Atlas Shrugged
April 27, 2012
It’s been awhile since I have contributed to the conversation, but while on vacation here in Hawaii, I decided to start reading “Atlas Shrugged” and think it’s time to chime in.
What an amazing book. My wife, Janis, said she thought it was relevant when she read it and loved it in high school. I had never read it and was surprised to see how similar the thinking is now compared to what is in its pages. Maybe it is, and maybe it has always been and will always be so.
There are many parallels to today’s political discourse, and the one thing that struck me most is the constant theme of successful people only being in it for the money and not really caring about the public’s welfare. Conservative radio talk shows have circled this topic. But a thought became clear to me that these people, by being in business, have already contributed to society.
Perhaps Walter E. Williams has said this before, but it bears repeating. To preface, the “Occupy” movements certainly sound like the echoes of the naysayers in the Atlas book. The theme of the “haves” taking from the “have nots” seems to have a lot in common with today’s protests. However, how was anyone forced to buy a product (discounting Obamacare) or take out a loan they couldn’t afford? Besides, aren’t the producers already providing society with its energy, transportation, entertainment and day to day needs like food and clothing? Not to mention the number of people that are employed to provide these goods and services. How has everyone’s life been touched by these “greedy bastards” for the better?
While it’s true that the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the filthy rich have probably done little to deserve their wealth, there are new million and billionaires all the time. They get rich “quick” by spending their lives inventing things that improve ours. How is that a bad thing?
I know I am preaching to the choir on this, but wouldn’t it be a great idea if everyone forwarded a short paragraph to everyone on their e-mail list so that the class warfare thing dried up? Sure, I am dreaming, but how has taxing the millionaires ever put a penny in my pocket or yours?
When people like Warren Buffett talk about how unfair it is that his secretary pays more in income tax than he does, I think several things:
- · Then pay your secretary more (of course, this will mean more taxes for her)
- · Or pay her taxes for her
- · Or pay what you owe for your Net-Jets company
All he and people like him (such as Bill Gates, Ted Turner, Hollywood actors and actresses and politicians like Nancy Pelosi and Diane Feinstein) are doing by touting liberalism is to deflect the attention off themselves so the “Occupiers” won’t come after them or their families. They are cowards by not standing up for the United States and Capitalism, the things that made them able to be as successful as they are.
- FedUpEditor
Hunting for scapegoats won’t lower pump prices
March 21, 2012
Exporting gasoline and diesel fuel creates jobs and prosperity
By: Paul Driessen
When President Obama took office, regular gasoline cost $1.85 a gallon. Now it’s hit $4.00 per gallon in many cities, and some analysts predict it could reach $5.00 or more this summer. Filling your tank could soon slam you for $75-$90.
Winter was warm. Our economy remains weak. People are driving less, in cars that get better mileage, even with mandatory 10% low-mileage ethanol. Gasoline is plentiful.
Misinformed politicians and pundits say prices should be falling. Our pain at the pump is due to greedy speculators, they claim, and greedier oil companies that are exporting oil and refined products.
Their explanation is superficially plausible – but wrong.
Energy Information Administration (EIA) data show that 76% of what we pay for gasoline is determined by world crude oil prices; 12% is federal and state taxes; 6% is refining; and 6% is marketing and distribution. The price that refiners pay for crude is set by global markets.
World prices are driven by supply and demand, and unstable global politics. That means today’s prices are significantly affected by expectations and fears about tomorrow.
A major factor is Asia’s growing appetite for oil – coupled with America’s refusal to produce more of its own petroleum. Prices are also whipsawed by uncertainty over potential supply disruptions, due to drilling accidents and warfare in Nigeria; disputes over Syria, Yemen and Israeli-Palestinian territories; erroneous reports of a pipeline explosion in Saudi Arabia; concern about attacks on Middle East oil pipelines and processing centers; and new Western sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program and the mullahs’ threats to close the Straits of Hormuz.
Moreover, oil is priced in US dollars, and the Federal Reserve’s easy money, low interest policies – combined with massive US indebtedness – have weakened the dollar’s value. It now costs refineries more dollars to buy a barrel of crude than it did three years ago.
Amid this uncertainty and unrest, speculators try to forecast future prices and price shocks, pay less today for crude oil that could cost more four weeks hence, and get the best possible price for clients who need reliable supplies. When they’re wrong, speculators end up buying high, selling low and losing money.
Oil speculators play a vital role, just as they do in corn and other commodities futures markets.
Basic chemistry dictates that a barrel of crude (42 gallons) cannot be converted entirely into gasoline. Depending on the type of crude, some 140 refineries across the USA transform each barrel into gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, heating oil, asphalt, waxes, petrochemicals and other essential products.
This manufacturing process leaves them with excess diesel fuel, because American vehicles consume less diesel than refineries produce – due to air pollution laws that limit diesel use. US refineries export that excess diesel to Europe, which uses more diesel than gasoline, and Europeans ship their surplus gasoline to mostly East Coast consumers. US refineries also sell excess inventories of other manufactured products to overseas markets, but diesel is by far their principal export.
America exports $180 billion in finished products every month – $2.2 trillion annually in corn, wheat, cars, tractors, appliances, airplanes, pharmaceuticals and much more.
Last year, for the first time since 1949, America was a net exporter of fuel and other petroleum products. Those exports injected $107 billion into our economy and sustained thousands of refinery and other jobs that otherwise might have been lost, as refineries also struggled in our stagnant economy.
Farm and factory jobs would evaporate if we made exporting their products illegal. Prohibiting fuel exports, and demanding that refineries manufacture only what we need here in the States, would have the same effects on our employment, economy and living standards.
The USA has 1.4 trillion barrels of technically recoverable conventional oil, the EIA and other experts estimate, and enormous additional supplies in shale and tight sand deposits. The best way to keep prices down is to produce more of this American oil, and import more from secure, friendly, nearby suppliers like Canada.
However, our government prohibits leasing and drilling on nearly 95% of the onshore and offshore lands it controls. It is dragging its feet on leases and permits for the remaining 5% and over-regulating production on private lands. It vetoed the Canada-to-US Keystone XL pipeline. It is imposing layers of costly and unnecessary new regulations on every aspect of energy production it does not simply reject.
We are losing billions of dollars in bonus, rent, royalty and tax receipts, killing countless jobs, and impairing Americans’ living standards, health and welfare.
“More exports mean more jobs,” President Obama said recently. “We need to strengthen American manufacturing. We need to invest in American-made energy and new skills for American workers.”
His words ring hollow. Above all, President Obama and his environmentalist and congressional allies want to end our “addiction” to oil, “fundamentally transform” America, and “invest” billions of dollars (borrowed from us and our children and grandchildren) subsidizing efforts to turn corn, switchgrass, algae and pond scum into fuel.
Generating billions of dollars and millions of real jobs by producing American oil and manufacturing American oil products doesn’t fit this agenda. Even though one of every ten jobs created in the last three years has been in oil and gas, when it comes to petroleum, Team Obama wants to punish success, and reward failures like Solyndra, Fisker and the Chevy Volt.
To paraphrase a recent White House jab at Republicans who want more drilling and fewer obstructionist regulations: Every time prices start to go up, President Obama heads down to the local pond or cornfield, makes sure a few cameras are following him, and starts acting like he can wave a magic wand, throw a few more billions around, and have cheap, eco-friendly biofuels forever.
Meanwhile, Energy Secretary Steven Chu has made it abundantly clear that he wants to “boost gasoline prices to European levels” – $8 to $10 per gallon! He’s already half way to his goal.
Those prices would certainly force Americans to drive less, and “hope” the hype about “changing” to algae-gas becomes reality in less than twenty or thirty years.
Meanwhile, skyrocketing fuel prices will certainly “boost” the cost of transporting people, raw materials, food and products by wheels, wings and waterways; manufacturing anything still made in America; and preserving jobs, family and business budgets, and dreams that depend on affordable energy.
Hunting for scapegoats won’t lower pump prices. Reality-based energy policies will.
__________
Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and Congress of Racial Equality, and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.
Barney Frank at it again! Didn’t he do enough damage with Dodd-Frank?
February 9, 2012
From the Los Angeles Times: Rep. Barney Frank and two other House Financial Services Committee Democrats on Monday pressed Edward DeMarco, the regulator of seized housing finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to write-down the principal on mortgages of underwater homes.
It’s a great thing that Barney Frank is not running for office again, but he seems determined to leave the country in chaos. Though it sounds like a wonderful “Robin Hood” story if Fannie and Freddie would essentially forgive principal on underwater homes, it is my opinion this would kill home values and throw the real estate market into more chaos.
Just as the real estate market is leveling out and things are getting better, Barney seems hell bent on throwing another wrench into a market that he nearly collapsed by forcing Dodd-Frank onto the lenders and giving loans to people who could not afford them. His term ends in January 2013, but why doesn’t he either a) drop dead or b) resign and leave us alone?
- Fedupeditor
Payroll Tax Extension
December 23, 2011
I am not sure how you feel about Republicans caving on the two month payroll “tax” extension, but I was very disappointed. All along, the House GOP has been on the right side of this issue (including the Keystone Pipeline) even though Conservative talk show hosts, most of them substitutes this week, thought the House blew it politically.
Unfortunately, because Democrats run the Senate along with some squishy RINOS, we are in this mess. (Remember when Republican strategists said it would actually be a good thing that we did not take the Senate in 2010? Bah, humbug.) Yet even Obama himself recently said the extension needed to be for a year, but you will not hear that reported anywhere.
Once again, we are being led by people who base their decisions on polls not conviction. This is what finally got Republicans thrown out after taking the House and Senate in 1995. After several years of not doing what they were sent to do, people had enough and gave Congress back to the Democrats.
The optics must have been bad for Boehner, a career politician, so he decided to cave. Instead we got two more months of lower payroll “taxes” before they have to deal with the issue again. That’s about $40 a week for most people. Wouldn’t it have been better to extend it for a year like House Republicans wanted? That’s $320 ($40 times 8 weeks) the Senate passed versus $2,080 ($40 times 52 weeks)that the House wanted. Why can’t this case be made?
Yet there is a bigger issue that has not been addressed. One of our astute members who runs a business and actually has a payroll pointed something out. The money we are talking about is coming from the EMPLOYEE’s portion of FICA (Federal Insurance Compensation Act, government’s name for Social Security “tax”). Traditionally, employers have matched the amount that employees get deducted from their checks. But as our member explained, even though his employees’ FICA amounts have been reduced (for almost a year already), his employer’s portion has actually gone UP. By his calculations there is a dollar for dollar correlation to the reduction of the employee amount with an increase in the employer amount.
Of course, it makes sense that the money for Social Security needs to come from somewhere. Other than this payroll tax there is no mechanism for funding Social Security. If employees are not paying in then it would make sense Congress would deem that the employer must make up the difference. After all, if the money runs out, the game is up, right? The program would be shown to be the Ponzi scheme that it is.
This legislation can only hurt the long term employment outlook since it is costing more to hire employees. It will also hurt Republicans as people start to feel the 2010 elections were for naught. Therefore, it will be even more important that we elect Tea Party types to take over the Senate whether we win the Presidency or not.
So while it may look like the small increase in people’s paychecks is a good thing, it probably is not whether it’s two months or a year. Make no mistake. The future of our country is at stake in 2012!
FedUpEditor
A discussion about black voters
August 18, 2011
Allen West is truly an endangered species; a self-staring black man. Rush today was saying the same thing I have been saying for months. Obama knows he’s got the black vote regardless of what he does. That’s why he’s not spending any time there and instead surrounding himself with white kids and pandering to their parents. He’s lost the white vote.
Could it also be that black voters have very little money to give his campaign? Black leaders like Maxine Watters and Jesse Jackson are taking note, but will they vote Republican? Not a chance. There is no money for them from Conservatives.
It’s true some blacks are self-starters, but most have become takers of the welfare system. These people are dependent on government for their meager existence, and as long as they vote Democrat, it will continue. What they fail to realize is that the little checks they get from the government, and the fact they pay no income tax, it does not mean they are not paying any taxes to Big Government. Right now everything is taxed; from cable to cell service. What about sales tax? How about the government regulations that are sending jobs overseas and keeping our country impoverished? Instead, they want to blame the rich people that they are in their situation, not the liberal Democrats and Republicans who have created this mess.
If you look at our black community, how many of them have cell phones and big screen televisions, tattoos, fancy fingernails, expensive clothes, multiple piercings, etc.? They are already mentally “poor”. Instead of investing in things that can get them out of their situations (like building a business as the Asians and Indians do – think service businesses and convenience stores), too many are spending money on instant gratification and waiting for Obama and the Democrats to stick to the rich so they can get MORE of their goodies.
And how much of this “bling” is purchased on credit? And how many of these credit cards go to collection? And because of our “easy money” policy toward the poor, how much of this debt is being written off or government subsidized? Just like the mortgage bail out, people usually don’t learn from continually being let off the hook. Before I go on, I am not opposed to people being able to spend THEIR money any way they want, but they are spending YOURS and MY money.
And please tell me the name of one person who has gotten rich or moved to the middle class from receiving welfare. When has any tax increase on the rich ever helped a poor person?
Besidesm if the poor only knew how little of the money that goes to Washington for welfare actually makes it back to the people for which the program was designed, they might get the picture. An elected official needs to stand up and tell the public the percentage of money that actually goes to the recipients compared to the percentage that goes to generate the government jobs that administer the program (to buy votes?), pay for the administrator’s insurance, retirement, etc.
THIS IS THE REASON WE ARE IN THIS SITUATION! The golden goose is dying! Just as Socialism (and that is what we have no matter what Democrats say) has died everywhere it’s been tried because eventually we run out of other people’s money.
I know this is generalization, but the truth hurts. Why else would so many poor people turn to selling drugs or other crimes to make money? Because it’s EASIER and faster than going to work and building wealth. After all, not everyone gets caught, right?
- Fedupeditor
What if?
July 28, 2011
I am tired of the same people who have been running the country into the ground telling us, “this is the best deal we can get.” As if compromise is not what has gotten us to this point in history to begin with. Especially when compromise means liberals always getting their way… just not as much as they want.
For example, what if we compromised on slavery? What if we compromised on rape? What if we compromised on murder? What would those compromises look like?
My point is that there is right and wrong. This debt “crisis” is just another example of what is wrong with this country. Raising the debt limit by $2 trillion immediately while cutting spending over 10 years is NOT a compromise, no matter what Boehner or other establishment Republicans say. Never mind the fact that Congress cannot bind another congress to a budget, how is this good for the Conservative movement? I have an answer.
It isn’t. While talk show hosts like Laura Ingraham say we should accept the deal and say, “we win,” she couldn’t be more wrong. If Republicans cave just because we can “get something done”, it will go a long way to pushing a third party. We should hold out for a much better deal or let the country default. It is not the Republicans who are causing this. It is the Democrats, and should be echoed over and over again that this is the case. How many plans has Obama come up with? (Here’s a hint: zero.)
Our country is broke. True, we have taxes (revenue) coming in all the time, but we have over spent years beyond those. The fact that the national debt is well over $14 trillion and soon to be $16 trillion should tell the story. But for some reason, liberals look past that fact.
As I pointed out in a letter to the IJ editor which I sent today, Marin do-gooders love to talk about all the wonderful social programs that government provides. What they fail to understand is that after the money gets to Washington, most of it goes to set up the bureaucracy to manage that program. Very little of that money goes to help the intended recipients. And these middle-class government bureaucrats are the ones who keep voting for the party that perpetuates their jobs. It is vote buying, plain and simple. They do not help the poor as they advertise.
Republicans need to understand that the time for “business as usual” is over. That is why the Tea Party caucus is holding firm in the House and is why they were elected. Just because we have been doing it one way for a long time (for example, slavery), does that mean we have to continue doing it that way? Not when it’s wrong.
- FedUpEditor
Are Environmental Groups Doing Themselves In?
July 9, 2011
Some time ago I saw a special on the building of the Alaska pipeline. One of the interesting items of note was how the environmental movement essentially got its start and gained traction in the early 70’s. It talked about how, much to their surprise, environmentalists were successful in slowing the construction by using the courts for push their agenda. This emboldened them to continue fighting their causes in the courts, only having to convince one or several judges, rather than counting on undependable legislators. Didn’t this country break from England to get away from one person rule?
As a result, what I have seen develop is a cottage industry of businesses catering to environmentalism. Everything from cars to dish soap and solar panels are being pitched to us on television with the promise that if we buy their products, we will help save the planet from catastrophic consequences. I believe people of the future will look back on this society’s belief in this environmental hype much as we do now about those who thought the earth was flat.
As a good Conservative, I don’t want to be seen as a person against clean air and water. After all, who would? However, I think much of the environmental movement is going too far. And now that the economy is suffering, they are shooting themselves in the foot. As with any other business they too must have a market to thrive. Here’s what I mean.
I do consulting for a company that does environmental impact studies. This is a group of about 60 people, many of whom ride their bikes to work or drive their hybrids and sit in the dark (to save the planet, I’m guessing) working at their computers to hash out environmental impact studies which are required for various building and redevelopment projects. Their work costs a lot of money so if a project ends up not netting a reasonable profit for the speculators, then they do not move ahead and hire them. As a result, this company is taking a hit and is having to lay off people.
I find it ironic that these same people who provide a service required by the various government authorities (federal, state, county and local) before permits will be granted for construction are against development. It makes no sense, even though their very financial existence is dependent on it. This would be funny if our economy wasn’t in such sad shape. And when big developers are hurting they cannot afford to hire environmental impact studies.
On another front, Michelle Bachmann reintroduced the “Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act”. I think this is a brilliantly titled bill. After all, isn’t it about expanding our choices, not limiting them? If current legislation is allowed to stand, incandescent bulbs will be phased out of existence, and our only choice, for the most part, will be the CFL bulbs. By the way, these have that dangerous mercury in them. You know, the mercury that used to be in the same thermometers liberals saw fit to ban. So now mercury is okay in light bulbs? Well then, where is my mercury thermometer? Either it’s dangerous or it’s not.
This doesn’t mean I am against CFLs if people want them. But I resent the fact that government is dictating I must use them. This is none of their business, despite what our local GOP seems to think. If it’s about saving energy, I ask why? Because we have a lousy energy policy. If it’s about saving the planet, I say nonsense. The planet will do fine long after we are all gone.
At the same time, we have a bunch of people trying to push electric cars. How is that saving energy when everyone will be plugging in at night to drive the 50 miles or so a person can only get on one charge? Where will that electricity come from?
Nuclear is out now that Japan has shown us how dangerous it is. (Of course the fact that the reactors were built in a potential flood zone doesn’t seem to matter to those who are against them.) Coal is a no go. Obama has promised to bankrupt that industry. What about hydro-electric? Nope, we have to think about the effect on the fish. In fact, there is a movement to tear down dams across the county! So we are down to solar and wind.
Regardless of the fact they have proven to be ineffective in solving our energy problems, that even east and west coast liberals don’t want windmills or solar panels in their neighborhoods, it is the first thing people think of when they hear about clean, green energy. So what if the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine?
Please don’t suggest I submit this to the IJ. It is way too long, and I thank those of you who have read to the end. Yet it seemed timely just when our Marin GOP is considering writing a letter chastising Michelle Bachmann for misrepresenting the CFL legislation as a ban on incandescent bulbs. But when the law’s regulations and energy standards make it impossible for light bulb manufacturers to continue producing them, what else could you call it?
FedUpEditor
QE3 – Why it’s a bad idea
June 12, 2011
After reading a Dallas Morning News article on Quantitative Easing 2 from November, 2010, the fact they are talking about QE3 makes me angry. The old saying is, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” A newer version should be, “Fool me three times, what do you think I am, frigging stupid?” Of course that could be said of Californians by electing Jerry Brown for a third term as governor, but that’s not the topic of today’s post.
Fortunately for us, fhe Fed has announced as late as June 10, 2011, that it will not be implementing QE3, much to the shock of Wall Street. We can all breathe a sigh of relief… for now.
Ben Bernanke, a Bush appointee as Federal Reserve Chairman, has practically decimated our economy with a policy which he continues to promote. Since 2006 our country’s loose monetary policy has been guided by his hand, and what have we gotten for it? High unemployment, a devalued dollar and a stagnant economy. We can blame Obama all we want, and we should for many things that are going wrong in our country, but Bernanke has a hand in this thanks to his poor decisions as Fed Chairman.
As the article in Dallas Morning News points out, QE2 sounds like an ocean liner, but should actually be called the Titanic… The bad news? We all have seats on it. Are we all going down? Time will tell. But here are a few facts.
QE1 and QE2 have done nothing to jump start the economy. Like the Heritage Foundation pointed out (much like my bathtub analogy) taking water from one end of a swimming pool and dumping it into the other end may raise the water level in certain areas for a certain time as it ripples across the surface, but eventually the water level in the pool has not increased. So it is with quantitative easing.
The Fed prints money which we are essentially borrowing from ourselves and using to buy up bonds which have already been issued (monetizing debt) using this newly printed money. Supposedly the bond holders then have liquid capital to pump back into the economy. But since wealth is not being created, the increased money supply only waters down what is already in the economy. If you guess that this makes things cost more, you would be right. Inflation has been with us for a few years, but because energy and food are not entered into the equation, we have gotten doctored economic numbers.
So if QE1 had worked, wouldn’t our economy be humming? Okay, the argument is that our economy is so big it takes time to turn the ship around. So we got QE2 after QE1. How is that working for you? So well that now they are talking about QE3? Watch out for that iceberg!
FedUpEditor
PayPal is a SCAM?
March 31, 2011
I am writing this out of frustration with the PayPal process. If you can avoid it, NEVER use PayPal as your payment processing. They require you to give way too much information to receive payments from customers. And that’s not all.
First of all they charge a processing fee which takes a certain percentage from every transaction. To issue a check they charge another $1.50. It doesn’t seem like a lot but imagine the hundreds of thousands of transactions that are being processed every day and you can see how they afford the phone bank they employ to answer questions from frustrated users like us! But that’s not all!
Even after you verify your bank account to automatically transfer the funds into (to avoid the extra check charge), it takes anywhere from 4-6 business days to move the money. Although they have already received the money from your customer, they make you wait almost a week before you receive your funds. Why would that be?
If you think about it the $450 sits in their account for a week earning interest. Doesn’t sound like much but when you multiply an average of $1000 per transaction times the tens to hundreds of thousands of transactions they must see in a day, it adds up. It’s almost like the govenment’s withholding scam! The take the money from our paychecks and hold it all year. Then we get to beg for it back on April 15th, wait 4-6 weeks for the refund with NO FRIGGIN’ INTEREST!
Look, I am not against people earning a living, but wouldn’t it be just as easy for someone to pay by check? It would be lot less expensive too!
- FedUpEditor
Even when we win we lose
March 23, 2011
My friends, we are living in an alternate universe. Everything seems to be backwards and upside down. Good is defeating bad and yet Conservatives are continually on the losing end regardless of the outcome.
Take a look at Wisconsin. A democratically elected Republican House, Assembly and Governor were hired to balance the state’s budget. Remember that the Democrats left town and hid out in unknown locations in order to stall the vote. But the bill to limit public-sector collective bargaining got passed anyway. After all, the state can’t afford the agreements that have been made. One would think that’s the end of it, right? Conservatism and the people won.
Not so fast. Judge Maryann Sumi issued a temporary restraining order last week saying the Wisconsin legislators did not give appropriate notice of a vote on the bill that affects parts of public sector union’s collective bargaining powers. She didn’t say the bill was “unconstitutional”. She said not enough notice was given about the vote. and that’s why she stopped it. For goodness sakes, I don’t live in Wisconsin and I knew about the vote for over a week. How much time does this liberal judge need anyway? Never mind the fact that this judge has ties to the union; her son is one of the union organizers!
Let me get this straight. So one person with an agenda gets to decide against the people of Wisconsin who voted for the people trying to balance the budget. (Note: she has to run for re-election soon and is supposedly in a very liberal area.)
But wait, it gets worse. Instead of recalling this Judge Sumi or the Democrats who abandoned their jobs and fled the state to avoid debating and voting on the bill, it is the Republicans whose jobs are being threatened with recall. It should become clear to anyone that this is about big money unions bosses trying to keep the bargains in place in order to continue the cash flowing into the coffers. Then that money can be used to help Democrats get elected who will then pass legislation that is favorable to the unions. It’s all very cozy. And after all, there is a lot of money riding on this gamble.
My question is this. Why do Wisconsin Republican legislators have to follow the rules just because one activist judge says they must? Remember, Obama’s drilling moratorium was declared illegal by a Federal Judge, yet it did not stop him from continuing to implement the ban. This has cost the US thousands of jobs and who knows how much in revenue? Then take a look at heath care. Another Federal Judge has declared it unconstitutional, yet Obama’s administration is moving forward on implementing it anyway.
So it’s okay for one county judge to rule on a law and that ruling must be followed, yet federal judges are to be ignored? And they wonder why we are so angry!
The Revolutionary War was declared only after every other avenue had been tried with King George. People in the New World were tired of taxation without representation. Yet isn’t that what we have today? Perhaps instead of a peaceful revolution it will have to come to an armed conflict.
Make no mistake, we are in the fight of our lives. What is happening in Wisconsin is symptomatic of what is going on all over the country. If we lose here, it could very well be the end of the nation. After all, if the states don’t have the money they could easily collapse. If the states fail then the country fails. Union leaders don’t seem to care, but I sure do.
FedUpEditor
