompetent.

Our founders designed a system of limited government because they understood human nature.

Too bad we have forgotten.

And That’s that!

References:

Redefining the Federal Role in Social Welfare: 1995 [ 👉 here]

The Federal Government is Out of Control

The Federal Government 
is Out of Control

© 2016 Rick Adamson

by Rick Adamson 6.11.16

The vision of government that our founders established is no longer with us. Instead, we've allowed the Federal Government to expand its reach into every corner of our daily lives. They didn’t intend for a system of central planning; rather, they aimed to create a government focused on safeguarding our freedoms.

In those early days, hard work was the norm. People rose each morning with the intention of earning their living.

These founders had fled an oppressive, authoritarian regime that suppressed freedom under the guise of religion. Their goal was to avoid recreating such a system. They implemented checks and balances as a means to limit the scope and power of the new government, fully aware that the essence of human nature could lead to overreach.

While their system may seem cumbersome and slow compared to autocratic or communist governments, the founders accepted this because its primary aim was limited to defense. They understood there would be challenges in governance, acknowledging that their design was meant to operate within constraints.

This is where the idea of “limited government” comes into play. It has often been argued that effectively managing government growth and preserving the people's rights hinges on keeping it limited. Acknowledging human nature, especially the desire for power and control, is essential in this context.

Fast forward about a century, and those in power decided they could more effectively manage lives by shifting authority from states to the federal level. This shift swelled into a torrent during the 1960s, and it shows little sign of abating today. A couple of examples illustrate this shift:

In 1913, the introduction of the income tax provided the Federal Government with a steady source of revenue. That same year, the ratification of the 17th Amendment changed how Senators were chosen. Instead of being appointed by state governments, they began to be elected by popular vote. This change often led to Senators prioritizing national political agendas over the specific needs of their states, especially since their campaigns relied heavily on funding from national parties. Lastly. The Federal Reserve System was created in that same year.

More recently, a segment on “60 Minutes” highlighted a concerning reality: Congress members are reportedly expected to dedicate a significant portion of their time—around four hours a day—to fundraising for their parties, leaving only a fraction of their time for actual legislative work and constituent engagement. This pressure is equally felt by Senators from both parties, reflecting the broader challenges of a government increasingly distant from the people it serves. 

See the episode here: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-are-members-of-congress-becoming-telemarketers/

Over the years, the federal government has tapped into what seems like an unending financial reservoir, giving political parties almost unchecked influence over our elected officials. This, paired with an inherent thirst for power and dominion, has led the federal government to extend its reach into territories that were never envisioned by the Constitution.

Today, it has evolved into an extensive network of more than a dozen major departments, draining nearly $4 trillion annually. With numerous agencies under its roof, it administers over 2,253 subsidy programs and employs around 2.1 million civilian workers, 1.4 million active military personnel, and 560,000 postal employees. It’s an enormous bureaucracy.         These departments and their respective agencies oversee a wide range of areas, imposing upwards of 3,000 new regulations every year, with the total body of regulations stretching to an astounding 168,000 pages. Clearly, the federal government is making countless decisions that impact every facet of our lives.         Given its persistently low approval ratings, the effectiveness of the federal government is highly questionable. While it excels at collecting and expending funds, many citizens feel it does so neither efficiently nor for the right reasons. Just consider the long-standing criticisms surrounding the VA, IRS, and other similar entities.

For a more recent sample, see this report on TSA http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/13/aviation/tsa-long-lines-us-airports/

        In addition to its internal departments and workforce, FedGov extends its reach by ensuring compliance with its laws and regulations through a staggering 2,253 subsidy and benefit programs. This is often summarized as a “Catastrophic Mistake.”

        Among these initiatives are “Grants in Aid,” where funds are allocated to states, local governments, businesses, and individuals under the banner of goodwill. However, these grants come attached with numerous requirements and restrictions that ensure adherence to FedGov's policies.

        A recent instance includes the Department of Education’s threat to revoke funding from schools that fail to comply with its guidance regarding bathroom policies.

        Bureaucrats across every federal agency have crafted thousands of rules, leading to what many perceive as coercive tactics.

        FedGov appears to have overlooked a crucial point: the money they distribute originates from the citizens.

        For another perspective, refer to America’s Trillion-Dollar Bureaucracy. (http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/americas-trillion-dollar-bureaucracy).

        The root of the issue lies in the fact that citizens’ money is being taken by FedGov and redistributed by career bureaucrats and politicians, who design these programs based on the notion that they know better how to utilize taxpayer funds.

        This approach is largely speculative, leading to significant waste, fraud, and mismanagement. Desired outcomes are often not achieved, yet bureaucrats remain unchanged in their methods, as that is all they know.

        It’s important to clarify that this is not a critique of federal employees as individuals. They, like anyone else, are driven by personal ambitions—such as higher salaries and career growth. However, in a government setting, these ambitions can interact adversely with bureaucratic incentives, explaining numerous failures. Government employees and managers often find themselves in situations that push them to act contrary to the public interest.

        They operate outside a framework that incentivizes value creation.

        Without a profit motive, concern over losses, or clear performance benchmarks, the system becomes increasingly susceptible to undue influence from special interests and favoritism.

        The impact of FedGov's expansion can be illustrated with the following chart:

In 1970, the federal government spent just over $1 trillion, and by 2016, that figure ballooned to around $4 trillion. To put it into perspective, $1 trillion is nearly 990 times the estimated worth of Donald Trump, which is around $10 billion.

There's a prevailing concern that middle-class wages have stagnated for years. It's worth comparing your income with the trends depicted in the accompanying chart. If your earnings have kept pace, that’s great; however, many have not experienced the same growth. If we do not take decisive action to address this issue, we could face severe financial consequences as a nation.

A potential path forward involves reducing the federal government's role in our daily lives. This could be accomplished by cutting numerous departments and agencies, halting excessive regulations, and lowering taxes, allowing individuals the autonomy to manage and allocate their money as they choose.

While Congress holds the exclusive power to authorize spending, there’s little hope they will willingly curtail it. After all, they were complicit in leading us to our current predicament, so why would we expect them to resolve it?

What we need is a convention of the states, as outlined in the Constitution. This would bring together the states to determine the conditions under which they agree to operate as a united republic. It seems logical that the collective wisdom of 50 states can be more effective than a centralized federal government.

When this convention occurs, I would suggest several important measures, including term limits for Congress members, mandatory annual balanced budgets, and restricting federal government powers to those explicitly granted in Section 8 of the Constitution, excluding the vague “all other” clause.

And That’s that!

Criminal Justice

Criminal Justice

© 2015 Rick Adamson

by Rick Adamson 5.26.15

In the late 1980s and early 1990s crime rates hit their peak and the issue was on the minds of everyone (which is hard to comprehend for anyone under the age of 35). In 1994, under President Clinton, major crime legislation was passed because of the out of control crime situation.

At the time Hillary said this about the bill:

“We need more police, we need more and tougher prison sentences for repeat offenders. The three strikes and you’re out for violent offenders has to be part of the plan. We need more prisons to keep violent offenders for as long as it takes to keep them off the streets.”

Incidentally, the bill was supported by many of those who are now protesting including the Congressional Black Caucus. At the time, they wanted their children protected from violent crack dealers.

It worked, crime rates decreased. Did you know that according to official FBI and U.S. Department of Justice reports, the rates of violent crime in the U.S. are now at their lowest level in 40 years? Did you know that violent crime rates of 2010 were 1/3 the rates of 1994? Did you know that Deaths of law enforcement officers are at their lowest in 50 years according to the Boston Globe. What inspiring news. Yet it's amazing how little media attention this is drawing.

Instead, all we hear about is the overcrowding of prisons and the injustices these laws are inflicting upon the minority community. But do we want to repeat history and return to the crime levels of the past?

The stunning crime reduction of the last couple of decades is being called a ‘public policy disaster’ from every news outlet -- even the news outlets currently being looted in Baltimore” said Ann Coulter

Clearly, the laws were not perfect. Clearly, some revisions need to be made with regard to punishment and incarceration for minor non-violent infractions. Clearly, all criminal laws must be applied equitably.

The 1994 effort also failed. The goal of those laws were not to put people in jail, but to discourage criminal behavior. So, to the extent that more folks went to jail, the new law was not a glowing success.

What was (and is) missing (not to mention the general deterioration of or lack of moral character) is that the fear of incarceration alone was not enough to discourage criminal behavior possibly because incarceration was made too easy to dole out (applied to minor infractions). If, on the other hand, the apprehension rates are high and prison is a place that no one wants to go, crime would stay down (possibly continue to decrease) and the prison population would be reduced.

Referring to Hillary’s above quotation, I completely agree. She said what she thought and all of her recent backpedaling is about getting votes. She has devoted substantial lip service to describing the current situation but not a word about how and what she would change. Don’t be fooled, its political BS.

We need to apply the aggressive approach (the 1994 laws) only to the predatory actors (usually armed) who terrorize our citizens. There is no place in a civilized society for these types of people. We see these crimes on the news every day and the perpetrators should be removed from our streets forever, e.g., armed men who rob beauty shops and terrorize the patrons with pistols (illegally possessed, of course), armed men who rob a neighborhood pizzeria and terrorize its patrons with guns (illegally possessed, of course), murders and car jackings with weapons. These acts represent premeditated aggressive predatory (terrorist) acts and should not be tolerated. Zero tolerance.

Their new home should be a very unpleasant place devoid of entertainment, drugs and gangs. It would be a place of employment and learning. One that cannot be escaped except by graduation which would be contingent upon completion of the employment and learning objectives set out in the sentence.

And That’s that!