Check out my new page “Books to Read”.  I can highly recommend these books because I have read them and found them to be enlightening.  If you would like to purchase one of them, click on the book title and it will take you to Amazon.com.

I’m not a sports fan or a football fan.  However, I spent the evening tonight watching the Saints beat the Colts in the 44th SuperBowl.  My sister, who has lived in South Louisiana since 1977 said that there has been a saying here, that the Saints would win the SuperBowl when “hell froze over”.  Well I guess hell has froze over, because the New Orleans Saints just won the SuperBowl and I watched all of it.  It was GREAT!  The interception from #22 was the highlight of the game. 

I found this little jewel over at Heritage Foundation and thought it was a great simple illustration on what the President and Congress are doing to our economy.  Let’s vote these guys out of there and demand our representatives are fiscally responsible with our money.

The new budget numbers have been released.  $3,800,000,000,000 (3.8 trillion).  The Congressional Budget office (CBO) says that if current laws and policies remain unchanged, the federal budget would show a deficit of $1.35 trillion for fiscal year 2010.  They are also projecting that total debt will reach $8.8 trillion by the end of 2010 which is 60% of GDP.  This is the highest it has been since 1952 and the CBO believes that will climb to 67% by 2020.  As the debt goes up, the interest payments on the debt will likely skyrocket.  They project it will triple between 2010 and 2020, increasing from $207 billion to $723 billion.  If I ran my budget this way, I would be living in a cardboard box under a bridge somewhere.

Below are charts from the Heritage Foundation.  The first one shows how federal spending is growing faster than federal revenue.  Since 1965, federal tax revenues have increased by more than $1.5 trillion and spending by $3.3 trillion.  In 2009, federal revenue dropped while federal spending increased by over $1 trillion.  This is unsustainable.  Somewhere somehow, you reap what you sew. The Piper needs to be paid.

The next chart is even bleaker.  Federal spending has increased 221% since 1970 and median income just over 32%.  We are spending nine times faster than incomes are increasing.

 

In an article by Doug French called Illusions of the Age of Keynes, he brings to light the Keynesian Economics mindset of Washington.  He says,

 “The president’s other top economic advisors — Larry Summers and Christina Romer — have been described as neo-Keynesian and “have made clear by their actions that they view the private sector, left to its own devices, as incapable of sufficiently investing in education, health care, infrastructure, energy and other areas of national well-being,” wrote Horowitz. “They warn that in absence of a greatly expanded public sector (this means bigger federal government); the current business downturn will be even more prolonged and painful.”  Washington continues to have faith in government expenditure correcting the downturns of private investment.” Emphasize added.

Showing the insanity of federal government economics, he gives us a look at the economic crisis experienced by Japan.  Between 1986 and 1987, the Bank of Japan cut interest rates six times which caused one of the largest domestic bubbles in the world.  At one time the Japanese stock market was bigger than the U.S. Stock Market.  However, just like with all bubbles created by government manipulation, the bubbles burst.  In the 1990s, Japan slashed interest rates to zero and tried 10 fiscal stimulus packages totaling more than 100 trillion yen.  They all failed to cure the recession.  Would they learn that this doesn’t work – No.  The Japanese government passed additional stimulus programs in 2008 and 2009.  What was the result of all this?  “Japan’s GDP at the end of this year will be no higher than it was in 1992 – 17 lost years.”

So why do Washington officials insist upon doing the same erroneous things over and over?  There is a saying that goes, “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”. 

Murray Rothbard said in “America’s Great Depression” that in an economic downturn, the positive things that government can do is “drastically lower its relative role in the economy, slashing its own expenditures and taxes, particularly taxes that interfere with saving and investment.”  A reduction in the tax and spending levels will automatically increase saving and investment, “thus greatly lowering the time required for returning to a prosperous economy”.

Doug French says, “Instead of the government expanding its size and reach, propping up failed businesses, lowering interest rates to zero, printing money, and attempting to dictate which sectors of the economy thrive and which fall by the wayside, the proper governmental policy in a depression is strict laissez-faire, including stringent budget-slashing and coupled perhaps with a positive encouragement for credit contraction.  (Credit contractions are attempts to minimize or limit the amount of credit that is currently available to consumers. The use of a credit contraction is normally associated with the desire to slow the rate of inflation in the general economy. By creating a state of recession, credit contractions help to slow or even possibly stop any growth of inflation for a period of time.)

Ludwig von Mises wrote, “There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion (which the federal government creates).  The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.”

The Keynesians in Washington say they can stimulate the economy.  But you cannot print prosperity and you can’t spend your way to prosperity.  You and I know that the way you fix the economy is by tightening your fiscal belt and spend within your means.

You may have gotten this by email.  If you haven’t, I’m posting it here for your reading pleasure.  We, the people, need to take control of our country.  We need to find regular hard-working citizens who will committ to go to Washington and work on our behalf.  We need to only vote people into office who will follow the Constitution of the United States and then hold them accountable when they do not.

545 PEOPLE 
By Charlie Reese 

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them. 

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits? 

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes? 

You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The president does. 

You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. 

You and I don’t write the tax code, Congress does. 

You and I don’t set fiscal policy, Congress does. 

You and I don’t control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does. 

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country. 

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank. 

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason.. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don’t care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator’s responsibility to determine how he votes. 

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party. 

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. 

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to. 

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted — by present facts — of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can’t think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist. 

If the tax code is unfair, it’s because they want it unfair. 

If the budget is in the red, it’s because they want it in the red .. 

If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ , it’s because they want them in IRAQ 

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it’s because they want it that way. 

There are no insoluble government problems. 

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like “the economy,” “inflation,” or “politics” that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do. 

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. 

They, and they alone, have the power. 

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses. 

Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees. 

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess! 

Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper. 

I have to write about this, because it is one of my pet peeves, and I’ve been hearing it on FOX almost every night lately.  That is the topic of campaign promises.  One week, all we heard on TV and the internet is how Obama promised transparency and CSPAN coverage of the healthcare bill.  This week, all we hear is how Obama promised “no spending freeze”.  I guess it is a slow news month.

I don’t know about you, but I never believe anything candidates promise on the campaign trail.  The reason I don’t is because they have never held that office and have absolutely no idea what all is involved in holding that office.  It reminds me of my days in corporate America.  I worked as a Team Manager for a large Fortune 500 company.  There were many times I thought a decision which came down from the President of the Corporation was absolutely idiotic and stupid.  However, in reality, I didn’t know what he knew.  I did not have access to the information he had access to.

I believe once you get into the White House, you are on an entirely different playing field.  You now have access to all of this pertinent information.  You have to make decisions based on that information.  We have seen President Obama, over the last year; make some decisions that have gone against his progressive left.  Why would that be?  It is because he has access to information they don’t have.  I feel certain, at times, he struggles with this because it goes against what he really believes and wants to do; but has to make the decision he makes because he knows it has to be done.

Now, don’t get me wrong.  I’m not an Obama fan and hate what seems to be his socialist agenda. However, it makes me want to turn over to MSNBC when I hear once again about Obama’s campaign promises.  NOT!!!  But, maybe, I’ll go get a new soda during that segment.

You may wonder why we should care about what is happening in other countries.  When you consider the direction our current administration is trying to take this country, it matters a lot; because what is happening there will happen here and in many places in America is already happening.

Social workers gone awry.  Here is an example of Social Services in the UK taking a woman’s baby away because she is not deemed “clever enough” to raise him.  How dare they look into their crystal ball to assume this.  This is just another example of how the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child will affect parents.

From the UK Daily Mail:

Mother ‘not clever enough to raise child’ has baby snatched by social workers after running away to Ireland to give birth

By Alison Smith Squire on January 22, 2010-01-25

 

A couple who fled to Ireland after social workers threatened to remove their baby at birth have had the newborn snatched after all.

Kerry Robertson, 17, who has mild learning difficulties, and Mark McDougall, 25, went on the run after British social services said she was not clever enough to raise a child.

But just four days after Ben was born, Irish social workers marched into the maternity ward and forced them to hand him over.

Proud mother: Kerry Robertson and Ben, who she isn't allowed to bring up

They were told they were acting at the behest of their British counterparts.

The couple, from Fife, Scotland, have been on the run for three months.

In September, their wedding was halted just 48 hours before the service when social workers claimed Miss Robertson was not bright enough to understand the marriage declaration.

Then in November they were told that her ‘disability’ meant their baby would be taken away at birth.

With Miss Robertson 29 weeks pregnant, they fled their house in the middle of the night and travelled to Ireland.

Ben was born healthy and weighing 7lb 3oz last Friday.

Last night Miss Robertson said: ‘When the Irish social workers said I had to give the baby to them, I felt sick.

‘I didn’t want to hand him over and I started crying because I couldn’t believe what they were saying. I thought I had misunderstood.

‘I had just been breastfeeding him.

Just before they took him away, I told Ben I loved him and gave him a kiss.’

Mr McDougall added: ‘Kerry let out a dreadful cry when she realized what was happening – it was terrible. She is just in pieces.

‘We believed that the Irish had more traditional values than social workers in the UK. We found a two-bedroom cottage in a beautiful village in Waterford overlooking the sea.

A family divided: Father Mark with Kerry and the baby, who is now in foster care

‘Kerry booked herself in with the local GP and at last we began to feel as if we were safe.’

An anonymous benefactor has been funding the couple after they left home with just £200, and has even paid for the house.

Artist Mr McDougall has also been selling pictures while friends and family have donated clothes, baby gear and further money.

Miss Robertson has been cared for by her grandmother since the age of nine months after her own parents were unable to look after her, with her care overseen by Fife Council.

She began getting contractions last Friday and the couple went to the local hospital, where she gave birth after a natural labor.

‘Both of us were overjoyed,’ said Mr McDougall. ‘Ben was absolutely perfect.’

But on Tuesday morning two Irish social workers – a man and a woman – came to the hospital and delivered the bombshell.

Mr McDougall added: ‘It seems that through Kerry’s medical records – although we have been on the run she has always ensured she had all the checks and scans on the baby – Fife Council had been alerted.

‘The social workers said that now Ben was born, Fife had put him on the at-risk register and he was subject to a care order.

As the social workers told us the news, the two midwives who have been caring for Kerry were so distressed that they fled the room.’

Ben is being cared for by foster parents.

Family law experts said that if Fife had genuine concerns about the baby it had a duty to pursue the couple even once they had fled its jurisdiction.

Under a 1980 European convention on child welfare, they would have contacted the Irish authorities to alert them and the Irish would then have sought an order from a judge allowing them to intervene.

Irish social workers now have to investigate for themselves and have until Monday to make a decision on the case or apply for an extension.

The couple have been allowed to see their son for two hours every other day.

Miss Robertson said: ‘Holding him made me upset all over again. I’ve told the social workers I don’t want him to have bottled milk or a dummy. I feel breastfeeding is so important and at least then he is still having some of me.’

Mr McDougall claimed the care order had the wrong baby’s name on it and the wrong date of birth. He added: ‘Kerry and I are now absolutely furious because we believe our baby has been kidnapped by social services.’

LibDem MP John Hemming, who has been supporting the couple, said: ‘There is no evidence that Mark and Kerry cannot be good parents and I just hope that the Irish authorities can resolve this as quickly as possible.’

The Irish authorities refused to comment last night.

Stephen Moore, executive director of social work at Fife Council, said: ‘I can confirm that although the Robertson family are not presently within Fife, we are committed to working closely with professional colleagues elsewhere to ensure safety and welfare of the child and indeed the whole family as this is of paramount concern to us.

‘I would urge Kerry to use all the support that is being made available to her and her baby and to get appropriate help should she need it.’

Please go to www.ParentalRights.org to get involved.

I wanted to make sure to give everyone an update on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (a United Nations treaty) and the Parental Rights Amendment (H.J.Res.42). 

We are having enough problems right now with liberal judges, the CPS (Child Protective Services) and the government taking away parental rights in cases where the child is not being abused or endangered.  We need the Parental Rights Amendment in order to ensure that parents have their God-given right to raise their children according to their own values.

I urge you to go to http://www.parentalrights.org/ and sign the petition that you want this Amendment passed.  The content of the Amendment is posted on their website.  To find out more about this evil treaty, I encourage you to go to read the 3-part article that I wrote about the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the affect it would have on the parents of the United States.

http://faithfulinprayer.wordpress.com/2009/05/22/un-convention-of-the-rights-of-the-child-part-1/
http://faithfulinprayer.wordpress.com/2009/05/26/un-convention-on-the-rights-of-the-child-part-2/
http://faithfulinprayer.wordpress.com/2009/05/31/un-convention-on-the-rights-of-the-child-part-3/

 Here is a copy of the latest email update from ParentalRights.org:

Dear Champion of Parental Rights,

In Minnesota, “Jaime” was shocked to learn she needed her 11-year-old daughter’s permission to access the daughter’s medical records or contact a physician about the girl’s health. The doctor hides behind a federal law as the justification for his action. “Lisa” in Colorado learned that “to protect the privacy” of a 9-year-old’s library records, government librarians refused to tell her what books her child had checked out (even though Lisa was being asked to pay the over-due book fine) – an experience shared by “Nicole” in Maryland.

These examples demonstrate the urgent need for the Parental Rights Amendment (PRA). Governments have an ever-increasing view of their power to deal directly with children in exclusion of the parent. 

In the past year, we’ve seen the PRA introduced in both houses of Congress, securing 129 co-sponsors in the House and 6 in the U.S. Senate. We have built a grassroots network throughout the country that must continue to grow, fueling our support in Washington until the Amendment passes. We have communicated loudly to Ambassador Susan Rice and to the U.S. Senate that we do not want to see the UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child ratified. And we have built the behind-the-scenes infrastructure of our organization that has directed this growth and will see us through to ultimate victory.

All of this has been made possible by the generous support of donors willing to invest in this vital effort to preserve our children and their freedoms by enshrining our freedoms in the text of the Constitution.

Parents of 5-year-olds shouldn’t have to fight a doctor or dentist, because of federal privacy law, for the right to remain present while their child undergoes an examination or receives care. Yet we have received letters from “Megan” in California and from several others in different states who have faced just such a challenge.

Many others find educational freedom to be an even greater challenge. “Jenni and Dave” were frustrated when their Alabama school refused to move their son out of a classroom that contained a bully and an abusive teacher, even as their son’s school performance dropped. Sixteen-year-old “Kelly” in California was able to get a secret abortion because her public school released her without parental consent to have the procedure done. Mother “Monica” was shocked to learn about all of this when she accidentally received the bill.

Even home education is not without problems, as the “Nelson” family in New York learned. They were threatened with charges of educational neglect simply because they opted not to use the public school at all, though they followed the letter of the law to home educate their child from the very beginning.

If we are to protect these rights and see our success continue in 2010, we know we need to increase our reach. But reaching a wider audience will require more resources than we have had available so far. To meet this need, we are looking for members to support this vital effort.

I encourage you to get involved in this effort.  If you have kids, you could be impacted by these events.  If you are a grandparent, your child and grandchild could be impacted.  If you don’t have kids at all, then you will still be impacted because the children being raised by the government could be your leaders, bosses, and caretakers as you grow older.

Pray for this treaty and this amendment and get involved.

Our Constitution set up three distinct, separate branches of the government -The Executive branch, the Legislative branch and the Judicial branch.  Each of these have different functions and powers.  The Constitution words it this way:

Article 2, Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

Article 1, Section 1
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Article 3, Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

What does it mean “vested”?  The dictionary says, “To place (authority, property, or rights, for example) in the control of a person or group. 

The men who wrote and adopted the Constitution were no mere farmers.  They were the intellects of their day.  They studied the science of politics.  They read the works of many political geniuses throughout history.  One particular scholar and writer they read was Baron de Montesquieu, Charles-Louis de Secondat (Montesquieu).  He wrote “The Spirit of the Laws”. 

In the Federalist Papers #47, James Madison quotes Montesquieu as saying, “There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person.”  Madison then continued by saying, “The accumulation of all power, legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

We see the powers of one branch over another branch being usurped in many ways these days and all of it going unchecked or unchallenged.  One example is the judicial branch making laws through judicial decrees and another example is the President making laws through Executive Orders and Proclamations. 

Today, I’m focusing on Executive Orders (EO). 

Prior to 1907, executive orders basically were not announced or documented.  In 1907, the Department of State instituted our current numbering system.  There were no rules or guidelines saying what the President could or could not include in an Executive Order.  However, in 1952, one of Harry Truman’s Executive Orders was challenged by the Supreme Court in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co v. Sawyer.  In EO 10340, Truman said that all steel mills would be under federal control.  The Supreme Court said the EO attempted to make law rather than just clarify law or act to further a law put forth by Congress.  

In the concurring documents of this case, Justice Frankfurter said of our founders:  “They acted on the conviction that the experience of man sheds a good deal of light on his nature.  It sheds a good deal of light not merely on the need for effective power, if a society is to be at once cohesive and civilized, but also on the need for limitations on the powers of governors over the governed.  To the end they rested the structure of our central government on the system of checks and balances.  For them the doctrine of separation of powers was not mere theory; it was a felt necessity.”

One of the major duties of the Executive Branch of government is to make sure the laws created by the legislative branch are executed and enforced.  It is unconstitutional for the President to create law through the use of Executive Orders.  However, Presidents have been doing so (both Democrats and Republicans) down through the years – some worse than others.

Recently, Obama issued an Executive Order establishing the Council of Governors.  While I detest this EO and feel that the Council of Governors is unconstitutional, Obama had the authority to execute the EO.  The blame for the Council of Governors goes to the 110^th Congress who passed the “National Defense Authorization Act of 2008 with Section 1822 in it.

However, the EO#13527, “Establishing Federal Capability for the Timely Provision of Medical Countermeasures Following a Biological Attack” does seem to legislating from the Oval office.  No prior legislation is mentioned, so I can only assume he is making law.

Even Abraham Lincoln created law when he issued Executive Orders on September 22, 1862 and January 1, 1863 which are now referred to as the Emancipation Proclamation giving freedom to slaves in Confederate states.  Don’t get me wrong – I am in no way condoning slavery.  However, he did not have the authority to do so.  Congress and the states later rectified this by passing the 13^th, 14^th, & 15^th Amendments to the Constitution.

So, what can about this?

If it is in regard to a law that the President has clarified or executed erroneously, they can rewrite or amend a previous law, or spell it out in greater detail how the Executive Branch must act.  In cases where the President is enacting law, the EO can be challenged in court, usually on the grounds that the Order deviates from “congressional intent” or exceeds the President’s constitutional powers.

We need to contact our representatives in Congress (both Senators and House of Representatives) and demand that they uphold the Constitution by challenging Executive Orders that are not just clarifying or executing law that they, the Congress, have passed.

Let us demand that the system of “Checks and Balances” be enforced to ensure the freedom of us, the citizens of the United States.

As I stated in my article, “Anarchy to Tyranny”, the President is NOT over the Legislative and Judicial Branches of government.  He is equal with them.  Let us never forget this.

James Madison emphasized both of these points when he wrote:

“It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the law be so voluminous (huge) that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated (publicized), or undergo such incessant (constant) changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow.  Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known and less fixed?”   - – Federal Papers, #62  (italics added by me)

I found this quote by James Madison in the book “The 5000 Year Leap”.  Every member of Congress needs to be sent this quote.  All of the laws being passed these days are huge and incoherent and being constantly changed.   We don’t even know who are writing these bills.  I really doubt that members of Congress are writing them.