Another Federal Power Grab ...

When will it stop???

Click on the link to see a brief video and article about the government taking jurisdiction over all of our waterways..

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/243299-democrats-buck-obama-on-water-rule

6 New LePage Vetoes

Here's the scoop:

http://stateandcapitol.bangordailynews.com/2015/05/26/six-new-lepage-vetoes-includes-nix-of-taylors-law-intermediate-driver-program/

2016 Presidential Candidates

As it's been awhile since I've written about the 2016 presidential races, I decided it was time to give an update on who's running and who's not.

Currently on the GOP side,  those who have officially announced they're running are Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee, George Pataki, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, and Rick Santorim.

Then there are those who most likely will run,  but haven't officially announced. They are Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Lindsey Graham, Bobby Jindal, John Kasich, Rick Perry and Scott Walker.

Hilary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are the only two who have announced so far on the Democrat side. But watch for O'Malley and Webb to jump into the ring at some point.

So far,  I like Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Carly Fiorina the best. What do all 3 have in common and/or what makes them stand out?

All 3 are extremely articulate and are not afraid to say what they really think, take stands on matters they care about and are able to take complex issues and explain them to the public in a way that is understandable.

They also don't carry on and on with political speak to the point where your eyes glaze over. Nor do you say to yourself after listening to them  "What the heck did they just say" and then realize you had no idea.

Rubio, Cruz and Fiorina also have the ability to argue their stances with finesse and not break a sweat. This will bode well during the debates.

However, I feel Marco Rubio is the standout candidate so far even though I disagree with him on two of his policies ie immigration and the NSA Surveillance stance.

Of course the race is still a long way off.  There are the debates starting in August which will  flush out those who can't handle the heat. We'll also have the Dems digging up dirt on those candidates they feel the most threatened by. That could take a few candidates down. And last, there's always the unpredictable. The one thing no pundit, political expert or campaign manager can ever forecast that could elevate a candidate to be the nominee or take them out of the picture completely. That's the way it goes.

However the races turn out, I'll be here watching, analyzing, putting my two cents in and blogging away. Let the best man or woman win!

Something Incredibly Positive ...

http://awesomejelly.com/11-year-old-boy-holds-salute-for-over-an-hour-on-normandy-beach-and-then-something-amazing-happens/

Scroll down the article and past the image for an incredibly touching video ...

Another Example of Corruption

I know I said my next post would be positive, but after reading an article by the Washington Examiner provided by a Twitter link about corruption and misinformation in regards to the EPA and the water issue, I had to share. Here's a quote from the article and then the link. Incredible what the government can get away with these days ...

"Government has many tools to instill public confidence. The most praiseworthy ones are transparency and accountability. When government works in the open and invites feedback, citizens can feel like they are part of the process, instead of being imposed upon by outside forces.

"But what happens when government just pretends to work in the open, in order to mollify public concerns?"

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2565018

Supreme Court Ruling

Just finished reading an article by InfoWars in regards to a Supreme Court ruling that could lead to  more governmental control over private pension funds and those who manage them. Here's an excerpt from the article with quotes by Economist, Martin Armstrong from the article:

"According to Armstrong, the outcome of Tibble v. Edison, which found that employers have a duty to protect their workers’ 401(k) plans from mutual funds that perform poorly, will grease the skids for the feds to seize private funds and prosecute companies who manage mutual funds badly"

“Between the court ruling and the Obama administration’s push for stronger fiduciary rules,” the developments send a “strong message that government can much easier seize the pension fund management industry of course to “protect the consumer,” writes Armstrong, warning that the ruling, “sets the stage to JUSTIFY government seizure of private pension funds to protect pensioners,” when the economy gets “messy".

“This fits perfectly just in time for the Obama administration’s next assault as they prepare a landmark change of its own by issuing rules requiring that financial advisers put the interest of customers ahead of their own,” writes Armstrong. “This creates a very gray area wide enough to justify public seizure of pension funds under management.”
 

 This is scary stuff and will affect millions. We're talking unions, government workers and anyone who is fortunate enough to work at a company that provides them with a retirement pension. But it'll go further than that. It'll hurt many aspects of the financial industry and have a ripple affect to further cripple our already depressed economy. Next up: Something positive, I promise! 

 

 

TPP and NSA Bills

Currently there are 2 very important bills in congress, the Transpacific Partnership Bill (TPP) and the National Security Agency (NSA) Surveillance bill, which was just voted on this morning.

The NSA Surveillance Bill, which was passed by the House,  has been blocked by the U.S. Senate. This is a good thing as far as I'm concerned. 

By rejecting the bill, it eliminates  the NSA's ability to collect mass telephone records of Americans. Consequently, the material would remain with the phone companies and the government would only be able to access particular phone records by gaining a court order. This would be done on a case by case basis.

I'm all for protecting our country from extremists who would like nothing more than to do us in, but at what cost?

Most American's will say, well 'I've got nothing to hide, so what's the big deal'? And 'our national security is more important than someone having my telephone number'.

Bottom line, is that the NSA will still have the power to access phone records of those they suspect want to hurt our country. That's a good thing. BUT they'll have to get a court order to do so. Consequently,  the privacy of the American people will be protected against possible corrupt NSA officials and/or those who would take advantage, if the bill had passed.

In regards to the TPP bill. The official spin is that the bill is meant to 'enhance trade and investment among TPP partner countries to promote innovation, economic growth and development and support the creation of and retention of jobs'. 

What does that mean? What are the details? How does it help our economy and in which way?

NOBODY KNOWS and if they DO KNOW, they're not allowed to talk about it! It took me hours to  find this out. I read articles by the Fox News, Washington Post, the NYT's, CNN, NPR and a few others. Nowhere was there mention of this restriction.  All that was discussed was the infighting, etc.

I thought to myself, this is odd... So I continued searching, thinking there has to be SOME INFO SOMEWHERE that tells something about the bill!

Long story short, I finally came across an article on the Breitbart wesbite where they spoke with Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala). He, along with Mike Lee (R-UT) were the only Senator's who were willing to speak with any kind of transparency.  Here's what Session's had to say:

"If you want to learn details of the TPP bill, you've got to be a member of Congress and go to the basement of a building and leave your staff behind, along with your cell phone at the door."

In a Politico article,  it was indicated that 'Documents were handed over to you, one at a time, while you were watched over when reading. Then you were forced to hand over any notes you made before leaving. And no matter what, you can't discuss the details of what you've read.'

Sessions did give a brief synopsis of what's in the bill as follows:  'participating countries can both add countries to TPP without congressional approval (like China) and can change any terms of the agreement-including the entry of foreign workers and employees.' That's it. I guess that's as much detail as he was allowed to give. At least it was something.

Last, I finally learned which presidential candidates were in favor or not in favor of the bill. Here's the results: Bush, Perry, Cruz, Rubio, Paul and Hilary are in favor. Graham, Paul, Carson, Christie and Walker haven't taken positions yet. I guess this article was written before the vote took place or we'd know that Graham had to vote yay or nay. Jindal, Huckabee, Trump and Fiorina publically announced they are against it.

But how could anyone take a stand on the bill, if they are outside of the Senate and weren't able to read it ???

One more interesting tidbit. None of the candidates who ARE in the Senate, according to the Breibart article, ever said whether they actually read the bill or not. Why not at least acknowledge this one way or the other? Guess there must be some political advantage that I haven't figure out yet. Clearly, something's not right, that We the People will probably never know what's in the bill and that leader's WE elect cannot talk about it.

Kirsten Powers and Freedom of Speech

Kirsten Powers, a Fox News Contributor and a Democrat has this to say about how Obama and people on the left are working hard to silence opinions and/or opposition from those who disagree with them. If a Democrat and a Liberal, and one at that actually admits to and writes a book about this topic,  no one can say the Republican side of the aisle are just stirring the pot and making wild accusations... Video's about 7 minutes.

https://www.facebook.com/heritagefoundation?fref=nf

Hilary Speaks!

Unbelievable ....

http://www.c-span.org/video/?326111-1/hillary-clinton-small-business-lending

More to come.

Rubio on Fox News Sunday

No doubt Rubio's on my short list ... Take a listen and let me know what you think.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4241295724001/marco-rubio-talks-foreign-policy-immigration-reform/?#sp=show-clips

Ayn Rand's 'Atlas Shrugged'

Lately I've been thinking a lot about Ayn Rand's book Atlas Shrugged.  I read this 1957 novel in my late teens, 20s and several times since. I also saw her speak at Northeastern University while attending college. The impact of both her book and the speech was profound to say the least.

As I pay attention to, think about and ponder all that is happening in our country and globally,  I realize how prescient Ms. Rand was. Here are a few excerpts taken from Wikipedia about her and her book. These excerpts give an idea about what this powerful novel is about and the message she wanted to convey. Couldn't have said things better myself:

"Rand's stated goal for writing the novel was "to show how desperately the world needs prime movers and how viciously it treats them" and to portray "what happens to a world without them".^[9] The core idea for the book came to her after a 1943 telephone conversation with a friend, where she said, what if I went on strike? What if all the creative minds of the world went on strike?"^[8] Rand then began Atlas Shrugged to depict the morality of rational self-interest,^[10] by exploring the consequences of a strike by intellectuals refusing to supply their inventions, art, business leadership, scientific research, or new ideas to the rest of the world."

"As the novel opens, protagonist Dagny Taggart, the Operating Vice President of Taggart Transcontinental, a railroad company established by her grandfather, attempts to keep the company alive against collectivism and statism."

"In the world of Atlas Shrugged, society stagnates when independent productive agencies are socially demonized for their accomplishments. This is in agreement with an excerpt from a 1964 interview with Playboy magazine, in which Rand states: "What we have today is not a capitalist society, but a mixed economy — that is, a mixture of freedom and controls, which, by the presently dominant trend, is moving toward dictatorship. The action in Atlas Shrugged takes place at a time when society has reached the stage of dictatorship. When and if this happens, that will be the time to go on strike, but not until then"."^[32]

"Rand's heroes continually oppose "parasites", "looters", and "moochers" who demand the benefits of the heroes' labor. Edward Younkins describes Atlas Shrugged as "an apocalyptic vision of the last stages of conflict between two classes of humanity — the looters and the non-looters. The looters are proponents of high taxation, big labor, government ownership, government spending, government planning, regulation, and redistribution".^[35]

"Moochers" are Rand's depiction of those unable to produce value themselves, who demand others' earnings on behalf of the needy, but resent the talented upon whom they depend, and appeal to "moral right" while enabling the "lawful" seizure by governments." 

"So you think that money is the root of all evil? ... Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or the looters who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil? ... Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into bread you need to survive tomorrow. ...

"Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men's protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values ... Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it bounces, marked: 'Account Overdrawn."

 We are quickly getting to the point of 'Account Overdrawn'. The government is spending way more than it takes in and the 'looters and the moochers' seem to be eroding our free enterprise system one hand out, one regulation and one top heavy federal entity at a time.

Our freedom of speech and expression of religion, patriotism or just personal opinions are becoming more limited. Say the wrong thing to the wrong person,  post a comment on social media that disagrees with the current administration or just try and gain media access to the White House if you've crossed them,  and you're either stonewalled or demonized. Or maybe the IRS might track you down and then you're really in trouble. Think about Net Neutrality and the Fairness Doctrine and where they may lead. Though the motivation and spin is dressed in positive messages, watch out. These tactics are just another way to shut down dessent and/or opposition down the road.

Last, but not least, is the tight relationship that has formed between the current executive branch and a large segment of the media.  What happened to the concept and practice of 'The Fourth Estate' where access to information is essential to the health of democracy? Where the media reports the facts so that citizens can make responsible, informed choices rather than acting out of ignorance or misinformation ?

Bottom line is that almost everything Ayn Rand wrote about in Atlas Shrugged way back in 1957 is happening right now, before our very eyes. The corruption, the demonization of those who create value by starting and running businesses (remember Obama saying "you didn't build that'?), where excellence is no longer rewarded and everyone receives an award regardless of performance, the repression of free speech for fear of retaliation, the lack of transparency in our government (remember Pelosi's statement where you had to 'sign the bill before you could read it'), the escalating financial handouts to just about anyone who wants them.  I could go on and on.

But all is not negative. It just seems that way at times. And though Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged should be taken seriously and as a warning of how things could go in our country if we don't pay attention and guard our freedoms along with the constitution, I'm confident that we the people can still turn things around. We've done it before and can do so again. 

A little political humor ..

The Drudge Report

Just finished reading an article written by Brent Budowsky, a columnist from the Hill. It's all about how Matt Drudge and his website drives the news and what's covered by just about all other media outlets.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/media/241351-is-matt-drudge-the-second-most-influential-man-in-america

Well, he's not the first to notice this! I blogged about it way back in 2010. Over 5 years ago. Check out my entry from February 16th. You'll have to scroll almost all the way down to find the post.

No time to post anything today, but yes, Drudge is still King of the Media and continues to drive what's reported, etc. Very interesting guy and one I'd love to chat with ...

Baltimore, the Border and the Middle East

Violence and unrest seems to be blossoming in so many areas here in the States and elsewhere.  Whether it be in Baltimore, Ferguson, the southern border along Mexico or the Middle East it speaks of changes that are happening and not necessarily good ones.

I think some of this unrest stems from the fact that we have a weak president who chooses to either ignore what's happening (the border), appease those who would destroy us (Iran) or in some cases, who wants to further create unrest and possible civil wars (riots in Ferguson and Baltimore) in order to give the federal government the opportunity to take more control over our lives.

The above may sound a bit over the top but I believe it's what's happening in certain aspects.

In regards to Baltimore and Ferguson. President Obama sent surrogates to investigate things ie Al Sharpton and Eric Holder respectively,  as well as others. He also spoke a few words himself on the subject . Did his surrogates or Obama's own words improve matters or make them worse? The jury's still out, but I think he and his minions made things worse.

I think they want the unrest and riots to continue. This way they can begin to develop a federalized police force to control the masses. Here's a quote by the POTUS from 2008 in Colorado Springs: "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the National security objectives we set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong and, just as well funded." Crips and Bloods?  Scary stuff if you ask me.

Moving onto the Border. Having recently learned about the tunnel that had been built between Mexico and San Luis, AZ  for use by drug smugglers, I've become even more concerned. Why? Because this tunnel could be used by members of ISIS and other extremists from the Middle East and beyond. This tunnel and who knows, there may be more,  just gives another avenue for illegal and unknown entrance to our country by those who would do us harm. How come the DEA didn't know about this for so long???

And why oh why hasn't Mr. Obama, or even Mr. Bush back in his day, the Congress or the National Guard taken steps to secure our borders long ago? Wait, I think I know the reason. Illegals add voters to the roster and of course we don't want to scare them off.

But there's also another culprit. Businesses. Yep, that's what I said. Being a free market gal and a fan of capitalism, you would think I'd not place blame on the very engines of our economy that I love to celebrate. But they're involved also.

If you hire illegals, you may not have to pay benefits, or maybe you can pay off the books even or minimum wage or below and get away with it. They may take jobs U.S. citizens may not want. So why would businesses lobby on the side of a secure border when it benefits them not to? We all know lobbyists are one of the most powerful entities in D.C. and how much they influence our elected officials re: bills, laws, etc. Consequently,  we don't hear a peep out of them in regards to the border issue.  But that's a story for another time.

Bottom line. I have no problem with people wanting to come to our country LEGALLY. Our ancestors did,  as well as people I know personally who have recently emigrated here. Part of the reason I imagine the immigrants come across illegally is either because the process is slow and laborious or they have criminal records. It took well over 2  years for the people I know who came here legally.

With all the wonderful technology available,  coming to our country should be as fast and efficient as shopping on Amazon. You fill out the appropriate information online,  records are checked for any criminal incidents and if all is filled out correctly and your record is clean,  you're golden. Come right over. I have no problem with that. So why can't we use the technology and internet in this way to help those who want to come who are honest, hard working folks and just want a better life. That's what our country's all about ie land of opportunity for all.

Oops, I forgot. It doesn't benefit politicians or some businesses...

Moving on to the Middle East. Recently read a couple of articles, one of which was written by the NYT's. It was about negotiations between the U.S. and Iran. No doubt the NYT's article view the Congress as interfering because they want a say in these negotiations. There was a paragraph about how and I quote 'The GOP's infighting could impede passing a bill that would give Congress a voice in any nuclear agreement between world powers and Iran.' In other words, if the GOP doesn't compromise with what Obama or his fellow Democrats want, then it'll be the GOP's fault if an agreement isn't reached or goes wrong.

So how are we impeding the bill from getting passed?

Well there are three players who want to add amendments. Vitter from Lousiana wants one that would require an assessment of the international and verification systems in an Iran deal.  Cotton from Arkansas,  would like a procedural motion to require Iran to end it's nuclear program. And last,  there's Rubio from Florida who wants Iran to acknowledge Israel's right to exist.

The only one I think that's viable is Vitter's amendment. Cotton's and Rubio's suggestions are unrealistic, though I don't blame them for trying. Iran would NEVER agree to end it's nuclear program. And though Israel has been a major ally of ours and we need to support them as much as we can, to even think Iran would acknowledge them is crazy. I respect Rubio. No doubt about it. But I'm surprised he included this as a requirement for an agreement. However, since this info came from an article by the NYT's, there could more to the story than what they're saying about both Rubio's and Cotton's suggestions.

Whatever the case, I'm glad the US/Iran talks are before congress.  We need a stop loss somewhere along the process in order to keep our POTUS in check. He loves executive actions, unilateral decision making and would be thrilled if no one in our country questioned or opposed any of his decisions.

At the end of the day, even with all the unrest and violence, political corruption and obsession with power, we still live in one of the best and safest country's in the world. And that's why so many want to come.  I just hope we can keep it that way...

GOP New Presidential Announcements

As I sit in my kitchen, looking out to sea and listening to birds chirping, I realize how lucky I am to live in this 'Land of the Free and Home of the Brave'. But I worry that we are on the brink of losing what is depicted in this phrase written in Francis Scott Key's, The Star Spangled Banner.

On a regular basis,  I watch the news on tv,  tune into CPSAN if there's an important congressional vote or speech and comb through the news as reported from a zillion different sites on the internet. The goal is to try and sift through the constant flow of breaking news and learn what I can about what's going on in our country, the government, the economy and world affairs.

As a result, it seems I come across more and more stories that lead me to believe we are headed on a slow march to destroy America by those who crave power over serving 'We the People'. But there are also tales about those who are trying to fight for what's right, whether it be a politician who struggles with a bill, a journalist who risks their life in the Middle East or recently in Baltimore, or an ordinary everyday person who speaks up against the status quo regardless of how they might be ridiculed, mocked or retaliated against.

With all of the above said, it's more important than ever to elect a president in 2016 that'll fight for America, our way of life and who'll represent 'We The People'. Here's a brief analysis of the 3 most recently announced GOP presidential candidates.

I'll start with Carly Fiorina. Her announcement was short, sweet and to the point. It interestingly started out with a clip of Hilary's also short and sweet announcement.  Fiorina  goes on to contrast herself as the anti-Hilary candidate who will stand up against the established political forces of the past and present so that ordinary citizens will have a say in government.

Ben Carson's announcement lasted about 30 minutes or so. It started out showing him holding hands with his wife of 40 years and introducing his 4 children all of whom are very accomplished. Like some of the other GOP candidates,  his speech talked about how he grew up in a poor family, but one that valued hard work and the belief that anyone, no matter their economic status or race could grow up to be whatever they wanted and prosper. He also talked about how socialism seems to be taking over and that we need to take our country back by following the Constitution. Very eloquent speech.

Mike Huckabee's announcement was similar but with a bit more bite and added humor. He made it a point to let people know he knows and understands the Clintons and how to deal with them, has worked with  Democrats as governor of Arkansas and was successful, etc. 

So now we have a total of 6 GOP presidential candidates who have announced their runs for office,  with more to come. I think this is great. The more we have to choose from, the better.

It'll be very interesting to see these candidates debate in August and how well they perform. It's one thing to give a great speech but it's something else to be able to do well in a debate where you stand side by side with the competition,  media firing off questions, camera's catching your every move and recording every word and yet remain calm, cool and collected. And if a candidate can do so without making a blunder, giving the opposition ammunition for the future or even retain a sense of humor, he or she has a chance at winning the highest office in the land. It's the way things should be. Competition is good and gives us the chance to weed out the weak or those not ready for primetime. May the best man or woman win!