The Flow of Consciousness

I received today an email from Working America, some kind of subgroup of the AFL-CIO which I unknowingly signed up for when a visitor rang my doorbell during the summer months.

Congress is moving toward an agreement to provide emergency bridge loans for domestic automakers, but significant roadblocks remain. These loans are urgently needed to avoid a collapse of our U.S. auto industry, which would send shockwaves across our entire economy and deepen the current recession.

To protect America’s workers in this economic crisis, we need your immediate help. Members of Congress need to hear from you directly. Call your senators today and make sure they get the message: Provide emergency bridge loans to the auto industry.

Call Bob Casey and Arlen Specter via the Capitol Switchboard today at (202) 224-3121.

To make your call as effective as possible, keep your message short and direct and begin by making it clear that you support providing an emergency bridge loan to the U.S. auto industry to protect American jobs. Communicating this simple message is enough, but if you’d like to provide additional information for why you support an emergency bridge loan, here are some talking points you can use.

* According to a study by the Economic Policy Institute:

o Nearly 2 million jobs have been slashed already this year, and we could lose 3 million more if emergency loans for the auto industry are not approved.

o If the auto industry is not rescued, jobs could be lost in all 50 states, including workers at parts suppliers and in dozens of supporting industries, not just workers in the Midwest.

* Any emergency bridge loan should include requirements that will protect the taxpayers, and ensure accountability and the long-term viability of the domestic auto companies.

I felt compelled to respond, both here and through the reply address.

And while we’re at it, we can bail out the CRT monitor makers and bail out the fax machine makers. While we’re at that, we could wish we would have bailed out the carriage industry in the early 20th century.

The Big Three have failed to innovate; they have failed to adapt to their circumstances and surroundings. Natural selection says that these companies should feel the consequences of their failures and go the way of the dodo. There are more useful, acclimated birds in the sky these days.

I feel for the workers, whose livelihoods and families depend on their income. I feel for the retirees, who rely on their pension income. However, the fault for this will lay in the hands of management and the stockholders. It will be they who must answer to their employees, perhaps by cutting their own salaries down to a more responsible level.

If the government must intercede, it would be far more worth the $34 billion to give new car vouchers to any taxpayer with a car older than so many years. Imagine the jobs that would be created! There would need to be more salesmen. There would need to be more gas stations, too, so that increases the number of construction workers and suppliers. There would need to be more people to recycle junked cars. There would need to be more people to administer all of these peoples at all levels. Entire industries could be created overnight, while the Big Three keep their money coming just the way they’ve always gotten it: from the responsible, always-right consumer, the one looking for the most car for the least price.

Really, what the American autoworker needs to do is hold management and the stockholders responsible for the financial mess, but prevent them from asking the federal government for a handout.

Update 2008-12-10 0903: Treehugger has an excellent fake advertisement for the bail out which so perfectly describes the feeling of the responsible American public.

Who did we just elect? Where Obama and I differ on social and economic policy, as well as civil liberties and philosophy of the role of government (read: just about everything), I thought we agreed on military service and conscription.

Apparently, that’s not the case.

Obama calls for US military mobilization.

But it’s also important that a president speaks to military service as an obligation not just of some, but of many. You know, I traveled, obviously, a lot over the last 19 months. And if you go to small towns, throughout the Midwest or the Southwest or the South, every town has tons of young people who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s not always the case in other parts of the country, in more urban centers. And I think it’s important for the president to say, this is an important obligation. If we are going into war, then all of us go, not just some.

I don’t know how I missed this back in September. I don’t know how I don’t know about this. It’s conceivable that I was on a mental vacation that day, but I would think that there would have been more hullabaloo about it on the news.

Oh, wait, the Republicans wouldn’t mind it, too. They’re just too smart to sponsor at this time H.R. 393, the Universal National Service Act of 2007, also known as the latest version of NY Democrat Chuck Rangel’s Draft Reinstatement Act.

Here are the particularly scary parts of H.R. 393:

SEC. 102. NATIONAL SERVICE OBLIGATION.

      (a) Obligation for Service- It is the obligation of every citizen of the United States, and every other person residing in the United States, who is between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform a period of national service as prescribed in this title unless exempted under the provisions of this title.
      (b) Forms of National Service- The national service obligation under this title shall be performed either--
            (1) as a member of an active or reserve component of the uniformed services; or
            (2) in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the President, promotes the national defense, including national or community service and service related to homeland security.
      (c) Age Limits- A person may be inducted under this title only if the person has attained the age of 18 and has not attained the age of 42.

SEC. 103. INDUCTION TO PERFORM NATIONAL SERVICE.

      (a) Induction Requirements- The President shall provide for the induction of persons described in section 102(a) to perform their national service obligation.
      (b) Limitation on Induction for Military Service- Persons described in section 102(a) may be inducted to perform military service only if--
            (1) a declaration of war is in effect;
            (2) the President declares a national emergency, which the President determines necessitates the induction of persons to perform military service, and immediately informs Congress of the reasons for the declaration and the need to induct persons for military service; or
            (3) members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps are engaged in a contingency operation pursuant to a congressional authorization for the use of military force.

The bill requires women to register for selective service, as well. It addresses conscientious objectors by placing them in noncombatant positions, meaning there is no way out of this.

The bill does not specify penalties for noncompliance, nor does it address post-secondary students (does allow high schoolers to continue until they earn a diploma, drop out, or turn 20).

What’s the likelihood of H.R. 393 suddenly getting passed? Slim and none. However, it exists, and Congress has been rather swift to move on things such as the PATRIOT Act, the DMCA, FISA Amendments, and the recent Wall Street bailout. Moreover, there is significant, indefatigable evidence that Obama supports the reinstatement of the draft.

Congratulations, Senator Obama. You’ve beaten John McCain by approximately six percent of the popular vote, and you’ve more than exceeded the 270 electoral college votes. You’re now the president-elect, and you’ll be the first African-American to be the president of the United States of America.

On January 20, 2009, you’ll be sworn in by the Chief Justice. Your oath will be:

I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Will you preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution?

You’ve barely mentioned it at all during your campaigning. I’m very skeptical, sir. A lot of the things you want to do would require constitutional changes, and it’s likely that fighting for those constitutional changes will be even harder than your fight to win the presidency.

Follow the constitution and your presidency will be one of the greatest. Exploit it, circumvent it, or ignore it, and you will be just another politician who somehow managed to get the seat in the Oval Office.

I bid you good luck and wish the blessings of the God or Gods of every American upon you. You will need them.

By this time next week, the initial hullabaloo of the election will be finished and hopefully—barring a Florida-2000-scale mess—the United States electoral college will have chosen a new president for the nation. The people will have spoken, having chosen from the two candidates the media has spoonfed to them since the candidates’ nomination.

On one hand, we have Barack Obama, the junior senator from Illinois. The Democrat hails from Chicago, where he was a lawyer before finding himself in the Senate in 2000. Opponents have connected him with various unsavory characters throughout his short political career, yet the man overpowers their cries with his charisma and eloquence.

Obama is basically a socialist. His plan to tax the wealthiest Americans more than the poorest is a clear indicator of his desire to redistribute wealth amongst the people, as if his plan for universal healthcare wasn’t socialist enough to prove it. He’s in favor of pulling troops out of Iraq, but, to my knowledge, he plans to keep them in Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, and all those other 137 countries where we have bases. He’s in favor of more economic regulation and more Federal meddling in education.

Obama has, however, supported network neutrality and wants to see more transparency in the federal government, but that doesn’t really mean anything. There was a study a while ago (I don’t recall if I blogged about it or just twittered it) which showed that transparency in government does little to reduce the corruption.

Honestly, Obama wants to do good. He’s just not willing to stay within the rights granted to the Federal government in the Constitution. In fact, I’ve not heard Obama say the word “constitution” in all of the debates I’ve watched.

Then, there’s this elderly guy from Arizona by the name of John McCain. He’s the senior senator from the state; a warrior by training. He was a soldier in Vietnam, staying in the Hanoi Hotel for several years. He’ll remind Americans—"my friends," as he calls them—of that every chance he gets, even though it has no bearing on his policies whatsoever. His supporters also tout this at every opportune moment. Annoyingly.

McCain promises to lower taxes, like Obama. The former is lowering them for everyone, especially the $250K+ crowd who already pays more. The latter actually plans to raise them for that crowd, while heavily lowering them for everyone else.

Before having an orgasm because of this tax thing, keep reading.

McCain however wants to tax healthcare benefits. Yes. Insurance. He’ll give you back money from your income taxes, but he’ll turn around and take it all away in insurance taxes.

McCain is a warrior. He fights wars. He wants to keep our foreign presence active for eternity, no matter the cost. Oh, and he makes laws like McCain-Feingold, which he’s almost broken several times.

McCain would give an education credit—a voucher—to every parent who wanted one so that they can send their children to another school if their school is failing. Yes, this means that McCain fully supports No Child Left Behind. That support alone is sufficient to lose him support of any teacher who is in his or her right mind.

Short story: both McCain and Obama’s tax policies suck. McCain’s is better for the rich, Obama’s is better for the poor and middle class. Neither is fair, really. Neither really wants to do anything sensible and new about foreign policy. Both voted in favor of the bailout, so neither has a sufficient grasp on non-Keynesian economics to understand why that was a bad move. Neither acknowledges that the Federal government has screwed up education royally.

Shorter story: Neither McCain nor Obama are fit for the office of President of the United States of America.

I’ll not be voting for either, and I urge you to vote otherwise, too. I prefer to vote for a candidate based on principle, not on fear that another who is worse would win. I vote for a candidate as if I am personally responsible for everything that candidate does, good and bad.

If more people voted like that, we’d have a good president for the first time in a long while and his (or her) name would not be Obama nor McCain.

My predictions: Obama will win. It will be a 8-9 point difference. That is, if the election isn’t stolen. In that case, McCain will win by less than 1 point. Obama would face an assassination attempt before the end of the first year, because some crazy redneck doesn’t like the new black president. It won’t succeed. McCain probably won’t survive the four years, as his health is already arguably declining.

I’d rather have President Biden than President Palin. The latter scares me more than anything, even more than a President Huckabee (at least Huckabee supported the fair tax).

Locally, Jason Altmire will defeat Melissa Hart for the PA 4th Congressional seat by double digits. He’s worlds better and will make for excellent opposition when I potentially run for Congress sometime after 2010, when I turn 25.

I don’t care much for the other races, other than a really local one (Michelle Brooks will defeat Duke Whiting…again in the PA 17th state legislative district). Brooks is pretty cool (met her in July in Erie) and opposes Real ID, so she’s got my vote.

While explaining to someone on a gaming forum I frequent essentially the content of my previous post, I cited my Table of Agreement on the Issues post from January. I decided to take the test again to see how my views have changed.

I’ve become even more of a Paul supporter. My Obama level dropped significantly, and my Kucinich level dropped just a little. The only other candidate level to increase was Gravel, who since then has switched to the Libertarian party.

Ron Paul did something today which I think only a few people saw coming, but is not surprising at all.

He essentially recommended that his supporters support one of the third party candidates. That’s Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution party, Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party, Ralph Nader the Independent, and Bob Barr of the Libertarian party.

He and the third-party candidates outlined four major issues which must be addressed in this election, and every election. The full declaration is on the Campaign for Liberty web site, but here’s a summary:

Foreign Policy

Pull out of Iraq. Cease war propaganda. Open up trade. Return to non-interventionism.

Privacy

Repeal FISA, PATRIOT, and Military Commissions Acts. Reject presidential signing statements and executive orders. Deny immunity for illegal corporate cooperation with the government.

The National Debt

No increase in the budget. Diminish the debt as a top priority.

The Federal Reserve

Investigate this private organization. Deny corporate bailouts, no matter how large or detrimental it shall be. Punish corporations for fraud and criminal acts.

He also gave an outstanding statistic (emphasis mine):

The system we have today allows a President to be elected by as little as 32% of the American people, with half of those merely voting for the “lesser of two evils”. Therefore, as little as 16% actually vote for a president. No wonder when things go wrong, anger explodes. A recent poll shows that 60% of the American people are not happy with the two major candidates this year.

Later in the day, Paul appeared on Wolf Blitzer’s show with Ralph Nader.

It’s amazing that Blitzer can’t seem to wrap his head around the fact that Ron Paul will not vote for McCain or Obama because he does not feel their policies are sound. Blitzer’s stuck in the “if you’re not voting Republican, then you must be a Democrat” mindset which plagues this country.

No, the third-party candidates don’t have a chance of winning this year. That’s not the point. It was fairly easy to see that Obama would be the Democrat candidate and McCain would be the Republican. I forecast this almost a year ago (I wish I could find that damned post). However, they’re not out to win.

They’re out to convince Americans that the two party system is broken, and that there really is little difference policy-wise between Obama and McCain, and that neither would adhere to the oath which they will take in their inauguration:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

McCain and Obama have consistently avoided Constitutional issues and citations, and that’s just part of the reason why neither will see a vote from Ron Paul, or myself for that matter. In fact, Obama didn’t even say the word “Constitution” in one of the debates I blogged. I have yet to hear McCain say anything about the Constitution in any recorded or live capacity.

The key goal of the press conference was to urge the press to open up the dialog between all of the candidates who are on enough state ballots that they could garner the 270 electoral votes necessary to win. Any candidate who meets that requirement should be invited to the debates.

The Daily Newscaster story Secret Service confiscates books, buttons from Ron Paul delegates should piss you of beyond all comprehension. After reading that story, you should be so livid that you could Hulk out and start flipping tables in a manner that Jesus would appreciate.

It shouldn’t matter if you are a Democrat, a Republican, a Libertarian, a Constitutionalist, a Green, or any other party. It shouldn’t matter if you are a capitalist, socialist, communist, constitutional monarchist, or anarchist.

The sneaky confiscation of materials from any delegate to a party convention—especially a federally recognized and federally funded convention—is an abomination and every single member of the party, and any competing party, should be up-in-arms and condemning of such illicit behavior.

This isn’t the Republican party I for which I signed up, and if you’re reading my blog and you’re a Republican, I’m sure it isn’t the party for which you signed up, either.

If it is, leave the party. Go start your own neo-conservative party based around the principles of censorship, control, and centrist propaganda. Better yet, leave the U.S. and go back to from whence you came. I don’t want you here and you are probably not my friend.

I’m taking my party back, and if there is no one with me, I’m gone.

An abbreviated version of this ran in the Tuesday, July 29, 2008 edition of the New Castle News as “Mortgage bailout hits taxpayers.”

Dear Editor,

Recently, government-sponsored, private lending companies Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were affected so deeply by the present housing debt crisis that Congress has taken it upon itself to bail out the two to prevent them from going bankrupt and foreclosing on hundreds of thousands of Americans.

These two corporations combined own or guarantee approximately half of the country’s $12 trillion mortgage market, according to the New York Times.

It will take at least $400 billion, and, by S&P estimates, as much as $1 trillion in order to bail out these two troubled government-sponsored enterprises. Where would this money come from?

It will come from America’s debtors: ourselves.

Right now, the national debt is $9,545,842,200,233.46—nearly $10 trillion, up from $6 trillion in 2001. If the bail out would cost $400 billion, each American is responsible for $1,300 of that—in addition to the $31,355.92 we already owe. If the bail out would cost $1 trillion, each American would be responsible for another $3,300 of the national debt.

The House passed a bill which essentially authorizes the bail out, which will help approximately 400,000 Americans avoid foreclosure. However, that’s only $1,000 per person, folks.

Congress is authorizing the expenditure of money which is not its to give. I urge News readers to read Congressman David Crockett’s “Not Yours To Give” to understand my perspective in this situation.

Also, I urge New readers to call the office of Senators Specter and Casey and urge them to vote against any legislation which authorizes this misplaced government charity to save mismanaged corporations which practiced unethical lending. I urge readers to contact the office of Representative Altmire, as well, and discover how he voted, congratulating him if he voted against the bill, or the opposite if he voted in favor of it.

The GOP loves less government except, of course, when they need federal billions to bail out their cowboy, unregulated, corrupt economic policies.

read more | digg story

I’ve learned a lot in the past year. I’ve become an independent person, living on my own and making my own money.

At this time last year, I was living in the Phi Kappa Tau house at Westminster College while taking a single graduate-level education class at Robert Morris University. I had just graduated from Westminster, and had taken during my last semester a class on American history and literature from 1492 to 1877.

The content of the class was heavily focused on the independence of the colonies, the American revolution, the founding of the nation, and the building of it. We spent only the last two of the 14 week semester on the civil war, but I didn’t mind. The civil war is interesting, but what caught my interest far, far more was the actual reasons for separating from Britain and the persons behind the movement.

I read Jefferson’s and Franklin’s autobiographies, as well as Paine’s Common Sense. At the onset of the class, I read Emerson’s “American Scholar” even though it wasn’t written until well into the 1800s. All of these documents affected me and my concept of scholarship, liberty, justice, and freedom.

It wasn’t until October or so when I heard of a Pittsburgh-native Texas Congressman named Ron Paul, an OB/GYN who’d found a calling in public service. Having recently read up on Barack Obama, I was interested to see who’d be challenging the senator from Illinois (yes, I called that early).

I was impressed with Dr. Paul’s platform. His focus on the Constitution and the restoration, or rather, a return to the observation of its powers, as well as his persona and depth of knowledge—and ability to explain his economic and foreign policies convinced me that he is the man to support for president of this great country. I drew a lot of lines between his desire for a conservative budget and non-interventionist foreign policy and those of the aforementioned forefathers and their peers. Dr. Paul really is, in policy and belief, a founding father.

Since that time, I’ve read some of Dr. Paul’s books, as well as books, blogs, and other works by other liberty-minded folks and fully believe in the restoration of traditional American liberty and a return to the traditional American foreign policy of non-interventionism and the traditional American free market economy. I hope to attend the R3VOLution March in D.C. on July 12 to hear Dr. Paul speak and participate in a rally and demonstration to show that 15,000 Americans want real change in Congress, not the superficial change promised by the remaining candidates.

Something which I recently realized I take for granted is my own freedom and independence: my freedom to speak my mind, my freedom to own a firearm, my freedom from unwarranted search and seizure, and the many other rights granted by the Constitution to me and every other American citizen. Conscription is all but dead here, and it’s fairly widely-accepted that there never will be another draft.

I took a job in May at a company in Pittsburgh and moved there, too. I have many coworkers, but only a few actually live in the US and work locally.

Recently, a foreign coworker of mine finished a degree in computer science at a top technical university in his homeland. He graduated on Saturday, and moved into a new flat on Monday to live his life as an independent person. Wednesday, he got a call, and was told he’d been drafted by his country’s military for compulsory service. For the next year, he’ll be patrolling the streets. He won’t have access to a computer for weeks or even months, if at all. He won’t be able to practice his art of crafting code. He won’t be able to enjoy the freedoms I enjoy. “I have no words,” he said to me. “All this higher education, and I’ll be police,” he said.

Another coworker, who left that country before he was conscripted, said that he would not be treated as we’d think. Our American military is a heaven compared to this former Soviet country’s military. There would be beatings meant to “toughen him up” and whatnot—the guy weighs just more than 100 pounds and doesn’t have much muscle on him. He’d not have the health care, benefits, and leave that American troops get. He’d not have much of anything except what the military gives him.

I know that duty is duty and, if asked, I would probably join the American military if I saw that I could be of use during a time of just war. However, since the US has been in but three just wars (one of which, WWI, is arguable, though, depending on the company discussing it), I doubt that I would join the military. My local coworkers and I want to help this man, but there’s nothing we can do.

While I’ll be enjoying Independence Day today and returning work and my apartment in Pittsburgh next week, yesterday was his last day working for us for a year. We’ll be glad to have him back when his conscription comes to a close; when he is once again independent.