Jeff Neal for C.U.R.E. - Certain Unalienable Rights Endowment

Posts Tagged ‘constitution’

Give me Elmo or give me NASCAR: A profound Choice?

In Economics, Financial, Opinion, Political Critique on December 29, 2011 at 10:22 am

Not really . .  . Give me liberty or give me death.  That’s profound.

A few months ago, FoxNews reports on the [low] level of the debate on the National Debt.

See Link Here (Debate over Army funding of NASCAR sponsorship)

When the fight is over which unconstitutional government expenditure should be kept in place, it’s a power struggle akin to a food fight; it is not a political discussion.  Maybe the Army’s NASCAR sponsorship is constitutional – after all, raising an army is a power granted the federal government by the people.
That question is open to discussion.  But NPR, PBS, Sesame Street – not even a close call.  Other government spending programs that are not close calls would include Dept of Education, Dept of Energy, health care law, Medicaid, corn subsidies, grants to states to build bike paths . . .Debating spending on the merits, goodness or effectiveness of the program makes for an enormous government, because there is a constituency for everything – see mohair subsidy and Murtha Regional Airport.
On the other hand, debating spending and other government actions on constitutional grounds makes the argument finite, unemotional and, in the end, lititgable by the non-political branch, the judiciary.  Could be a plan.  I think that the US Constitution was meant to work that way.  That would take a completely new group of legislators, because the current Congress is full of men and women who think their job is to bring home the bacon.
Or, we can elect politicians who will keep debating whether we should have the government feed the hungry – – – and watch the definitions of ‘feed’ and ‘hungry’ morph until debates over providing for the common defense, giving heating oil to the poor or buying viagra for grandpa are virtually indistiguishable, and more and more and more money will be taken from ‘rich’ person A and given to every erectile dysfunctional man, I mean ‘hungry‘ person B for his viagra, I mean,  ‘food‘.
How’s that working out for us so far?  The choice is simple and stark.
(A) 1789 – A limited, constitutional, democratically-elected government that protects individual rights – and nothing more, or
(B) circa 1917, Russia – A fair tyranny that wants income equality and leads to totalitarianism – we’ve all seen the movie.

You want civility? Just let me be free.

In Everyday Life, Opinion on December 28, 2011 at 11:56 am



– OR –


– OR –


Why is it that Democrats and liberals are sometimes enthralled by majority rule and occasionally supportive of certain minority “rights?”  It seems that it is the case only when two conditions exist simultaneously.  That is, the Democrats are so inclined only when (1) Democrats hold a majority in Congress, and (2) the minority in question is a group whose power they can arrogate for their own use.  They buy constituencies with promises to [ab]use the powers of a democratically-elected government to take other people’s money and freedom, presumably making their constituents’ lives ‘better.’

However, when a minority is made up of rich, white, fat-cat bankers, black conservative judges, evangelical Christians, southerners who speak with a twang, women who think that abortion is not a constitutional right, or people who voted for Christine O’Donnell, that minority is open season for hate, derision, and ridicule and doomed to a life of being told how to live and think.

That’s just fine, except for the doomed life part, that is.  I don’t object to Rachel Maddow having those opinions and getting paid by MSNBC to entertain her audience by making fun of Rick Santorum’s religious views, John Boehner’s tan, Dick Cheney’s shooting skills, John Ensign’s personal foibles and George Bush’s swagger.  However, I do object to Rachel’s favored politicians having the political power to turn her occasionally more substantive opinions into government policy, thereby nullifying my unalienable right to experience and pursue, on my own terms, the best and worst of a life made possible by my essential freedoms.  Voting for the loser in an election should not make a man a second-class citizen, should it?

Our government has become so untethered from the rule of law that elections are now, unfortunately, winner-take-all contests.  “We won, the election is over” has become a statement of policy, a statement of destiny and power that cannot and must not be challenged.  In Blair House, the summer of 2010, when Barack Obama said as much to John McCain, no one blinked – they simply nodded.  Even the stronger Republicans in the room sort of slouched and looked away as a decorated war hero and five-term senator looked down at his lap, put in his place by a former community organizer wielding the power of a tyrannical majority.

In that sphere, where that tone is the norm, compromise is neither possible nor desirable; there is no compromise between truth and lies.  And the solutions that spring from that level of power, corrupting power, are so far reaching as to effect voters’ daily lives in ways not contemplated by the Constitution and in ways that are not conducive to productive, fulfilling, happy lives, untainted and undisturbed by political bile and vitriol.

That’s why modern political discourse has become so divisive, derisive, personal, destructive and ugly.  The stakes are too high; the stakes are ‘live your life my way, it’s the law now!’  In my America, that’s the same as ‘life or death,’ because Americans know freedom is our birthright, that our rights are inalienable, of our essence, and being deprived of them is tantamount to being executed.  For freedom and civility to reign again in America, we must reduce the stakes.  We must reduce the reach of government so that the loser in a political battle might continue to live his life without the tyranny of the majority forcing him and his supporters to surrender their money and freedom of thought, and live thenceforth according to the demands of the next Nancy Pelosi or John Boehner . . . until the next destabilizing, fight-to-the-death election, of course.

Rachel, Michele and Barack, you can have it your way, really.  Just keep ‘your way’ inside of your lives – let me live my life, raise my children, pursue happiness and dispose of my property as I prefer, pretty please, with sugar on top.  You possess the same freedoms; they’re never going to be threatened by me or mine, I promise, cross my heart and hope to die.

You see, only when government power is so omnipresent (recall ‘Big Brother’ of 1984) that it is omnipotent, does what it does really matter.  If, and only if, we can tame the political class’s ambition and reach, put the government back in its Constitutional cage, will we get along more peacefully.  Otherwise – more food fights and screaming matches will ensue, enormous sums of money will be spent seeking to buy control of Congress and the White House, instead of flowing into private invention and innovation that would make life more bearable, peaceful and healthy for Rachel, Larry O’Donnell, and Chris Matthews, and Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Juan Williams and Glenn Beck (well, maybe not Chris and Glenn) and they could move on to doing something more pleasant and productive than shouting at one another about whose mother smells like army boots.

OH, and that money would flow into innovation that would make life more promising and fulfilling for my two sons – after all, they’re the only reasons I give a damn about any of this.  What, pray tell, are your reasons, Rachel and Barack; why does it matter so much to you?  Why won’t you let me and my sons be free?  Why do we have to agree with you or go to jail for not paying the tax that supports the social program you prefer?  I care for the poor as much as you do, I just think government helping the poor is an oxymoron.  Why won’t you help the poor and fund medical research the old fashioned way – by convincing people your way will work, and I’ll do exactly the same thing.  No guns, no laws, no IRS involvement.  Deal?

Am I ‘Anti-government’?

In Opinion, Political Critique on November 8, 2011 at 8:21 pm

A standard line from the Democratic Party these days involves some version of “the right/GOP hates government and wants to eliminate all taxes, so government would possess no power.”

Sort of.

Or, actually, not at all.  The right and the GOP better correct that lie, and soon.

How?  It’s my belief that Americans are relatively indifferent about the effectiveness of ‘good’ government.  However, we are passionate about the power, the compassion and the productiveness of free men and women.

In my world, all of the left and the collectivists are free to try it their way – but they should not try and, under our Constitution, do not have the power to impose their approach on me.  I believe and history proves that freedom beats coercion every time, no matter how ‘good’ some coerced behavior might seem to be.

I say – Let me and those who agree live or die based upon the outcome.  I will bet my life on it.  Will Barack Obama or Harry Reid do the same if I take away their power (via confiscation of my income to finance their welfare state) to force me to agree with them?  I doubt it.

We can do better, America, but only if we’re free and government is smaller.

Who will benefit from YOUR life?

In Opinion on October 26, 2011 at 11:37 am

A couple standard-issue policy statements – things 95% of people who opposed, say, Ronald Reagan would support – could be summarized as follows.

1.  Abortion is a choice.

2.  We should save our natural resources and preserve the bounty and beauty of our planet for the benefit of future generations by reducing or eliminating our ‘carbon footprint’ by making use of alternative forms of energy.

Rephrasing #1: A woman should have the right to ‘terminate her pregnancy’ at any time, including and up until the point the ‘fetus’ is far enough out of the birth canal that its head is within reach of a surgeon’s scalpel or drill bit.  (They don’t like that last part – a.k.a., a partial-birth abortion* – being said out loud, but they want the law to allow for that procedure.)

Regarding #2, it follows that 100s of millions of living people in southeast Asia, China and sub-Saharan Africa must starve and do without, say, indoor plumbing for the indefinite future.  You see, they have to wait for Al Gore and the scientists of the world to invent a [fill-in-the-blank-renewable-fuel]-burning machine that is as powerful as carbon-emitting, internal combustion, fossil-fuel burning engines of modern-day earth-movers, cranes and trucks.  Those bad machines are the only ones we know of today that can build those starving Indonesians or Afghans any schools, roads, abortion clinics, voting booths, internet cafes or water-filtration systems.

If I’m to search for a philosophical basis, a rationale that underpins and supports both of those policy statements, I have to address this riddle along the way:

Why is it that:

(a) after conception and until birth, a human life is dispensable, like the waste product of a pregnant woman’s body;

(b) after birth, one’s life and comforts are subordinate to some future being’s life and comfort;


(c) pre-conception beings comprising future generations are important enough to be the beneficiaries of the sacrifices of a starving Afghan and will enjoy all things that liberals think are noble and worthy, but only after we invent that new, all-powerful alternative fuel engine in Al Gore’s basement?

That philosophy, that idea that life is dispensable and/or a means to others’ comfort, enervates the human spirit and demeans our essence and our purpose.  It places no value on the here and now, no value on the life of every man as an end unto itself.  To endorse this inhumane philosophy of the liberals and progressives, one must posit that men’s lives are but a means to some ill-defined end, a route to some nether land, the ‘way forward’ to some unknowable yet somehow better, more ‘fair’ version of society.

I immediately and emphatically reject that philosophy, as it is, as a moral and practical matter, due no consideration beyond hearing it.   If a philosophical line of thinking requires me to conclude that my life is of no value except as another person’s means to achieve still another person’s future comfort, I vow to never pursue that line of thinking again.  I pledge to do all that I can to steer all men away from such a dismal, dark dead-end.


* From Wikipedia, a description of the partial birth abortion procedure:

“Under the Intact Dilation and Extraction (ID&X) method, the largest part of the fetus (the head) is reduced in diameter to allow vaginal passage. According to the American Medical Association, this procedure has four main elements.  First, the cervix is dilated. Second, the fetus is positioned for a footling breech. Third, the fetus is partially pulled out, starting with the feet, as far as the neck. Fourth, the brain and material inside the skull is evacuated, so that a dead but otherwise intact fetus can be delivered via the vagina.

Usually, preliminary procedures are performed over a period of two to three days, to gradually dilate the cervix using laminaria tents (sticks of seaweed which absorb fluid and swell). Sometimes drugs such as pitocin, a synthetic form of oxycotin, are used to induce labor. Once the cervix is sufficiently dilated, the doctor uses an ultrasound and forceps to grasp the fetus’s leg. The fetus is turned to a breech position, if necessary, and the doctor pulls one or both legs out of the cervix, which some refer to as ‘partial birth’ of the fetus.  [perhaps it’s referred to that way because that’s a perfectly accurate description.] The doctor subsequently extracts the rest of the fetus, leaving only the head still inside the uterus. An incision is made at the base of the [fetus’s, not the doctor’s or the nurse’s] skull, a blunt dissector (such as a Kelly clamp) is inserted into the incision and opened to widen the opening, and then a suction catheter is inserted into the opening. The brain is suctioned out, which causes the skull to collapse and allows the fetus to pass more easily through the cervix. [thus, easing the pain for the “mom,” we surmise] The placenta is removed and the uterine wall is vacuum aspirated using a cannula.”

Do we live in a free country?

In Opinion, Political Critique on October 11, 2011 at 1:37 pm

Many Republicans believe that Mitt Romney is ‘good enough’ and that at least he’s not Obama and he’ll steer us clear of more of his disastrous policies.  The GOP and we conservatives had similar thoughts about George W Bush in 2000.  His conservative convictions were deeper than are Mr. Romney’s, yet even Dubya could not defeat the monster that is devouring our nation.  That monster can’t be tamed, it must be caged – that was, as I see it, the primary objective of our founders in drafting the Constitution – to restrain the powers granted to a federal government, to keep it subordinate to the sovereignty of the individual.

No serious surveyor of what is now referred to as the ‘US government’ can conclude that it is the product of the US Constitution, properly administered.  Rather, it is clearly the product of its occupants.  For starters, if a government is to be the subject of its people, for it to govern and not rule, it must be chosen by a process that is independent of itself, no?  For evidence that is not the case, one need only peruse the Federal Election Commission’s rules and regulations that dictate how a person can mount a campaign for federal office.

The entire FEC rule book is, essentially, a non-compete agreement that, by severely restricting the financing activities of any nascent political ‘party,’ grants the Democratic and Republican parties a monopoly on political activity.  The parties’ sole purpose is to elect government officials from among their inside-crowd membership.  From such an anti-constitutional starting point, there is no hope that the resulting ‘government’ will find itself bound by the Constitution.  Consequently, we are stuck with an over-weening, omni-present, omnipotent monster that is controlled by the political class and that feeds and empowers itself by dispensing favors to powerful interests – when a people gives a government more power, it will use it to perpetuate itself and it’s enablers; there can be and has never been any other outcome.  It follows that moneyed interests will buy protection from that power, and the two (power and money) are increasingly concentrated in a smaller and smaller cadre – exactly the outcome our founding fathers meant to prevent.

The “Romney-wing” of the GOP is no different from the McCain- or Dole- or Ford- or Rockefeller- wings were.  They all exist for the perpetuation of government power.  Most of its inhabitants are men/women who would last not one week outside of the cocoon they have created for themselves in Washington, DC.  Just look at Rep. Paul Ryan – his supposedly “radical” reform budget proposed spending ONLY $3.5 Trillion, as opposed to that spendthrift Obama/Reid budget which would total $3.6 Trillion.  Really, $100 billion, a whopping 2.7% difference is the GOP’s attempt at radical reform?  That won’t help our country survive.  It will merely delay the inevitable a couple weeks or so.

I wish I could share the more sanguine point of view of the Romney supporters.  I’m in the prime of my life; I’m hungry for freedom – freedom for me and, as importantly, for every man who therewith will make his life better and, while he’s at it, make MY and my 2 sons’ world better.  I don’t think any grant-giving or loan-guaranteeing government bureaucrat (Dem or Rep) would have ‘found’ Steve Jobs in 1975 and had the foresight to tell him “here’s $538,000,000 [see Solyndra]; now go be creative and change the world.”  He had to be free to take risks, along with the millions of others who succeed and fail day after day.  Each step we take, every tax dollar confiscated along the government path makes someone less free.  ZERO government is, of course, not the answer, but there has to be a limit, and it seems clear to me that the political class stepped over that line some many years ago.

Is there a level of spending between $3.6 trillion and $0 that is acceptable?   Is our government too small or too big.  In the language that most people use the word big to describe the government they mean to describe a government that commandeers >25% of the economic output of the country pursuant to a 70,000 page tax-code, a legal code that exceeds 200,000 pages and rules and regulations that consume millions of pages.  Big is an entity that commandeers $3.6 trillions dollars from the private sector and spends it the way 536 men and women want it spent.

That’s not a free country.  We need radical change, and Mr. Romney will not deliver anything of the sort.

Freedom – Can you bottle it?

In Opinion on June 2, 2011 at 11:19 am

In every battle over government spending, the left shouts “any new budget deal will benefit only the rich and powerful” and I say “Of course.” That is a fact of power politics. In a struggle of any kind, who wins – the weakest or the most powerful?

That is the essence of the argument for a small government with limited-powers – the more powerful the ruling entity is the more power the powerful have. DUH. Sounds simplistic and redundant – it’s neither. It’s the reason our founders drafted a Constitution that imposed strict limits on what their government could do. We are not a democracy, we are a constitutional republic. There are some things a government must not do – distribute fairness is one of them, and that’s true even if it had not been written down in 1789.

Do you want more civility, do you want better politics, more peace and prosperity, the powerful to be less so in government affairs? There is one and only one way to do that:  Lower the stakes – put government back in its cage and let free men and women live productive lives, interacting voluntarily without the government looking over their shoulders.

There is no such thing as a government budget or plan that “reflects the true values and views of the American people” as I hear those same commentators and politicians (Dems and Reps alike) suggest. American values and views are by definition not able to be encapsulated in a government program. They are too diverse and disparate to be written in a statute or law. Those views and values belong to individuals and cannot be distilled into some collective, group-think formula.

You can’t bottle the American Dream and give it away as a government program. You can only live it as a free man or woman, unaided by government.

Gingrich vs Clinton, I mean, Ryan

In Opinion on May 18, 2011 at 11:37 pm

Have you studied Mr. Ryan’s ‘plan’?  I have.  It is akin to something Bill Clinton would have proposed in 1995.  It postulates a slightly smaller (maybe 10% in the extreme case) government 7-10 years in the future.  In the here and now, it sets the government spending level at just under 25% of GDP, approximately $111 billion dollars less than the current baseline ($3.5 vs $3.6 trillion) and then assumes a slightly less steep growth in spending thereafter.  Nothwithstanding the government’s control of 25% of the economy, the charts and graphs also assume steady, sustained growth in GDP, so that, voila, in 10 years the spreadsheets say that Mr. Ryan magically reduces government spending as a percentage of GDP.  That outcome is not possible absent a fundamental rethinking of the role of government in our lives, and NOWHERE in the document is such a shift in thinking evident.

The ‘plan’ is all about government and how it can make for better outcomes – – but only if the GOP is in charge instead of Barack Obama.  There is nothing radical in the plan, it is just a slightly different version of social engineering.  It presupposes a slightly different, and maybe a little smaller, government apparatus encouraging and compelling slightly different, but not voluntary, behavior patterns.  That’s not the country I want my two sons to inhabit or raise their children in.

Mr. Ryan and the GOP want to sit atop a government that spends $3.5 trillion.  Mr. Obama has the same goal, but ups the loot to $3.6 trillion.  There is no fundamental difference other than WHO is in charge, and in neither case is the answer THE PEOPLE! (See earlier C.U.R.E. piece here).

There is nothing radical about saying, as the Ryan Plan does, that we need to ‘save’ a system(s) that is bankrupting the country.  Social Security and the other entitlement, ‘safety net’ programs should not be saved or given another extension of life support.  They should be eliminated.  They are cancerous.  Their goals and purposes are [arguably] moral and their supporters ostensibly well-intentioned, but those goals and purposes are NOT properly within the purview of the federal government.  They encourage irresponsible behavior and imprison men and women who become dependent on the state for their lives.  Until someone crosses that line in the sand, we’re doomed.  Stealing [a little bit less] from Peter to pay Paul is no more sustainable or moral than what we’re doing today.  It certainly isn’t radical.

One highlight to make the point – in a discussion of farm subsidies, this bold statement is made in the Path to Prosperity document – “reduce the fixed payments that go to farmers irrespective of price levels, to reflect that soaring commodity prices are reducing the need for high levels of farm-income support.”  A radical, serious reformer might have used the word “eliminate” instead of “reduce”.  There is no such “need” for support for farmers or anyone else in a free country, is there?  The document is full of such hedging and calculated political fine-tuning.

America needs a better brand of politicians – ASAP.

Government Beats Freedom in a Shut-out; Film at 5:00

In Opinion, Political Critique on May 15, 2011 at 9:59 pm

It is reported that lines are drawn in the sand; each political party has staked out its respective position from which there will be no retreat.  The Democrats want to run the government, i.e.  rule the people, by taking from them $3.6 trillion dollars per year, and the GOP would prefer to starve the beast and support an annual spending figure of a measly $3.5 trillion – a whopping 2.777% delta!

Differences of opinion about immigration policy, spending on planned parenthood, and whether Osama bin Laden should have been captured or killed are trivial in comparison to the fact that BOTH national parties are on board for commandeering upwards of 25% of the nation’s economic output (not counting state and local government spending) so it can be distributed by 535 politicians and their enablers instead of allocated efficiently by free men and women in the free market.  Why do government-lovers think that money left in the bank accounts of the men and women who earned it, that wealth left in the control of its creators, will do either nothing or, they seem to believe, mostly evil?  Why do they have such an awful opinion of free people and their priorities – are they projecting?

There is no fundamental difference between the two parties so long as neither party stands up for FREEDOM by way of demanding that there must be a significantly smaller federal government – NOW.  If a majority of the public won’t vote for that party because a majority is already dependent on the largess of their fellow citizens – then so be it; let the train-wreck happen, and we’ll pick up the pieces and start a new nation after this one fails.*

But the GOP (or someone) should at least give it a shot.  Government spending must be controlled so that free men and women can do what they think is the right thing with their money – and that might not be the same as the demands of a mob led by Harry Reid and Barack Obama, with the armed power of the IRS to back them up.  The confiscation of wealth from America’s productive class and the expenditure of that wealth to buy the votes of multiple constituencies were not the intended outcomes of the taxation and general welfare clauses of the Constitution.  Those clauses can’t (OK, should not) be stretched to mean that the confiscation of all or half or even 1% of Bill Gates’s money is moral so long as a majority of Congress says so – theft is theft.  Even if one takes the position that the general welfare clause is Congress’s wild card, am I denied the right to attempt to elect men/women to serve in Congress who agree with me that government’s power has moral boundaries?  I believe that Bill Gates has no obligation to fund AIDS research, feed the poor, build bike paths in Arlington, VA, or fund NPR.  Those are not acts that promote the general welfare AND his right to equal protection is found in the very same document.

I spent my lunch hour on Wednesday with a DC lobbyist employed by a Boston-based firm that is vocal in their support of the candidacy of Mitt Romney, because . . . . drum roll . . . Mr. Romney’s from their world; they’re very closely associated with the former governor, so it helps them as they recruit new clients to say “we’re very close to the presumptive presidential nominee for the GOP.”  They’re not even quiet, subtle or embarrassed about it – “hire us and we’ll help you convince the government to do favors for you.”  That is the standard sales pitch for all of their cohorts and competitors.  It’s a cesspool and the government-power drug courses through the veins of every man and woman in the big business of politics.  The media, the consultants, the lobbyists, the fundraisers, the candidates, their staffers . . . all of them are addicted to the same drug and are complicit in the send-the-bills-to-the-taxpayers game.  Their food is bought and rent paid for with the power they wield over you and me, the power of taxation, limited, they are convinced, only by their appetite and their ability to assemble a majority for long enough to get arcane language buried in a legislative act.

We need a new brand of politician – a brand that knows freedom is a more powerful force for good than is a government run by men who covet power bought with tax dollars – and SOON.


* “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

Freedom, George W Bush Redux

In foreign policy, Opinion on February 21, 2011 at 11:35 am

The Wall Street Journal makes the point at length HERE.

When former president, George W Bush, addressed the nation at the event of his second inauguration, (full text here) he spoke of a new era, an era that would be marked by a profound change in America’s approach to its foreign policy.  He said:

America’s vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation’s security, and the calling of our time.

[Click BELOW to read more]

Read the rest of this entry »

Government Spending and Egypt

In Economics, Financial, Opinion, Political Critique on February 14, 2011 at 1:04 pm

The Obama administration claims to look for ways to control spending, to control the national debt – some day in the future, after it’s done ‘investing’ our money for us.


The discussion (noise) about spending in the federal government is spoken in code, isn’t it? Nothing makes any sense to me, and my English is pretty good.  Here’s a translation of the $3.7 Trillion budget discussion.

Government officials, Republican and Democrat, have concluded that the only good spending is government spending, since that is the only kind that results in the accumulation of more power in the hands of 535 men and women.

How does Egypt come into the picture?  Hosni Mubarak did not continue to siphon money from the Egyptian economy after he had X-Teen billion $s in the bank so that he could be more fabulously rich.  In truth, he continuted the theft to broaden his reach, to increase his power over the apparatus that ruled every facet of Egyptian life.
Back in the USA — $3.7 Trillion divided by 535 is approximately $7 Billion.  We have 535 Hosni Mubarak’s in the US Congress, and their job is handing out – each of them – $7 Billion, every year.

The same desire that drove Mubarak, the same all-consuming thirst for control, drives Washington, DC.  The spending machine gets bigger and bigger by the day, it feeds lobbyists, union officials, campaing consultants, media trainers, congressionial staffers aspiring to be on TV, the compliant media machine, and on and on . . . NO ONE represents the tax-payer in Washington; the entire conglomerate feeds off of government spending, and it has to enlarge itself constantly or it starves.

Defeating that beast is the challenge of Americans. Unfortunately the so-called “campaingn finance” laws make it virtually impossible to mount an effort to fight the party machines, because it is illegal to accumulate the resources (i.e. money) necessary to buy a big enough megaphone to be heard over the above-mentioned noise.

Take a look:

There is an answer and when we get enough voices to join us we will announce it, and the unConstitutional FEC laws will not stand.