Monday, March 21, 2011

An Open Letter to All Locksmiths

An Open Letter to all locksmiths regarding Proposed Texas Legislation HB2577 , SB1400 and HB1867

I read the introductory line regarding proposed legislation on the GHLA website and have to wonder why, “It is important that we work cooperatively to get our industry omnibus bill passed without to many changes.” For all practical purposes SB1400 and HB1867 make no significant changes to the licensing of locksmiths and act only as a continuation of what is already on the books; unless you wish to spotlight the addition of a single licensed locksmith to the 9 member board of DPS/PSB.

HB2577 is a round about way of making it a crime for anyone other than a licensed locksmith to own or produce specialty tools of our trade when used with criminal intent. I’d say this was really dumb since criminal intent must be established in concert with some other crime committed and would already be covered under criminal law. What HB2577 does is establish yet another violation of civil rights by implying criminal intent by virtue of ownership or production of specialty tools associated with the locksmith industry, as if (licensed) locksmiths had exclusive proprietary right to these items.

I’ve written many articles regarding the licensing of locksmiths and the associated loss of God given rights through well meaning legislative efforts instigated by and through ALOA, TLA and GHLA. What many of my fellow locksmiths fail to recognize is the fine line between membership requirements in those fine organizations and the necessary separation of thought and action when it comes to defining laws which restrict any individual’s movement within the free market system.

I’ll offer some lines from H. Verlan Andersen’s book, Many are Called, But Few are Chosen. This book is available on line in its entirety and I often quote from it in my own writings; having been given permission from the publisher. Chapter 7, is titled, Acts of Government Which Constitute an Exercise of Unrighteous Dominion and is the source of the following quotes:

“Another questionable but extremely common practice is to use the police power to give ourselves monopolistic protection against competitors. This would be called a criminal conspiracy and branded as extortion if forcibly engaged in without government protection and approval.”

“Today in the United States, monopoly protection is afforded by the police power in nearly every line of economic activity: in the professions and trades; in transportation and communication; in agriculture and labor; in finance, banking, and many other lines. How does this vast system of government enforced monopolies stand the conscience test and the application of the Golden Rule?”

Isn’t this exactly what locksmith licensing is guilty of? Are we not attempting to limit competition through Lilliputian mandates? While it is not my style to preach; I’ll make an exception and include a rather lengthy quote from this same chapter:

“Men use a variety of arguments to justify the use of the police power to restrict competition. Some claim there is over-production of the commodities or services they are offering. When one considers the millions who are classified as paupers in every nation on earth with death and want in many places, how can it be asserted that there is an oversupply of any form of organized wealth? True, there are raw materials, and energy in abundance but man’s desire for the finished product is insatiable and always exceeds the supply.

Still others argue that open competition in their field should be prohibited because, if this were not done, the unlearned, the unskilled, and the inexperienced would be serving the public. But this argument assumes it is possible to classify men into two groups—the qualified and the unqualified. Is this assumption valid? (emphasis added)

Let us investigate this matter by first observing that no one is perfect. There never was and there never will be a professional or business man who could not benefit from more knowledge, training, experience, skill, and better facilities with which to serve the public. This fact must be faced: there are not two groups of men—the qualified and the unqualified; there is only one group and every member of it is unqualified to some extent.

This being true, the only choice open is between varying degrees of incompetence, inexperience, and ignorance. Now is there a man living who can honestly claim that he is able to make a division of this group, confer special privileges on one segment which are denied to the other, and still be fair to everyone? What rational basis exists for determining where the line should be drawn? How much training or experience should be required before permitting a person to offer his services to the public—6 weeks, 6 months, 6 years, or double one of these periods? It is impossible for men to reach agreement on this problem or for any person to say with certainty he is right in his opinion and all who disagree are wrong.

It is also impossible to reach agreement on who should be given the power to set up the qualifications for engaging in a given economic activity and force their views on all others. Some may contend that those already engaged in the profession, trade, or business should have this privilege. Others would confer the power upon some agency of government. Still others contend that the matter should be settled by majority vote.

Since all men are to a greater or lesser extent unqualified to serve the public, and since it is impossible to find a fair or a logical basis for making a division of the unqualified, and since it is also impossible to reach agreement on who should be given the power to confer special privileges on some which are denied to others, why not leave the decision to the only person who has a moral right to make it—the one who is paying the bill? Why not adopt a policy which allows every member of the consuming public to decide for himself how much education, experience, facilities, etc. are necessary to engage in a profession or a business? No one can devise a more equitable method than this.

If those who hold themselves out to serve the public misrepresent the extent of their training and experience or otherwise act in a criminal manner, they should be punished for such wrongdoing by the police power. One form of punishment might be to deny them the privilege of engaging in such activities for a specified period of time. Also, if they perform their work negligently and cause injury, they may be held liable to those who have suffered damage.

But why should we prejudge them? Why should we impose prior restraints and threaten them with jail or fine for even attempting to serve the public in their chosen field? They may do much good and no harm. Their services may be needed.

If those who consider themselves better trained than others desire to form an exclusive professional group and limit membership to applicants who have met certain minimum requirements, this should be their privilege and no one should interfere with it. Furthermore, if they desire to inform the public as to whom they consider qualified to engage in a given profession, trade, or business, this basic right should be protected.

But to give one partially qualified group (or their government agents) the power to forcibly prevent those they consider less qualified from competing is rank discrimination and an abuse of the power of government. (emphasis added)

D&C 134:5 tells us very plainly that, the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never suppress the freedom of the soul. It is a direct violation of this scripture for us to direct our agents in government to punish our fellow men for engaging in perfectly legitimate business or professional activities. We do not restrain crime or punish guilt when we do this, but we do suppress the freedom of the soul.

When we use the police power to prevent our fellow men from buying goods and services from whomsoever they desire we are treating them as children or mental incompetents who are unable to make their own decisions. We are either prohibiting them from purchasing a desired commodity or service or compelling them to trade with someone they would not have patronized had we allowed them their freedom in the matter.

When we direct our bureaucratic servants to forcibly prevent a farmer from raising certain crops on his own land; when we deny the youth who emerge from our schools the right to work at any trade, business, or profession they desire without first getting the exact amount of training we have decreed and obtaining the express consent of our government agents; when we substitute our own judgment for that of our fellow men and threaten them with a loss of their life, liberty, or property if they engage in perfectly legitimate economic pursuits except in accordance with rules we have laid down, we have clearly done things which we would consider highly immoral if done outside the framework of government.

How can we bring ourselves to do these things to one another? Are we deceiving ourselves as to the real reason behind our actions? Could it be that instead of fearing overproduction of the goods or services we offer for sale, we really are trying to create a scarcity so that we can enrich ourselves with the higher prices restrictive legislation permits us to charge?

Is it possible that, instead of fearing that some untrained novice will injure society by offering inferior services, we are really using the force of law to create an exclusive class of citizens to which only a select few may belong? With these questions in mind let us consider the following scripture: (emphasis added)

Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen? Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness. (D&C 121:34-36)

We might also ask ourselves if, when we forcibly prevent the buying public from patronizing anyone they desire, we are not proving the accuracy of the following judgment and penalty pronounced by the Lord upon men in general:

We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

Hence, many are called, but few are chosen. (D&C 121:39-40)”

If, after having been given the information just shared, you or anyone can justify support for the proposed legislation mentioned above, or for that matter, support legislation which has already been imposed on the locksmith industry I would ask, “How?”

We are responsible for all we do in mortality and our actions follow us into eternity. Could we look up at our Lord, when faced with our actions at the Great Bar of Justice, and say that we took his admonitions seriously, that we acted in the spirit of our founding principles? We live in a nation which acknowledged our Creator as having established inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all individuals and yet it has been the agenda of the ALOA, TLA and GHLA to destroy these God given rights, all in the name of a more professional locksmith industry, using police powers of the State to limit God given rights as if by doing so Utopia would be guaranteed and citizens would automatically be safer.

I have no problem with any of these organizations raising the bar for membership and consider it an honor to be a member of GHLA; however, I stand firmly against them when they attempt to enlist police powers of the State, unrighteous dominion on any individual citizen, through licensing with its accompanying strangle hold of rules and regulations. I will continue to expose locksmith licensing as a malignant cancer which has its origins on the opposite side of liberty.

T.F. Stern

This will also appear as a feature article on Fiercely Independent Locksmiths of America’s website .

Thursday, March 10, 2011

Inalienable or Unalienable Rights?

I admit to having holes in my education, some might clarify that statement and ask if I knew the difference between a crack in the sidewalk and the Grand Canyon; but a gap is a gap, let’s just say I got out of high school, took some college level classes and some how made it this far. For years I’ve found myself substituting inalienable for unalienable when talking about God given rights.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…”

There it is in the Declaration of Independence, unalienable Right, and they come from God. So how is it possible to get confused and substitute inalienable? Maybe I could lay off some blame on others, some far more educated than myself.

I was going over Ezra Taft Benson’s talk, The Price of Liberty , and found the same substitution in reference to the Declaration of Independence. Elder Benson ranks high on most anyone’s list of educated and eloquent speakers.

“I believe with all my heart the words of the American patriot Patrick Henry, who, on the eve of the American Revolution, said, “There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.” Further, it is part of my faith that no people can maintain freedom unless their political institutions are founded on faith in God and belief in the existence of moral law. God has endowed men with certain inalienable rights, and no government may morally limit or destroy these.” (emphasis added)

I wasn’t satisfied with finding one or two “flukes”; after all, it might have been the result of transcribing the work later, someone accidentally hit one letter on the typewriter instead of the other. The two letters are, after all, adjacent to each other and would hardly have been noticed. I looked up some more references and found someone else was curious as to that particular usage.

In an article titled, Unalienable/Inalienable , there were digital images of printed versions of the Declaration of Independence along with rough drafts showing the variances.

The article included the following:

“The final version of the Declaration uses the word “unalienable.” Some earlier drafts used the word “inalienable,” which is the term our modern dictionaries prefer. The two words mean precisely the same thing.” (emphasis added)

I studied the images and came away wondering what all the fuss was about; kind of like “Tomato/Tamato, let’s call the whole thing off”. I’d had folks send email correcting the error of my ways; instructive and, to a certain degree, denigrating my lack of education regarding the use of such important words. I began to feel like James Gannon, the hard boiled city editor of a newspaper played by Clark Gable in, Teacher’s Pet. I knew these folks had sheep skins hanging on the wall; who was I to put in my two cents worth?

That same article had something interesting down at the bottom of the page:

“In a footnote in “The Declaration of Independence: A Study in the History of Political Ideas” by Carl Lotus Becker, published 1922, we learn:

“The Rough Draft reads “[inherent &] inalienable.” There is no indication that Congress changed “inalienable” to “unalienable”; but the latter form appears in the text in the rough Journal, in the corrected Journal, and in the parchment copy. John Adams, in making his copy of the Rough Draft, wrote “unalienable.” Adams was one of the committee which supervised the printing of the text adopted by Congress, and it may have been at his suggestion that the change was made in printing. “Unalienable” may have been the more customary form in the eighteenth century.”

Isn’t that interesting; at least one rough drafts included “inherent &” directly next to inalienable when referring to rights. No doubt a kindred spirit involved in organizing the thought process and foundation of our nation understood the connection between God given rights and establishing a relationship with individuals in this land; man is made in God’s image and we are His children, worthy of being heirs to such blessings.

“Inherent &” never made it to the final draft and we can only wonder if it was pulled due to some politically correct discussion or whether it simply sounded redundant to those issuing the declaration. I’d venture the latter; these folks were the cream of the crop intellectually and spiritually. The Founders used words sparingly and with great accuracy for the most part; they likely concluded “inherent &” was unnecessary to complete the thought; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable rights from our Creator.

Is it any wonder our nation is torn as to the direction we should be taking? After all, if inalienable or unalienable can take up two pages of thought regarding the relationship with our Creator; how important is it to have a firm understanding of words used to describe other aspects of America? Borrowing from a recent article, Cultural Marxism: The Doom of Language , by Robert F. Beaudine which explains the progressive movements intentional alteration of words and their meanings:

“There could be a simple reason: If God exists, much of the social sciences become theoretical nonsense, which means society is harmed by their neglect of “the soul” and their mockery of religion.”


“Our founders envisioned a commonwealth of freedom extending from coast to coast. Commonwealths, by definition, are established for the “common good,” which our founders defined as freedom from tyranny and the protection of unalienable rights – bestowed by God – those of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This meant there were natural limits because of natural law. The pursuit of the fruits of labor was limited when it infringed upon other’s unalienable rights.”

“Multiculturalism requires a new definition of “common good,” one for a godless society where rights are granted by governments. The left think tank, Center for American Progress, claims that government is essential when people pursue their dreams. They redefined the common good as governmental policies that benefit everyone while balancing self-interest with the needs of the entire society. Perhaps that explains why Texas removed “the common good” from their public education’s textbooks. The common good has become a progressive term that refers to entitlements for the disadvantaged, but also includes big bailouts for our megacorporations.”

 There is a segment of our society working to alter our perception of words and history to such an extent that each successive generation becomes further removed from the foundation which links our nation directly to God. If we are to survive as “One Nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all”, then our understanding of words needs to be improved upon. It’s time to get down on your knees and express gratitude to your Father in Heaven for having established a Constitution, by the hands of wise men raised up for that very purpose . Our inalienable rights, spell it any way you like, undeniably come from God.

This article has been cross posted to The Moral Liberal , a publication whose banner reads, “Defending The Judeo-Christian Ethic, Limited Government, & The American Constitution”.

Sunday, March 06, 2011

A Mountain of Words

The Declaration of Independence offers a starting point, a glimpse of liberty and all its transient meanings. Our basic structure of government is based on the acceptance; change that, demands the acceptance of a separation between natural rights of individuals and powers granted to their government.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed…”

If we are to accept the premise that rights exist outside of and prior to the formation of government, whether they be “natural” or of God, then the origin of an individual’s rights are of no consequence for the purpose of this exercise. It is not my purpose to proselytize anyone into a belief in God, a Supreme Being or religion in general; however, such is not required to accept the premise that individual rights exist and have existed without government.

Governments are, in fact, created to protect individual rights; not the other way around. You don’t have to take my word for it; others have stated this premise as captured in Ezra Taft Benson’s talk, The Proper Role of Government .

“It is generally agreed that the most important single function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individual citizens. But, what are those right(s)? And what is their source? Until these questions are answered there is little likelihood that we can correctly determine how government can best secure them.

Thomas Paine, back in the days of the American Revolution, explained that:

“Rights are not gifts from one man to another, nor from one class of men to another… It is impossible to discover any origin of rights otherwise than in the origin of man; it consequently follows that rights appertain to man in right of his existence, and must therefore be equal to every man.” (P.P.N.S., p. 134)

The great Thomas Jefferson asked:

“Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?” (Works 8:404; P.P.N.S., p.141)

You might wonder where this is going; I’m about to tell you. The mailman left this month’s copy of Locked-In, a publication of the Greater Houston Locksmith Association (GHLA), of which I’m a member. There was an article, Report from January 5, 2011 TDPS-PSB Board Meeting, by Bonnie Brown Morse. (You might recall Bonnie Brown Morse as the instructor of a State mandated Ethics class I attended and then wrote about in June of 2006 ). Items listed went on to mention several changes in the bureaucracy which governs the security industry, and in turn, locksmiths.

Stop right there! It is important to understand the purpose of the “security industry, and in turn locksmiths”. This industry works in harmony with our founding document, The Declaration of Independence.

“…That to secure these rights…”

What does that mean; after all it’s important enough to have been included from the get go among a people desiring to protect their God given right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (property with all its many variations). I find it appealing in a most satisfactory way to be involved in securing the rights of other individuals by virtue of my acquired abilities.

The reason folks put locks on things is to protect against those who would deprive them of those properties. You’ll find locks on most anything you can imagine; houses, cars, refrigerators or foot lockers. In this age of information there are electronic “locks” to prevent unauthorized access to computers and digital files. In antiquity locks were used to secure chastity; perhaps more than their hearts were broken.

In any case, an industry was established to “secure” rightful owners/users their property. Tradesmen or professionals installed gadgets or were called to restore their use in the event the previously installed gadget no longer functioned properly or needed to be reset for the rightful owner of his/her property. (This is covered in my yet to be written book, This is a Lock - This is a Key).

Getting back to the GHLA report and the proceedings of the Texas Department of Public Safety- Private Security Bureau (TDPS-PSB), which used to be simply the DPS-PSB; another name change was instituted. If I got this down properly, the PSB is now to be called the RSD, Regulatory Services Division and includes staff for Licensing & Registration along with Compliance & Enforcement sections. (If this were the television show Dragnet, “…only the names were changed to protect the innocent”)

But that isn’t what started this mountain of words; there’s a paragraph dedicated to Amendment 35.311 “Exemptions”, which passed.

“(This change allows employees of repossession agents to provide a number of locksmith services without TDPS-security oversight.) ref 1702.324 (b)(3).”

In plain English, some folks can do exactly what I do without being forced to apply for a locksmith license, take mandatory continuing education courses or any of the Lilliputian bureaucratic impositions. It means locksmiths are not equal citizens; but have been demoted to subjects of the state by virtue of their named trade or profession. What was it Thomas Paine said?

“…it consequently follows that rights appertain to man in right of his existence, and must therefore be equal to every man.”

Some are more equal than others in a corrupted government; isn’t that how it works? The rightful owner of property is not limited to which tradesman restores his/her property, either a licensed locksmith or an unlicensed repossession agency; why is that if they both perform the same level of skill?

I’m not arguing in favor of having TDPS license repossession agents; not at all and in fact, just the opposite. I’m pointing out the singularly repugnant situation of having an arm of government impose unrighteous dominion over an entire industry.

Again, let’s get back to our founding principles.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…”

If we accept the premise that individuals have the right to the pursuit of Happiness, which includes the concept of private property, then it must also be established that individuals have the right to adequately protect or secure that property.

This principle was clearly explained by Bastiat:

“Each of us has a natural right – from God – to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but and extension of our faculties?” (The Law, p.6)

To argue against this premise is foolish unless we are to toss our entire system of self rule down the toilet. The Texas Department of Public Safety has defined that recovery and restoration of property for a rightful owner by the use of locksmith skills is not a threat to the safety or well being of our citizens or it would not have been part of the “Exemption” listed in Amendment 35.311. By so defining this particular legal act as applied by one citizen the TDPS, by their own admission, is guilty of denying free movement in our society to locksmiths who perform the same or similar tasks.

Now take that a step further, restoration of property includes all aspects of usage. Helping to secure items, restoration of lost or damaged keys and making an item useful for its rightful owner is by extension not a threat to the safety or well being of our citizenry. To believe so violates yet another code in our Republican form of self governance; that each individual is innocent until such time he/she is proven guilty. Going about the functions of legal business should not require a State issued license except in extremely rare circumstances.

If you want to see how licensing of citizens has been taken to the extreme, just take a look at Communist Cuba where funeral flower arrangers, shoe shiners or even doll and toy repairs require a State issued license. There are a couple of things which stand out rather quickly; licenses generate income for the State while at the same time reducing citizens into subjects.

There are criminal and civil laws enough in place to accommodate society at such times when tradesmen or professionals fail to properly apply their skills. There is no rational justification for a secondary bureaucracy with license expenses, rules and regulations or added enforcement on top of these existing laws.

We have seen changes in our society which mock the very foundations of a free nation. Industries which at one time were open to anyone with the audacity to apply their skills have been turned into closed shops; licensed with regularly occurring fees that stager the pocket book. Are we to believe licenses and fees actually protect an unsuspecting public or is there a more sinister undercurrent?

There are several versions of the well-known statement attributed to the German anti-Nazi activist, Pastor Martin Niemöller ; most of us are familiar to some extent with this one.

In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me —
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

I’ve been shouting into the four winds about the injustice of licensing the locksmith industry for quite some time. The usurpation of power by government never intended by our founders applies equally to other trades and professions. I’ve written a mountain of words to stir you into action; more government isn’t the answer, it’s part of the problem. Stand with me at a time when individual liberties and our Constitution are hanging by a thread.

This article has been cross posted to The Moral Liberal , a publication whose banner reads, “Defending The Judeo-Christian Ethic, Limited Government, & The American Constitution”.

Saturday, March 05, 2011

Follow the Yellow Brick Road

The Obama administration has been following an agenda, one which many American citizens refuse to accept as even possible, the destruction of our economy and way of life. It hardly seems possible one of our own, much less our president would actively seek to ruin the most powerful industrial nation ever; but evidence is mounting. At first this article was to be named, Wrecking the Economy One Oil Rig at a Time; but for some reason, Follow the Yellow Brick Road won out.

Not too long ago Obama put a drilling moratorium in place based on fraud and deceit; there would be no (American Based Oil Companies) drilling in the Gulf of Mexico until angels from on-high proclaimed it perfectly safe. Okay, so maybe it wasn’t worded exactly like that; the important part was drilling in the Gulf was halted.

Judge Martin Feldman overturned the moratorium and some folks thought things might return to normal; not so. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement has made it nearly impossible for oil companies to get past the bureaucratic nightmare put in place; dare I say, … to prevent anyone from drilling?

“The Obama administration has appealed a judge’s order requiring regulators to act on seven drilling permit applications.”


“The documents say the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement may not have enough time to help operators meet regulatory requirements to have the permits approved by the deadline.”

Did you get that, “help operators meet regulatory requirements”; yea, we’re from the government and we’re here to help. It’s okay for other countries, like Cuba to drill in the Gulf , just not American companies or countries sympathetic to our free market system.

“Follow the yellow brick road, follow the yellow brick road, follow, follow, follow, follow, follow the yellow brick road.”

If you listen to the rhetoric, evil U.S. Oil companies are ruining the Gulf while making a fortune. We are all victims of corporate greed; our hero, Obama, will put them in their place. Is Obama our hero or is he something else?

“While finding oil in commercially viable amounts will be transformative for Cuba in the coming years, the challenges facing the U.S. begin as soon as the first drill bit penetrates the sea bed in the Gulf,” said Sarah Stephens, CDA’s executive director. “After living through the BP spill, we can’t maintain the illusion that the embargo will stop Cuba from drilling and must instead adopt policies that protect U.S. economic, environmental, and foreign policy interests.” (emphasis added)

The Obama embargo is nothing more than an illusion; fooling our “environmental consciousness” into believing accidents will never happen ever again because we have tougher rules and regulations; accidents are no longer possible, pure rubbish.

Yes, it’s important to protect the environment; but it’s also important to reject the notion others who drill for oil will do so in a manner which meets the already stringent levels adhered to by American based oil companies. In the larger picture, our nation is being intentionally thwarted from achieving success in the market place. Ultimately the decline will trigger massive demands for change. That “change” will be to socialism and a complete turnover of the oil industry to the federal government.

You remember the sentiments of that idiot; forgive my choice of words, the honorable Rep. Maxine Waters, D-California, during the questioning of oil company executives?

“And guess what this liberal would be all about. This liberal will be about socializing … uh, um. … Would be about, basically, taking over, and the government running all of your companies…”

“Follow the yellow brick road…”; or in this case, the “red” brick road, under the flag of socialism. Most of Obama’s close advisers have Marxist leanings; why would we expect Obama to favor free market capitalism?

It’s not hard to imagine Obama as the Wicked Witch of the East addressing the oil industry as he tries to lay hold of the prize; remember, as long as freedom is alive he can’t lay hold of it.

“I can’t attend to you here and now as I’d like, but just try to stay out of my way… I’ll get you, my pretty - and your little dog, too! Ah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah!”

The Wizard of Oz movie makes it easier to contrast good from evil; beware those who call evil good and good evil; isn’t that the biblical warning ? The Munchkins wanted to help Dorothy find the Emerald City (Utopia), that place where everything is perfect.

“Follow the yellow brick road, follow the yellow brick road, follow, follow, follow, follow, follow the yellow brick road.”

We have the Obama administration attempting to dismantle the free market system “brick by brick”; isn’t that fascinating? The only way to implement total socialism is to do away with our Republican Constitutional form of government. Defying the rule of law backs up the assertion; Obama has no intention of following the rule of law; he’ll have the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement hold up any and all drilling permits until the evil oil companies just up and leave.

Speaking of oil companies “up and leaving”…; there’s a story by Brett Clanton, Noble rig leaves U.S. Gulf for Brazil , which puts another nail in our coffin.

“Noble Corp. in January announced plans to move one of its deep-water drilling rigs out of the Gulf of Mexico amid a spill-related slowdown in activity. This week, the Swiss-based driller made good on its promise.”

“It loaded the Noble Clyde Boudreaux, an ultra-deepwater semisubmersible, on a ship in Pascagoula, Miss., that will carry the rig 5,000 miles to Brazil, where it has a contract with Shell.”

It’s not reasonable to expect oil companies to sit around watching expensive machinery rust; they’re going to go where they can be put to use.  Specialized workers will leave for better waters; talk about out sourcing of jobs, this would kill off our own oil industry.

If you think about it, Obama is making sure other countries cash in on our bad decisions. He promised billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help Brazil’s oil industry . The problem with oil companies going to Brazil; we can’t buy that oil, it’s all promised to other countries like China, or am I mistaken.

“The U.S. is going to lend billions of dollars to Brazil's state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil's Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro. Brazil’s planning minister confirmed that White House National Security Adviser James Jones met this month with Brazilian officials to talk about the loan.”

If we can’t see what is going on, we must be “toto-ly” out of our minds. The Yellow Brick Road which leads to the Emerald City, socialism’s Utopia if you will, has to be paid for by sacrificing individual liberties, gifts from our Creator. For America to succeed we need to stick with “ what brung us here”, capitalism and our Republican Constitutional form of government.

This article has been cross posted to The Moral Liberal , a publication whose banner reads, “Defending The Judeo-Christian Ethic, Limited Government, & The American Constitution”.

Friday, March 04, 2011

Home Repairs with Ben Bernanke

There are several “Home Improvement” shows on the HGTV channel, House Hunter, Get it Sold, Color Splash or Holmes on Homes; my wife watches most of them. One you may not have heard about, Home Repairs with Ben Bernanke; you got it, head of the Fed himself, has worked out an arrangement for a remodeling show. I’m getting ahead of myself; back up a moment.

Say for instance you turn on the tube; Get it Sold, is the next program for the day. They have a limited budget getting a house ready for market and lots of issues to cover. These folks keep a running tab on what gets spent; re-upholstering the sofa, matching area rug, painting the bathroom and so on. They show the house before anything is done and you get to watch the process right up until the For Sale sign is posted out front. The last thing you see is how everything added up to prove they stayed within budget restraints.

On the new show, Home Repairs with Ben Bernanke, there are some slight variations in how to accomplish the mission. At the beginning of the show Ben holds up a copy of the last bank statement showing how much is available; on the opening show that balance is $15,000.

Instead of re-upholstering a piece of old useable furniture they purchase a brand new leather sofa, matching ottoman and 60 inch HD LCD wall screen television; price for all these improvements, $26,459.00. Wait a second, that’s more money than we started with! No problem, Ben has a printing press. A quick check of the bank balance shows $56,897.00. Ben smiles as he looks into the camera lens, “Isn’t this great, and we still have plenty of money.”

You think I’m making this up as I go along; maybe I am; but here’s a quote from back in 2002; at the time Bernanke was addressing “Inflation: Reversing Deflation” :

“Like gold, U.S. dollars have value only to the extent that they are strictly limited in supply. But the U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost. By increasing the number of U.S. dollars in circulation, or even by credibly threatening to do so, the U.S. government can also reduce the value of a dollar in terms of goods and services, which is equivalent to raising the prices in dollars of those goods and services. We conclude that, under a paper-money system, a determined government can always generate higher spending and hence positive inflation…”

If you’re not concerned about the future of America with folks like Ben Bernanke heading the Federal Reserve then you’re probably oblivious to changes in the commodities markets. At the time of writing Crude Oil started the day at $103.61, up $1.70 or 1.67%, Gasoline prices at the pump jumped 22 cents per gallon this past week, rice and other basics are expected to increase by 40% in the next few weeks.

Gold and Silver are making the adjustment as well, Gold is at $1429.90 an ounce while Silver shows to be at $35.23 an ounce; 1% and 2.92% increases respectively. By the way, Ben’s third show, Getting By on Nothing, has inventive ideas on how to wall paper the bathroom using various combinations of currency; impressive, as these can also be used as toilet paper.

This article has been cross posted to The Moral Liberal , a publication whose banner reads, “Defending The Judeo-Christian Ethic, Limited Government, & The American Constitution”.

Wednesday, March 02, 2011

Cannon Fodder

Time travel is possible; today the clock went back to when U.S. military personnel were coming home from an unpopular war in Vietnam. Some of you might not remember how our servicemen were the focus of public ridicule from those involved in the anti-war movement. “Baby killer!”

Those who wore the uniform and did their jobs already were disillusioned; having put themselves in harm’s way knowing our government had no intention of winning. They came home, making their way through busy airport terminals filled with hateful rhetoric from their fellow citizens. The atmosphere of contempt caused much more damage than bullets and bombs.

There was a “thread” of comments on Facebook the past couple of days which originally had to do with the teacher’s strike and union protests going on in Wisconsin. My thoughts had to do with the disparity in pay between our service men and women compared with teachers. Teachers are complaining they deserved better treatment and their unions are pushing the collective bargaining chip to the edge. Soldiers on the other hand make an insultingly low amount of money and do it for love of country.

Some elitist followed my criticism with a poorly chosen remark, something along the lines that teachers are college graduates and add their abilities to make society better while those in the military are ignorant and only good for cannon fodder. I felt the veins in my neck begin to bulge as the time machine took me back; brave soldiers returning home, some with arms and legs missing, others in body bags; and here was some elitist defending striking teachers and calling our young soldiers useless and good only for cannon fodder.

There was a story out of Germany this morning on Fox News, something about a terrorist who opened fire on a bus filled with U.S. military personnel . Two Airmen were killed and others were wounded, one seriously.

“A source tells Fox News that the shooter yelled "Allah Akbar" when opening fire on the U.S. military personnel. He then dropped his gun at the scene, ran into the terminal and was subdued.”

I suppose we should be grateful the bus wasn’t filled with striking teachers; that would have been a terrible loss. As it stands, we only lost a couple of less than important dolts good only for cannon fodder. My blood pressure is on the rise so maybe I should put this article down and come back when I’m not so angry.

In a related article, found on KPRC’s website, a Houston Police officer has been relieved of duty for allegedly tossing a tear gas canister into a tent full of people at the Rodeo .  Normally I restrain myself from commenting on police matters that are “on-going” out of respect for the system which permits an unbiased outcome for all involved. Apparently the officer has not denied his involvement and made a statement which explained the incident to some degree; not a very good explanation and it will likely cost him his job and perhaps criminal charges as well.

“HPD sources familiar with the investigation said Officer Mike Hamby, 51, then admitted to that senior ranking HPD officer that he had set off the tear gas to retaliate against people inside that tent, whom Hamby felt had made remarks against the military.”

I don't think I've ever met Officer Hamby and it is not part of police training to “get even” with folks who disparage those who serve our country. My guess is he’d had enough of the anti-American mud slinging, folks saying our young servicemen and women were good only for cannon fodder. As a citizen and retired police officer there is no excuse for allegedly tossing a tear gas canister into a crowd of foul mouthed anti-American elitists; but then again…

This article has been cross posted to The Moral Liberal , a publication whose banner reads, “Defending The Judeo-Christian Ethic, Limited Government, & The American Constitution”.