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 catastrophic, if not the most serious, mistakes that FedGov has ever made is when it decided to write Treasury Department checks to entities and individuals other than states. The states and their citizens created FedGov for very specific purposes, the most important of which was defense of liberty.

Once FedGov started directly subsidizing entities and individuals everything changed. FedGov became a factor in the everyday lives of all people living in the USA. Some people and other entities became interested because of their concern about how much money or benefit they could get from FedGov, others, about how much money FedGov was taking from them in the form of taxes or other rules, i.e., regulations.

The election of representatives became more and more fixated on these same concerns. The electorate became divided along the same issues. Today, it is impossible for a President, Senator or Representative to be elected if he or she speaks out against the 2,300 subsidy programs that consume much of FedGov’s budget.

Most of these programs were never contemplated by our founders and are not covered by the Constitution. Some argue that they are, for the most part, unconstitutional.

However, this has been allowed to happen because we the people and our representatives periodically forget human nature. Mankind is by nature desirous of power and control and left unchecked power and control will drift away from the folks toward those with the persistence and tenacity to seize it.

It’s only natural.

The problem is that FedGov was never intended to directly manage very many things. The military and the treasury function come to mind as obvious functions of FedGov. But what about local high school locker room policies. And I wonder why they would be providing funds to Texas K-12 schools in the first place. Isn’t Texas an oil rich state? Can they not  afford to pay for their schools? Is it because FedGov takes so much of Texas’s citizens money that they feel they should give a little back? Or maybe they just want to regulate the activities of every school in Texas and in America.

Schools are only one example (of the many hundreds of similar regulatory schemes which have been developed by career bureaucrats and politicians) of programs developed by the bureaucrats based on their belief that they know better how to spend the people’s money.

FedGov does a very poor job of managing the many things it’s involved in and it’s rarely able to improve because it just does not know any better. Their answer is always “more money.” The bureaucrats are engaged in pure guesswork about issues that can better be handled locally. In short, FedGov is incompetent.

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

Too bad we have forgotten.

And That’s that!

References:

https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/recollections/redefining-the-federal-role-in-social-welfare-1995/

The Federal Government (FedGov) is Out of Control

The Federal Government 
(FedGov) is Out of Control

© 2016 Rick Adamson

by Rick Adamson 6.11.16

  The Federal Government contemplated by our founders no longer exists because FedGov has been allowed to take over all aspects of our lives. The founders did not create a government whose mandate was central planning but one primarily concerned with protecting our freedom.

Back then everybody worked; they got up every day and earned their living.

The founders had fled an oppressive authoritarian government with religious overtones. The last thing they wanted was to set up another one. And so, they designed a system which included checks and balances designed to control the size and might of the new government.

These guys knew that limiting government was the only way, considering human nature, of avoiding overreach.

Such a system is inherently cumbersome and slow when compared to one based in autocracy or communism but, given its limited purpose (defense), that was ok by the founders.

Hense, our democratic republic is awkward making it hard to get things done.

For those who want FedGov to get a lot of things done it is very frustrating because it was designed to be limited and constrained on purpose after factoring in man’s natural inclination toward power and control.

Thus, the term “limited government.” It has been said that the only way to manage and prevent government from growing and encroaching on the people's’ rights is to limit it. This is because of human’s desire for power and control. To think otherwise is to not understand human nature.

So, around 100 years ago the powers that be decided they could better manage people's lives and began to drift power from the states toward Washington. The drift became a flood during the 1960s and has hardly ever slowed. A few examples follow (there are numerous others):

In 1913 the income tax came into existence which provided FedGov with a permanent source of income. Also in 1913 the 17th Amendment was ratified which changed the way Senators were selected. Previously, state governments selected Senators. Subsequently, Senators were selected by popular vote which, in many cases, resulted in Senators being more aligned with their national political party and Washington than with their state’s needs. This happened simply because the Senators needed money for their elections and the national party’s provided it.

As an example, “60 Minutes” recently ran an episode that indicated Congressmen were expected to spend four hours a day telemarketing for party contributions, 2 hours for legislative activities and 2 for dealing with constituents. A similar requirement applies to Senators and to both parties. See the episode here: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-are-members-of-congress-becoming-telemarketers/

Over the years FedGov has secured a seemingly endless source of money and the political parties have gained almost unlimited control over our representatives due to money. These factors when combined with the natural desire for power and control has allowed FedGov to expand into areas never contemplated by the Constitution.

It has morphed into more than a dozen large departments. It spends almost $4 trillion a year. It has hundreds of agencies and runs more than 2,253 subsidy programs. It employs 2.1 million civilian workers, 1.4 million uniformed military personnel, and 560,000 postal workers. It is a huge organization.

These departments and their agencies regulate everything. They impose more than 3,000 new regulations each year, and total accumulated regulations span 168,000 pages. Needless to say, FedGov is making a vast number of decisions affecting all aspects of our lives.

Given the very low approval rating of FedGov, its effectiveness is questionable. So, it is clear FedGov knows how to collect and spend money but most people do not think they do it effectively or for good cause. As an example think of the long reported ineffectiveness of the VA, IRS and more.

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 in-house departments and employees FedGov extends it intrusion by ensuring compliance with its laws, regulations and “gifts” through its 2,253 subsidy and benefit programs. See Catastrophic Mistake.

A portion of these programs are called “Grants in Aid” where money is given to states, local governments, businesses and individuals in the name of good causes, but these grants come with many requirements and restrictions which insure compliance with FedGov's policies.

The latest example is the Department of Education”s threat to withdraw funding for schools that do not do follow its guidance with regard to bathrooms.

There are thousands of rules prepared by bureaucrats, across every FedGov department, which result in this type of extortion.

FedGov has clearly forgotten that the money they spend comes from the people.

For another example see America’s Trillion-Dollar Bureaucracy

( http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/americas-trillion-dollar-bureaucracy ).

The problem with all this is that the Citizen’s money is being taken from them by FedGov and disbursed by career bureaucrats and politicians on programs developed by the bureaucrats based on their belief that they know better how to spend the people’s money.

It is pure guesswork. It results is massive waste, fraud and mismanagement. It rarely produces the desired results. But the bureaucrats will never change because they only know how to do what they do.

This is not to say that FedGov employees are bad people. It’s just that Federal workers pursue many of the same sorts of self-interested goals that the rest of us do, such as higher pay and career advancement. But in the government, those self-interested goals interact with bureaucratic incentives to explain many failures. Government workers and managers face incentives that induce them to act counter to the general public interest.

They do not operate within a system that rewards the creation of value.

There is no profit motive, no fear of losses, no benchmarks to measure performance which increases the risk of undo influence by special interests and favors.

The cost of FedGov's expansion can be illustrated by the following chart:

FedGov spent a little over $1 Trillion in 1970 and will spent about $4 Trillion in 2016. Note that $1 Trillion is 990 times the worth of Donald Trump ($10 Billion).

It has been widely reported that middle class wages have not risen in years. Compare your income to this chart. If your wages have kept pace, great, but most peoples have not. Without stern intervention to stop and reverse this trend the country will go bankrupt.

The solution is to get FedGov out of our daily lives by eliminating many of the departments and agencies, STOP the regulations, reduce taxes and let the Citizens keep and spend their money as they see fit.

Only Congress has the power to approve spending but they will never agree to rein it in. I mean, really, they allowed us to get into this shape to begin with so why should we think they would ever fix the problem.

What is required is a convention of the states, as laid out in the Constitution, where the states meet and lay out the terms pursuant to which they agree to be bound together as a republic. It seems to me that 50 heads (states) are better than one (FedGov).

When that happens, my recommendation, among many others, would be that congressional terms be limited, budgets be required each year and that they balance and that the powers of FedGov be limited to Section 8 of the Constitution absent the “all other” comment.

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!

Warning

Warning - Revolution

© 2015 Rick Adamson

by Rick Adamson 5.25.15

Updated 10.4.2020

This was written when I and just about everyone else thought Hillary would win the 2016 election. It was updated for current events.

We are experiencing an unprecedented revolution in America and we do not even know it.

Can you imagine a political system where one political party is able to anoint a candidate and one where that party has a clear majority of voters? In such an instance that party would run the country (maybe forever) and there would be no further need for political campaigns or conventions.

This is what happens in China and Russia.

Well, both of our political parties want nothing more than to attain such dominance. The “party” has become the end-all and the politicos will do or say just about anything for the sake of the party, e.g., Bill Clinton spoke highly of Obama at the 2012 Democratic convention despite the well-documented fact that they despise each other.

What the heck, if it is good for the party it must be done regardless of personal feelings or beliefs.

Is it possible that this could happen? Yes, if one party could persuade the majority of voters that it has all (or most) of the solutions to their problems and that it (the party) will benefit them the most.

OK, if you believe it is possible, how could it be engineered or masterminded?

The following are a few possibilities:

1. Change the attitude of existing voters by convincing them that the government can solve their problems.

2. Change the number and composition of voters to be more favorable to your party.

3. Packing the Supreme Court with activist judges.

4. Add more progressive States.

5. Eliminating the Electoral College.

Item #1 could be accomplished by becoming more socialistic and left-leaning. This is done by enslaving the population by providing more programs and benefits that they perceive to better their standard of living. A key part of this effort would be to divide the electorate by race, income, gender, and preference. Then promise each group some individualized goodies. Divide then conquer!  If the folks can be made to feel that the party is providing good things for them, even as they become more and more enslaved to the government (party), they will remain loyal, for example:

    √ Divide and conquer strategy used by Obama in the last two elections.

    √ War on poverty under Johnson’s Great Society. See this article -https://clashdaily.com/2014/03/allen-west-lbj-ill-nggers-voting-democratic-next-200-years/

    √ War on the Second Amendment. You are probably well aware of the left’s position on gun control even though their proposals would do nothing to stop most gun crimes due to the fact that criminals do not follow current laws and are unlikely to obey new ones. In his 1994 book, NRA head Wayne LaPierre dwelled at length on a quotation attributed to Hitler ( “All in favor of ‘gun control’ raise your right hand.”), writing: “In Germany, Jewish extermination began with the Nazi Weapon Law of 1938, signed by Adolf Hitler.”

    √ Government takeover of health care (Obama Care). Someone once said, “control health care and you control the people”. Oh, it was Saul Alinsky. He was the Chicago-born community organizer whose life and work greatly influenced President Obama. He authored the books “Reveille for Radicals” and “Rules for Radicals” to provide "counsel to young radicals on how to effect constructive social change."

There are actually are 8 levels of control (widely attributed to Mr. Alinsky) that must be obtained before you are able to create a social state. See the image at the beginning of this article for them all-they describe what is happening to the United States right now.

Over time, #2 could be accomplished by allowing more immigrants from socialistic countries (who have not been exposed to democratic principles) and immigrants who are, generally, less educated than the existing population. Keep in mind that these immigrants teach their children what they have been taught so their children will continue along the line of thinking taught them by their parents.

This was set in motion by The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. The below article describes the act and its history: http://cis.org/1965ImmigrationAct-MassImmigration

I only recently became aware of the 1965 law while searching for the answer to a question I had - what is the basis of the widely held belief that we should allow just about anyone, regardless of qualification, to immigrate to the U.S.A?

If you think there is not a left-wing progressive conspiracy to change the composition of the population (and ultimately the voters) to be more favorable to the Democratic Party think about this:

√  Between 1960 and 2010 the number of foreign-born residents of the Country increased by approximately 30,000,000 people and represented 13% of the population.

√  The average growth rate of foreign-born residents for the five decades between 1960 and 2010 (after the ACT) was 34%; the average Growth for the five previous decades (1920 -1960) was -6%).

√  Historically legal immigration amounted to approximately 200,000 per year but since the Act was passed it has averaged over 1 million people per year.

√ Most new immigrants lean toward the democratic party and are less educated than the general population.

The process can be accelerated by encouraging illegal immigration and then granting them amnesty.

            Item #3, #4, and #5 can be accomplished once Item #1 and #2 get far enough along such that there is effectively no opposing party.

Wake up America! This is already happening. The Democrats anointed Hillary; there were no opponents because it was her turn. (See related article here.) All they now need is the electorate. Democratic voters are exploding due to executive orders and out of control immigration so it is just a matter of time.

And That’s that!

Baltimore and the Failure of Progressives

Baltimore and the Failure of Progressism

By Rick Adamson

7.7.15

© 2015 Rick Adamson

Baltimore is a city of 600,000, 63 percent of which at African American. In 1970 the population was closer to 900,000. So, for one reason or another 1/3 of its population has moved on to other places.

Crime has long been a problem and it has been labeled “body bag city” by some. It ranks in the top 3 most violent cities in the country.

Unlike Ferguson, Mo., the government reflects the makeup of the population in terms of race; the Mayor is African American as is the police chief and local prosecutor. City council is mostly African American.

Democratic progressives have held the Mayor’s office since 1967 and have been evenly divided between whites and African Americans.  The current Mayor and her predecessor are African American women.

So, let’s eliminate the white folks as being the problem.

24% of the population lives below poverty level vs. 14.5% for the Country as a whole. Per capita income is about $24,750 for Baltimore whereas it is $51,971 for Maryland and $42,693 for the US. There are a significant number of folks receiving public assistance.

Baltimore has long been recognized as a problem community and, as a result, much effort and money has been sent its way in order to help improve living conditions. For example, $1.8 Billion from the 2009 stimulus program was allocated to Baltimore.

Children under perform in schools despite elaborate funding. Baltimore spends $17,329 per student per year compare to $14,000 for Maryland  and $11,000 for the Country. FedGov contributes 20% of the $17,329 each year compared to 12% for the Country as a whole.

What does all this extra spending produce? In 2013, according to the Department of Education, only 16 percent of the eighth graders in the Baltimore City Public Schools scored at or above grade-level proficient in the NAEP reading test. That same year, only 13 percent of the eighth graders in the Baltimore City Public Schools scored at or above grade-level proficient in math.

Unemployment  is 8.2% in Baltimore, 5.3% in Maryland and 5.4% in the Country as a whole.

Thirty-eight people have been killed in the body bag city so far this month (May 2015), the deadliest in 15 years for a city still recovering from the protests surrounding the death of Freddie Gray. The increase comes as arrests in May are down 56% compared with last year. Shootings over Memorial Day Weekend amounted to 28.

The Obama administration announced that more gun laws will somehow reduce these numbers; while due to the very strict current gun laws in Maryland only criminals have guns - illegal guns (correction, illegally processed guns as most guns in and of themselves are not illegal).

By any measure Baltimore is a failure. So what’s the problem? There seems to be lots of money. Could it be that the Democratic/progressive/socialistic approach isn’t working? They have been in charge for 48 years and see what a mess they have made?

I would like to see a five year plan developed by the local politico’s showing what they plan to do to turn the city around. One which includes more than the standard single entry - more money - from you and me. I submit that they cannot come up with one because it would involve aggressive police action, vouchers for better schools and cultural intervention (training in how not to be poor, and the importance of personal responsibility and character). These types of activities cost votes when people believe the status quo is better than having to put forth effort to make positive changes.

I predict that when we look at Baltimore in 5 years it will look pretty much the same because the progressives have no real interest in improving the lives of the folks. They like the poverty and dependency upon the State – it makes the folks easier to control. However, FedGov will probably be providing the policing and even more for money for schools because as more people move out there will less and less local tax revenue to pay the bills. It is possible that it could turn into a de- facto Federal city – like Washington, D.C. What an improvement that would be! LOL

They need to wake up! There has got to be a better way. The progressive approach has not worked.

For more perspective check out these articles from TheWeek magazine

http://theweek.com/articles/553789/broken-promise  and

https://docs.google.com/document/d/13nOsa-eKZR501uT-5yuJiiyXCWP74GKxKEN-AQ5ilcI/edit?usp=sharing

And That's that!