In Defense of Gov. Balgojevich

If you live in Illinois you are probably hoping the Governor, Rod Blagojevich will just go away.  If you are also a politician, you are probably hoping he can be eased out of office without being forced to allow the people of Illinois to elect a replacement for Obama’s open Senate seat.  I, on the other hand, am hoping that Blago hangs on for another two years.

Blago has been “defanged” and there is little further damage he can do in two years with everyone watching his every move.  It’s not as though the Illinois government has done anything worthwhile for the people of Illinois since they dumped Dan Rostenkowski.  We may in fact, owe Blago a vote of thanks for bringing “pay for play” politics out of the closet.

There is nothing unusual about “pay for play”, and there is nothing unusual about an Illinois politician drawing the attention of U.S. attorneys.  What is so unusual it that it has grabbed front-page headline all over the country.  This is the first time in a long time that the American people have gotten a good look at just what kind of government we continue to elect without a second thought.

Those who are attempting to get Gov. Blago to resign or, better yet, get him impeached often wail, “The people of Illinois deserve better”.  Not true.  In a democracy, the people deserve exactly the type of government they elect, and they elected Blago, not once, but twice.  It’s not as though they didn’t know how Illinois politics worked.  After all, their last Governor is still serving time in a federal prison.  What’s more, at the time of his last election it was well known that he was already under investigation by the feds.

Just today fifteen Chicago building inspectors were charged with accepting bribes to look the other way as developers flaunted building regulations and zoning laws.  That’s the Illinois-Chicago way.  Before those of you in other states begin to feel overly smug, notice that few politicians anywhere are condemning Blago for doing anything wrong other than getting caught in an awkward wiretap and using colorful language in doing so.

Pay to play is considered okay if you do it for campaign contributions, and not for your personal enrichment.  This is especially true if you are smart enough to make it appear that the “pay” is voluntary and not coerced.  One of the unexpected consequences of Obama’s raiding the halls of Congress to fill out his White House Staff is the number of House and Senate Seats being put on the market.

Even as we bemoan Blago”s attempt to leverage benefits from Obama’s former Senate seat, millions of dollars are going into campaign coffers as repayment for plush assignments in the Congressional hierarchy.   According to an article in “The Hill” December 16, the going price for a choice chairmanship for a Congressional committee can run as high as one to two million dollars.  Maybe Blago just overpriced the Illinois Senate seat.

According to The Hill, “The chairmen are expected to pay $500,000 in dues, and raise at least $1 million. Top leaders are expected to pay at least $800,000 and raise $2.5 million. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) hit her target of raising $25 million.

People with less power pay less, according to a chart provided to The Hill by a lawmaker outraged by the link between policy and fundraising.

There’s ‘exclusive subcommittee chairs,’ then regular members of Ways and Means, Appropriations and the other exclusive committees, down to rank-and-file members, who are to pay dues of $125,000 and raise $75,000.”

Then there are the hereditary positions like Mayor of Chicago and President of the Cook County Board passed down from father to son.  And don’t forget Lisa Madigan, the Illinois State’s Attorney who petitioned the Illinois Supreme Court to declare Blagojevich “unfit to hold office”.  Lisa is the daughter of Michael Madigan, one of the top power brokers in Illinois politics.

I suppose we should not leave out Caroline Kennedy who is attempting to claim the New York Senate seat left vacant by Hillary Clinton’s move to Secretary of State.  Her qualifications for office? —Why, she’s a “Kennedy” don’tcha know.  Speaking of Clinton, she and Bill have become multi-millionaires since leaving the White House, thanks to contributions and speaking fees from governments all over the globe, particularly the middle east.  What better experience could one have for Secretary of State?

Yep, leave Blago alone.  What better poster child could we have for what’s wrong with American politics.  If he is kicked out now all will be forgiven and forgotten before the 2010 election cycle.  Just maybe if he is left in office till then, voters may awake from their slumber and think twice before casting a ballot for more of the same, even if it does have the label of “change”.

Cross posted at, Illinois Conservative

Obama Presidency Takes Shape

President-Elect Barack Obama continues to round out his White House and Cabinet positions with appointees drawn from the Illinois political mafia.  This week he named two more cabinet level appointees from Illinois, Congressman Ray La Hood (R-Peoria), Secretary of Transportation, and Arne Duncan, CEO Chicago Public Schools as Secretary of Education.

His choice of La Hood as Secretary of Transportation won him some accolades for bi-partisanship.  This is a little misleading, however.  La Hood is one of those familiar Illinois Republicans who offers token opposition to the state’s democrats to maintain the illusion of a two party system, but in Washington, they often side with the socialist/democrats in Congress.

Read Rest of Post

The Coming Revolution

As the world anxiously awaits the outcome of the balloting of the Electoral College to see who the next President of the United States will be, we are reminded once more of how far we have strayed from the Constitution model of government set up by the Founders.   Even before the Electoral College vote was announced, Barack Obama held a press conference announcing his selection for key offices dealing with energy and the environment in his coming administration. During the event, he peered out at the assembled reporters over a sign emblazoned with the legend “Office of the President Elect”.   More…

Taking Back Our Government

2008 and 2009 will mark the most cataclysmic changes in American society since the revolution of 1776.  Our government will have been taken over in a bloodless coup.  Barack Obama will step into the White House on January 20th to take the helm of “The Socialist States of America”, the way having been prepared for him by President Bush, Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke.

We will either take back the government over the next two to eight years or condemn another generation in the near future to the unpleasant choice of taking up arms against their own government or living in servitude.  Few of us can even imagine the dislocations in our lives and life styles that will take place over the next few years, as we make the transition from a free market, capitalist society to a socialist, centrally planned one.

Read rest of Article

The Bush Legacy

If President Bush had stayed at least partially faithful to his oath of office, historians may have listed him along with Reagan and Truman for his stand against Islamic terrorism.  Instead, he will be listed with Roosevelt and Johnson as the President who finally brought socialism to America.

On Thursday, Republicans in the Senate stopped the ill-advised bailout of the United Auto Workers union.  Unfortunately, their reasons were not because of its violation of free market capitalism or the Constitution.  Their reasons were more pragmatic than principled.  The Senators did not believe the proposed loan would be effective without major revisions in the industry’s cost structure, particularly its labor costs.

According to news reports, the President is considering doing an end-run around Congress and using a part of the $700 billion already appropriated for stabilizing the financial markets.  There is no doubt the automakers will get financial assistance of some kind from the federal government.  More than likely Bush will arrange for a “bridge” loan to tide them over until the Obama administration takes over in January.

With a heavily socialist Congress and a socialist administration, the U.S. auto industry will eventually be nationalized to one degree or another.  Instead of the industry being run by industrialists who understand the car business, it will be run by a Car Tsar from Washington.
Detroit automakers will be forced to build “green” cars acceptable to the socialist base of the Democratic Party.

The one factor that seems not to be taken into account by the would be wizards of Washington is the consumer factor.  There is no indication the motorized roller skates Washington will insist on being foisted on the consumer will be accepted by enough buyers to keep the UAW in the manner to which it has become accustomed.

Capitalism is not driven by the capitalists.  It is driven by the consumer.  There is going to be X number of cars purchased by consumers over the next few years.  The number of cars “X” represents will depend on the economy.  The number of cars sold in the U.S. each year is determined by the consumer, not the politicians in Washington or the carmakers in Detroit.  The Big Three automakers and the “transplants” will be competing for their share of that number.  Therein lays the rub.

The American consumer will buy the product that represents, in their mind, the best buy.  There is nothing Washington can do about that fact.  They can influence the kind of cars sold through regulations but they cannot dictate the number that will be purchased by the consumer.  The competition for the “fuel efficient” car market will be between manufacturers located in UAW dominated Michigan and foreign automakers with plants located in right-to-work states, mostly in the south.

In that competition, the Detroit companies do not stand a chance.  The difference in the cost of building a car in Detroit and building a car of equal value in Alabama or Tennessee is several thousand dollars each in favor of the latter.  Operating under Washington “oversight” the Big Three, if they survive, will continue to operate at a loss for the foreseeable future.  That leaves the government with four choices acceptable to the socialist base of the Democratic Party.

First is to have the taxpayer take over the “legacy cost” of the Detroit companies.  Second, is to subsidize consumer purchases of Detroit made cars through tax rebates or outright payments to the purchaser.  Third, is to keep pumping money into Detroit companies until the rest of the economy is wrecked.  Fourth, is to completely nationalize the auto industry so business losses will be borne by the taxpayer rather than the shareholders.

The socialist goal is to destroy capitalism and replace it with a socialist society.  A perfect prototype of that society would be a “worker owned and managed” auto industry in Detroit.  That is the most probable outcome of the current financial crisis in the industry if we continue on the present path.

Welcome To Politics, Chicago Style

After reading all seventy-six pages of the Blagojevich indictment, I am shocked—shocked that anyone would be shocked that politicians engage in politics.  Welcome to politics, Illinois and Chicago style.

What has all the politicos so upset is the crude way in which Blago went about making his deals.  The most outrageous accusation, the selling of a Senate seat was,  for some reason, cut short by Fitzgerald before any crime was committed, thus practically insuring that no prosecution on that charge will be successful.

As for the rest of it, that’s politics as it is currently carried on in America, particularly in Illinois.  If you are shocked by this, you haven’t been paying attention.  Why do you think most large companies and other organizations maintain lobbyists in Capitals all over America, including Washington?  How do you think most government appointments are made?  How do you think most Ambassadors secure their appointments?  M-O-N-E-Y, otherwise known in polite political circles as campaign contributions.

The problem with Blago is that he insisted on putting the cart before the horse by insisting on spelling out the payoff before the deal was made, and in such uncouth language.  Usually the contributions are made first, then comes the favors.  Most politicians who play the game understand the rules, as do the other players.  The number one rule is that you never outwardly express the terms of the deal, especially in public or on the phone.

Normally when a large contribution is made, there is an unspoken understanding that the recipient of that contribution will look favorably on your requests once in office.  Since there is no guarantee the candidate you contribute to will win, most savvy players contribute to both sides.  Candidates, on the other hand, know that the person writing the multi-thousands dollars checks understand that they can expect something from the candidate in return, if elected.

The understanding between the candidate and the contributors form a kind of psychological contract.  That’s why many on the left are so angry at soon-to-be (Dec. 15th) President-Elect Barack Obama.  After kicking in over $700 millions into his campaign coffers, there are signs he might renege on some of his promises, therefore they feel cheated.

There are a number of ways to ingratiate oneself to a politician.  There is the vote.  This entitles you to a polite letter from a member of his or her staff in response to your complaint or request.  You can also volunteer for his campaign.  This may get you a low-level job with the government after election and possibly a visit to his office when you are in town.  It may also entitle you to consideration for a favor or two from his or her local office staff.

The most effective way, of course, is to write a hefty check to his campaign.  Do it at a fund-raiser and you also get to meet others in the inner-circle.  Depending on the size of your check and the nature of your request, you may get a plumb appointment, a contract for your business, favorable tax considerations for your projects or a least a nice little “gift” tucked into a bill, otherwise known as a “pork-barrel” amendment.

All in all, the Blagojevich indictment presents a disturbing but somewhat accurate picture of the underbelly of politics in Illinois, and to an extent, of politics in general.  Politics is an ugly business.  Corruption is a natural bi-product of politics, especially of liberal and socialist politics.  It can only continue however, with the acquiescence of the voting public.

The primary motivation for those engaging in politics is power and, as we know, power corrupts.  If we wish to eliminate corruption from our politics there are some thing we can do.  The founders understood the corrupting power of politics.  That’s why they insisted on limiting the terms elected officials were expected to serve.  Many in that era wanted the President and Senators to serve for life as they did in the English monarchy.

Others, including Jefferson wanted to limit the President to one term of seven years.  The limits finally decided on were two years for Representatives, six for Senators and four for President.  The number of terms each could serve was left up to the voters.  After Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected to four terms, a Constitutional Amendment (No. 22) was passed limiting the President to two terms.  Efforts to limit Senators and Representatives have all been in vain.

One of the most effective ways of eliminating or reducing corruption in politics is to simply STOP VOTING FOR THE SAME CLOWNS IN ELECTION AFTER ELECTION.  No matter how honest, civic minded and patriotic when elected, very few can resist the temptations of power when they are exposed to it throughout the major portion of their lifetime.

This is not an indictment of all politicians.  At the same time, corruption is too widespread to consider the Blagojevich episode to be an isolated case.  Illinois is one of the most corrupt states in the union, most of the corruption starts from the Chicago and Cook County political machines and spreads outward from there.

Every year the cost of office increases in price.  Obama spent almost a billion dollars for his office, Blago was asking a million for Obama’s old Senate seat.  Wealthy candidates often spend millions of their own money to secure a high office.  In the end, it usually turns out to be a good investment, if successful.  Bill Clinton, for example, never earned more than $35,000 per year until he was elected President.  After serving for only eight years, he now gets millions for a single speech.

Those who insist on voting for the same person election after election have no reason to complain about corruption.  For the rest of us, we should work for term limits on all elected offices.  If a candidate does not reach his or her “level of incompetence” (The Peter Principle) in one or two terms they can move up to successively higher levels until they do.  Once reaching their level, they should never be allowed to remain in office for longer than it takes to vote them out.

Another way of limiting corruption is to break the power political parties have over our government.  The political parties as they are now structured are having the same effect on our government the unions have had on Detroit automakers.  The only way to break the unhealthy power of political parties is to return to the non-partisan form of government envisioned by the founders and outlined in the Constitution.

Save The Electoral College

The end of 2008 finds America in one of the most precarious situations since its founding, its Constitution in tatters and its free market economy under assault as never before.  All thanks to unscrupulous politician’s lust for power and an uninformed public bent on raiding the pocketbooks of their fellow citizens to satisfy their own wishes.

There have been many attacks on the Constitution, but none more brazen, cynical and un-American than the one mounted by the well-organized group known as the National Popular Vote (NPV).  This group shows either a colossal disdain for the Constitution or an unbelievable ignorance of our form of government—or both.

Read rest of article

A Conservative Message With Meaning

A panel of Supreme Court Justices will meet tomorrow to consider one of many lawsuits attempting to force Barack Obama to show that he meets the Constitution qualification for President; “No Person except a natural born Citizen,…shall be eligible to the Office of President.” (Article II, Section 1)

I have no opinion as to the validity of the claim that Obama was actually born in Kenya and is not a “natural born citizen” as required by the Constitution.  I have seen no convincing evidence either way.  What bothers me is Obama’s “I don’t need no stinking Constitution” attitude.  The question could be put to rest immediately by simply producing a valid birth certificate.  The fact that he steadfastly refuses to do so shows a contempt for the Constitution unworthy of a President.

Further evidence of this attitude toward the Constitution is shown by his selection of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.  Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution states “ No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time.”

Presidents routinely sidestep this requirement by finding a variety of loopholes.  One technique is simply to decrease the salary to what it was at the time the Senator or Representative first took office.  In the Case of Hillary, they will probably point to the fact that the increase in salary for Supreme Court Justices was not instituted by Congress, but rather as an adjustment by the Executive Branch to compensate for increases in the cost of living.

Both of these examples may seem to be trivial matters, but they do demonstrate a fundamental fact about attitudes regarding the Constitution.  The U.S. Constitution is a sacred document to most Americans, and a nuisance to most politicians.  Therein lies our dilemma—and the answer to revitalizing the Republican Party.

Most American citizens instinctively know the Constitution is important in protecting our liberties, however, due to deficiencies in our education system few have more than a rudimentary knowledge of its contents.  If Republicans were suddenly to start defending the Constitution instead of joining their Democratic colleagues in looking for loopholes, they would find an overwhelming support from the American people.

The reluctance to defend the Constitution is not limited to just Democrats and Moderate Republicans.  Conservative politicians may complain when those in power violate the Constitution in ways they do not approve, however, complaining is not defending.  We protest that conservative leaders are not effective in articulating the conservative message.  The reason they are not is that they fail to link the conservative message with the Constitution.

Most people get their perception of government from politicians, either in campaigns, or when they appear in interviews on TV.  With the unceasing message from both sides of the aisle, that the purpose of government is to solve all our problems, is it any wonder that citizens have a distorted view that does not include the principles in our founding documents.

A conservative message of limited government and low taxes is meaningless to the average American unless they understand why it is important to them personally.  The best way to get this message across is by explaining how these principles are connected to our founding documents and two hundred years of history.  The challenge of education today is not technology but civics.  The one group with the best opportunity to educate the public regarding the Constitution is the politicians, and it is up to us to demand that they do.

The Obama Gamble

Was the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States a bridge too far for the socialist movement?  Since the beginning of our Republic, the political struggle has been between a liberal big government and a conservative limited government.  The early contests were between the federalists led by Alexander Hamilton and John Adams and the republicans led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

The federalists won the first round by winning the Presidency and both houses of Congress in 1796.  Jefferson won the second round by battling them from his position as President of the Senate and then defeating them in the election of 1800, which he referred to as the revolution of 1800.  In a letter to Judge Roan dated September 6, 1819 he writes,

“I had read in the Enquirer, and with great approbation, the pieces signed Hampden, and have read them again with redoubled approbation in the copies you have been so kind as to send me. I subscribe to every tittle of them. They contain the true principles of the revolution of 1800, for that was as real a revolution in the principles of our government as that of 1776 was in its form; not effected indeed by the sword, as that, but by the rational and peaceable instrument of reform, the suffrage of the people. The nation declared its will by dismissing functionaries of one principle (federalism), and electing those of another (republicanism), in the two branches, executive and legislative, submitted to their election.”

The principle of government Jefferson referred to was the principle of a federation of independent and sovereign states united under a federal government of limited size with enumerated powers versus a consolidated government with all power residing in a national capitol.

A quarter-century later, Jefferson, looking back on his years of public service, writing in a petition to the Virginia Legislature, described this episode in his career as “the most important in its consequences, of any transaction in any portion of my life;”   While the federalists ceased to exist as an organized party by 1824, their influence has continued down through history.  The Supreme Court more or less kept them in check until the influence of European socialism began to gain a foothold in America during the twentieth century.

Their ultimate goal and their political tactics have remained steady for over two hundred years. Their aim is to consolidate state government powers under the control of Washington. Since Roosevelt, their techniques for gaining power have changed little.  The method used is to exaggerate problems into crises and use them to expand the power of the federal government.  The Recession of 1930-31 that Roosevelt turned into the Great Depression and then used it to expand government power more than at any other time in history provided the template for all future expansions.

Economic cycles, crime, drugs, communism, wars, and other chronic problems of society have been used to diminish liberty and increase government power.  The two most recent examples are the changing weather patterns and the economy.  The slogan for democratic campaigns is consistently “the worst economy since the Great Depression”.  This theme is carried on year after year regardless of the economic facts.  Unrelenting pressure is kept on the institutions of our society combined with the unremitting propaganda from the left to gain one incremental step at a time.

Incrementalism has been the hallmark of the socialist movement for the past century.  As the American people become more accustomed to the small changes that occur over time, they pay less attention to their disappearing liberties.  The election of 2008 was perhaps the most monumental since the revolution of 1800.  The socialist movement abandoned its past practice of incremental advances and decided to go for “the whole enchilada” with the candidacy of Barack Obama.

I fear those who cling to the hope that Obama will govern from the center are in for a major disappointment.   He was elected to bring about radical socialistic changes in the American system and everything in his rhetoric prior to the election and everything in his life experiences indicate that he is likely to do so, his proposed appointments and modified positions since the election, not withstanding.

The best hope for America is that he will overreach to a degree that even a conditioned electorate cannot overlook.

As Thomas Jefferson noted in the Declaration of Independence, “all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, that to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.  But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”

If Barack Obama carries into practice all the policies he alluded to in his campaign he may very well cross a threshold of despotism the American people will not tolerate.  If so he could set in motion the same forces Adams set in motion in 1796 and the Democratic Party could follow the Federalist Party into the dustbin of history.  2010 and 2012 could be a repeat of the revolution of 1800.