Out of Control Spending

It is shameful to think that our President, his Administration, and many members of Congress, expect us to buy the false notion that government “job” creation will boost the economy.  Government cannot create productive jobs.  The private sector does that in a vibrant economy.  The President calls spending “investing” an idiotic notion that it returns a profit to the treasury.   “Investing” in rebuilding infrastructure, constructing high-speed rail, etc. all require funds out of the public treasury to pay workers, and buy materials.  The treasury being empty, the funds will have to be borrowed, increasing the burden on taxpayers, for interest.  The wise see this as a re-election tactic; beneficiaries see it as a reward for their votes.  For national leaders to push such an agenda smells like week old fish, and seems to confirm a culture of corruption in government.

Using taxpayer funds to finance “benefit” programs to influence voters has been practiced since the 1930’s, and is the major reason for our 14 plus trillion dollar debt.   Recognizing the current level of spending cannot be sustained, voters chose to end this practice in November 2010, by electing candidates to the House, who promised to do that.  The House is attempting to curtail spending, with wailing resistance from self-serving members, whose votes are largely from recipients of benefits, which together form an unholy alliance that feeds upon itself – a socialistic practice that promotes corruption.  The President, acting in a dictatorial manner, ignoring the clear wishes of the people, has reportedly threatened to veto any cuts in spending he deems harmful. 

Curtailing the obscene spending habits will require some radical but sensible changes in “entitlement” eligibility.  There is no moral authority for anyone to lay claim to the fruits of another persons labor.  Such a claim doesn’t square with human dignity, yet it has been practiced for decades by government, both state and federal, in the name of democracy.  As Karl Marx so proudly proclaimed, “Democracy is the road to Socialism.”

Government has become so expensive we can no longer afford it.  The practice by Congress of creating programs to buy votes is totally out of control.  The current spending practices could be substantially reduced if Congress had the will. And there is no Constitutional prohibition from doing so.  Except for those who have paid into a fund such as Social Security, Medicare, etc. simply deny those receiving pay or benefit from government, the privilege of voting.  Without support of those receiving benefits, those who would put the nation further in debt would not get re-elected.  Barring vote buying would do much toward restoring integrity to the institution.

Grady Mullins

A Decaying Society

The Founding Fathers of this Republic formulated a plan called a Constitution whereby, if followed, the people could control their destiny, and we the people have failed to abide by it.  Generations have failed to pass down the foundational principles set forth to ensure a stable and lasting society.  The Founders understood very well the innate nature of man.

The Founders understood what Sir Alex Fraser Tytler, a Scottish jurist and Professor of History at Edinburgh University stated in a lecture in 1801.  He said,

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government.  It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury.  From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.”

Today, who gives thought about why so many Court decisions affecting our freedom are decided five to four?  The single function of the Court is to see that the other two branches abide by the Constitution.  How then can nine literate judges read the same document and differ in interpretation five to four with the same five to four voting in a bloc?  Does President Obama believe, as did Roosevelt, that a President has the authority to dictate Court decisions?  That seems like what is going on in Egypt and other Dictatorships around the world - strange thinking for a Constitutional Law Professor.

The Constitution gives the people authority to “govern” government at the ballot box, but when the loyalty of voters can be bought with benefits, taking away those benefits will surely end in chaos and insurrection against government.  Now is the time for people to dwell on the question, could this be part of a plan?

The Original Black Panthers

In WW-II the 66th Infantry Division was officially named the "Black Panther Division." 

As a rifleman, I was later assigned to the Division as a replacement for one of the 748 enlisted men (plus 14 Officers) killed by a German Torpedo in the English Channel on a troop transport on December 24 (Christmas Eve) 1944.

I am angered over demonstrations and sentiments expressed toward our Country by what I regard as anti-American radicals who have adopted the name of the Division.  This militant group casts a dishonorable impression on a Division who served the Country honorably.  Also, actions of this group show a callous and disgusting disregard for the families who lost loved ones while serving in that Division.

Although there be no legal remedy preventing that group from using the name, it is my intention to let the reader know about the original use of the name and the honor it symbolized.  

 

 

The 66th Infantry Division
Shoulder Patch



State of the Union Speech Followup

In a follow up of somewhat old news but important none-the-less, Grady Mullins writes his views in a letter to the editor of the "Rockdale Citizen" titled "We Still Have Time To Fix Problems" as partially follows:

In his State of the Union address, the proposals the president outlined for additional spending — he called it investing — would add to an existing obscene national debt and give reasons, in the minds of the informed, to question his motives.

Many feel the country is already on the brink of bankruptcy and more spending would surely hasten that happening. Sadly, many people are either not paying attention, don’t care or don’t fully understand the effects of more spending.

In the article he cites some, what would be comical if it were not so serious, deficiencies in some of our representatives' lack of understanding of the "commerce clause", a portion of which is quoted here:

...... one career congresswoman opined that it was unconstitutional to deny citizens free health care, adding something about constitutional rights under the commerce clause.

To get the benefit of the whole article Click Here 

Victims Deserve Swift Justice in Tucson Shooting

The following is an informed Patriot's letter to the editor of the Rockdale Citizen paper.  http://www.rockdalecitizen.com/letters/headlines/LETTERS_Victims_deserve_swift_justice_in_Tucson_shooting_114178704.html

The spectacle billed as a memorial service for those killed and wounded in the Arizona shooting rampage seemed more like one would expect at a sporting event or a political rally. The yelling, whistling and clapping are not what one might expect on such a solemn occasion. Recognizing the event was held on a college campus where many students are still in their formative years does not excuse ill-mannered, undignified behavior.

Everyone should closely follow what happens to the shooter who is charged with committing this dastardly act. Due to the snail’s pace of our justice system, some of the victims will likely not live long enough to see this case brought to a close. What will be the years and cost to taxpayers of prosecuting this case in court? There appears to be good reason to question the efficiency and effectiveness of our courts. Defense attorneys will no doubt request a change in venue, which will likely be granted, even though the Sixth Amendment to our Constitution specifies “criminal prosecutions shall be tried in the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.” Defense attorneys will no doubt claim the shooter was not capable of knowing what he was doing. With a change in venue, they might even convince a juror or two. Who of sound mind can believe anyone could plan such an act, and carry it out, as reported by media, and not know what he or she was doing? Psychiatric tests will further delay the process. One might be led to think of it as job security for trial lawyers and the courts. Courts will soon be so expensive we won’t be able to afford them. Has the wording in the Sixth Amendment, “the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial,” become outdated? What ever happened to the premise that justice delayed is justice denied?

Contrast the foregoing scenario with the attempted assassination of President Franklin Roosevelt. He had just finished a speech in Florida on Feb. 15, 1933, when an Italian immigrant emptied a .32 caliber pistol at the president but missed and fatally hit the mayor of Chicago. Some others received lesser wounds. The mayor died from his wounds 19 days later on March 6, 1933. There being numerous witnesses, the shooter was charged with first-degree murder, pleaded guilty, and 14 days later, on March 20, 1933, was electrocuted.

A speedy trial? Being an eyewitness to a crime is powerful testimony. All those wounded would certainly be eyewitnesses, and would also qualify as “peers.” When a sufficient number has recovered, empanel them as jurors to determine guilt. According to media reports, this crime would seem to fit both aggravated and premeditated murder. If found guilty, the death penalty should be imposed with the time for execution set, not to exceed 30 days. This would allow time for the defense to prepare an appeal, under the option that loser pays.
— Grady Mullins
Conyers