GM is Doomed…

In the deal about to be initiated 72% of GM will be government owned (that’s our money by the way). I like most Americans will never buy another GM car in our lives. The cars will be over priced, too small, and unable to compete without the force and heavy hand of the government. How do I know this? It is what government does best; ruins everything it touches; that’s a guarantee they will be able to keep…

Federal Borrowing Must Be Stopped…

The Federal Government is borrowing away our future and has taken away every American’s constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness. We can no longer stand by and watch our debt quadruple per family.

You now owe $546,668 as a family thanks to the out of control spending of this government, and it is mostly unconstitutional. How do you pursue your own happiness when the government has the ability to borrow in your name for things that bring no value to you?

The constitution allows for the federal government to borrow for things that are important to the nation as a whole, mostly defense. But when the federal government borrows from you as an individual to “buy” a car company it is obvious they have gone too far. When the government takes your money to give to others they deem more worthy they have gone too far. When the federal government takes our state and local tax money for educating our children they have gone too far.

The Federal government has gone too far. If I were to borrow $546,668 in your name I would be thrown in jail. None of this federal borrowing beyond our military is justified or needed. Our Governors must stand up for the rights of their states, and we as individuals must stand up for our rights to the protection of our property (hard earned money) and our pursuit of happiness. How can any family pursue their dreams when the federal government can take away our rights to a prosperous future by borrowing on our individual credit?

The tenth amendment and nullification of federal programs is our only chance. We must audit all federal expenditures on our behalf and determine the constitutionality of each federal expenditure. Then we need to nullify each program at the state level and reduce our federal tax burden accordingly.

The only way we can do that is each state must end individual federal withholding taxes and collect those taxes at the state level. Then the states can pay the taxes on behalf of their individual citizens. This will bring the balance of power back to where it belongs; in the hands of the states and individual Americans. With the state in control our state representatives will have greater ability to provide the services truly needed to run the state according to the citizens of the state. No more federal extortion to get our state funds back for our own use.

This is not a radical idea. This is an idea rooted in the US Constitution. What is happening now is a complete disregard for our constitution and especially our tenth amendment rights. Government programs are so much more manageable at the state level, and we have a much better chance of holding our state representatives accountable as opposed to holding a Federal Representative from San Francisco or a Federal Senator from Nevada accountable.

Our Federal system is broken. There is no true representation in congress when the rules are contrived to nullify representation from states that happen to elect a representative from the “wrong” party.

Does anyone feel represented anymore at the federal level? Did you approve $546,668 borrowing on your behalf? Do you want it to stop? Have your read the tenth amendment? Have you read the US Constitution?

Stand up and fight for the US Constitution and your rights. Let your governor know you want this federal oppression to stop. Read our constitution and start the ground work for a movement back to our future. We don’t need radical change, we just need to abide by the framework already in place; The United States Constitution!

Closing Car Dealerships?

I do not claim to be an expert in the car industry but I have to ask how closing the places you sell your cars is good for business? My understanding is that dealerships are franchises that agree to carry the cars of the manufacturer whose logo they put on their buildings.

Dealerships have to meet criteria set by the car company by proving their ability to finance the purchase of inventories large enough to fulfill the local market needs for the cars they carry. They must be exclusive buildings for each brand. They must carry original parts with certified mechanics. They must be able to sell cars ethically.

What the car company gets from the dealer in return is the integrity of their brand and they don’t have to make the large investment it would take to have so many locations to manage around the country. They get the expertise of local business people that are closely connected to the community. They get a motivated workforce that is determined to sell cars for survival. They get data from the dealers on how to improve their products. It sounds like the car companies get the better deal in this relationship. So what benefit does Chrysler or GM or Ford get out of closing dealerships? Savings on some marketing costs? Accounting staff reductions to keep track of dealers? Someone help me out here.

The costs are mostly incurred by the dealers. They are highly motivated to sell their cars and take all of the risks in maintaining a healthy business. In a tough economy dealers adjust their cost structure based on demand to maintain profitability. How is that working for the big 3 car companies?

Reducing dealers is something that is best left to the free market not government bureaucrats acting like they know anything about the car business. I think the car companies need to adjust their union contracts, find new management that has the guts to go through bankruptcy to become healthy again, and throw the government bums out!

If not we will soon be getting the cars no one REALLY wants to buy; the “smart” car! Puke…

Empathy Need Not Apply for the Supreme Court…

Justice is blind. Lady Justice does not care if we are Black, White, Hispanic, Chinese, Male, or Female, she only cares about the consistent and blind application of law to every individual American citizen. Justice Roberts at his nomination made the analogy of what a judge does to the role of an umpire.

An umpire at a baseball game does not care what the players look like, where they came from, whether they grew up rich or poor when calling balls or strikes. If the team that has more minorities than the other tries to steal second base during a game, the umpire does not need to show empathy to that team as he makes the call at second base because the call is the call. The rules are clear and must apply to every player the same.

To suggest that the traits of a judge need to include empathy, and understanding what it is like to be poor shows the ignorance of the president and media in selecting good judges for any court but especially the Supreme Court. Members of the Supreme Court are the ultimate umpires in legal disputes and understanding the constitution (the rules of the game), and applying them blindly is the only real qualifications needed.

If Major League Baseball started hiring umpires that made calls based on empathy and an understanding that the teams that always lose need special considerations to win the entire league would fold. No one would ever go to a game again because the rules are what make it fair, and if the application of the rules is not evenly applied then people watching will have no confidence in the integrity of the league.

By nominating a person like Sonia Sotomayor based on the “qualification” of empathy the integrity of the court is in question. Will she rule differently for Black people than Hispanic people? Will she be more empathetic to women than men? Will she favor the poor over the rich? If she does favor specific groups and you are not in the group being favored how will you feel?

There is a reason Lady Justice is blind; there is no reason a president should be…

Qualifications for the Supreme Court…

Why does the left believe that diversity on the Supreme Court is important? Because they don’t understand or care about the United States Constitution or the role of the Supreme Court in our government.

What the left cares about is changing our system of government so they can control your life. They don’t believe in your individual rights or true freedom. They hate that you can own a gun and can listen to talk radio. They hate that you can succeed without their help. They are the most racist people in the nation believing Blacks and Hispanics are inferior in intelligence so they shackle them in government programs they call “compassionate”. They hate that you love God and believe there is a creator greater than the men/woman they put their faith in.

That is why they believe putting diversity and ignorance of constitutional law on the Supreme Court is good for this country. Unfortunately most Americans don’t understand the role of the Supreme Court, mostly because the left has ruined the education system which permeates civic ignorance. Sonia Sotomayor is an enemy of the US Constitution. She believes the role of the Supreme Court is to overrule legislative decisions that she or her liberal left don’t like. For example; the people of California have voted twice to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The court has overruled the people twice. This is an outrageous abuse of the California courts. Sotomayor believes that is the role of the courts; to decide like a dictator how we run our states. She knows better than you and I; a true elitist.

She believes white males need to be punished and pushed aside for the minorities because white males are bigots, all too powerful, and need to have any achievements they have accomplished taken away because they were earned unfairly. She is a bigot and radical woman that has a mission to ruin men, and our constitution.

She should be defeated, and exposed for what she is; unworthy of a place on any court…

Obama VS. Cheney : The choice is clear…

There are so many reasons that Dick Cheney is right regarding national security. His arguments are eloquent and full of facts. The biggest fact being his administration’s track record on terrorist attacks since 9/11 has been perfect. He is not packaging his rhetoric in grand illusions of some utopian argument he is simply and concisely making his case on solid ground. Obama is short on facts and long on theory. Misguided theory.

Here are the differences I see:

· Cheney argues from fact, Obama from wishful and misguided thinking.

· Cheney loves this nation, Obama blames this nation.

· Cheney respects our military; completely, Obama respects the people in the military but not their mission or objective.

· Cheney believes we are the moral authority in the world, Obama believes our moral authority is a recruitment tool for terrorists.

· Cheney thinks his plan through before taking action, Obama announces his plan before thinking the ramifications through.

· Cheney understands our government has an obligation to protect Americans, Obama believes our government has some obligation to concede our security to the rest of the world including terrorist nations.

· Cheney has been in the Executive and Legislative branches of government for over 30 years, Obama was a community organizer working with an organization that is under investigation, and a Senator that never finished his first term mostly voting “here”.

· Cheney believes we should protect this nations prisons and court systems by keeping terrorists away from the US, Obama wants to grant terrorist’s rights under our constitution, and introduce these cancerous individuals into our courts and prisons to influence other mal contents already there.

· Cheney is an adult; Obama is akin to the 60’s radicals that if given enough rope by the people will hang this nation.

I urge you to listen intently to the two men argue our national security policy and ask yourself who makes you feel more secure? Exactly; give me Dick Cheney any day…