400 Capitol Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
- Toll Free 1.888.564.6273
- Local 202.783.3870
Government goes to those who show up. FreedomWorks makes it easy to hold your elected officials accountable in our fully interactive Action Center.
Find activists, groups, and events right in your own neighborhood. Join FreedomConnector to get involved and learn more about key issues threatening our economic freedom. Whether you’re looking for like-minded people, trying to boost your existing group’s impact, or simply trying to stay up on current events, FreedomConnector is the place to start. See what’s happening in your state today!Get Connected
400 Capitol Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
As we approach the next artificially constructed, politically motivated, intentionally promoted national crisis, we should keep one thing in mind: though we speak of a national debt, there is no single national debt.
The debts the government owes are real enough, and a source of national shame, totalling as they do over $16 trillion. But those debts are owed to millions of holders of the various Treasury notes, bills, and bonds, each of whom may own multiple securities of various maturities. Sold weekly, the securities come due and, as people get around to it, are either rolled over or redeemed every business day.
That is important because as we run up against the debt ceiling, the fear mongers will claim that failure to raise the ceiling will cause us to default on the debt, as if it is one single sum owed to a single debt holder. Defaulting on it is made to sound like the sky is falling, as if it would be the end of the nation itself.
Another category of securities are those held by government agencies, such as the Social Security "Trust Fund" and the federal pension funds. Failure to redeem one of these securities would be politically explosive, exposing the duplicitous nature of the generational theft caused by runaway spending.
In fact, defaulting on one of these debts, as stupid and irresponsible as that would be, would merely cause people to reconsider the soundness of tying up their money in Treasury securities. That would cost the government more in interest payments in the future, which would probably lead to a chain reaction of inflation. On the other hand, it might lead people and institutions to invest in more productive ways, such as in the stock market.
A debt default is not the end of America, but it would be the end of one kind of easy money for the big spenders in its government, and make balancing the budget all the less likely. It would be a very bad thing, all the more so because it is so unnecessary.
The federal government takes in hundreds of billions per month from its various sources, such as payroll taxes and federal income withholding. The income is enough to meet interest payments and notably to pay off the principal on maturing securities.
As Peter Ferrara says, we must correct the debt dishonesty to win the debate:
Federal individual and corporate income taxes, and excise taxes, are more than 6 times greater each year than the interest on the national debt. So if President Obama wants to focus on paying the bills we have already racked up, he doesn’t need to borrow still more to do that. That would only rack up still more bills.
The only chance of default, therefor, is if the Treasury Department decides to prioritize above debt service the payment of some other government obligation -- such as the President's greens fees or the power bill at the Department of Energy.
There are probably as many of these other federal expenditures as there are federal debts. We must begin making decisions now to decide which of the federal expenditures has lowest priority, so paying it can be delayed or eliminated in the event of a debt limit freeze.
The bad news: the federal government borrows about 40% of what it spends. I refuse to spend a single minute figuring out if that 40% figure is accurate. Whether the actual figure is 25%, 40%, or 60%, the effect is the same: smart cuts must be made to prioritize debt service over other spending.
The natioanl debts are trillions of dollars that could be put to productive use in the economy, but are instead loaned to the federal government in what are thought to be low risk loans. The risk is indeed low that the President and his Treasury Department, for all their bluster, would foolishly fail to service the nations's debts.
As we approach the next artificially constructed, politically motivated, intentionally promoted national crisis, we should keep one thing in mind: though we speak of a national debt, there is no single national debt. The debts the government owes are real enough, and a source of national shame, totalling as they do over $16 trillion. But those debts are owed to millions of holders of the various Treasury notes, bills, and bonds, each of whom may own multiple securities of various maturities. Sold weekly, the securities come due and, as people get around to it, are either rolled over or redeemed every business day.That is important because as we run up against the debt ceiling, the fear mongers will claim that failure to raise the ceiling will cause us to default on the debt, as if it is one single sum owed to a single debt holder. Defaulting on it is made to sound like the sky is falling, as if it would be the end of the nation itself.Another category of securities are those held by government agencies, such as the Social Security "Trust Fund" and the federal pension funds. Failure to redeem one of these securities would be politically explosive, exposing the duplicitous nature of the generational theft caused by runaway spending.In fact, defaulting on one of these debts, as stupid and irresponsible as that would be, would merely cause people to reconsider the soundness of tying up their money in Treasury securities. That would cost the government more in interest payments in the future, which would probably lead to a chain reaction of inflation. On the other hand, it might lead people and institutions to invest in more productive ways, such as in the stock market.
Paycheck protection laws prevent union leadership from spending compulsory membership dues on political expenses prior to obtaining consent from membership as individuals.
Paycheck protection programs have proved to be effective, so long as they remain comprehensive. Given the scope of unions in the Commonwealth, Pennsylvania workers stand to retain greater freedom and more of their hard-earned paychecks if an undiluted paycheck protection program is implemented in the state.
Read more about paycheck protection laws from around the country and the potential benefits a program could bring to workers in Pennsylvania here, in this FreedomWorks Foundation Issue Analysis.
Paycheck protection laws prevent union leadership from spending compulsory membership dues on political expenses prior to obtaining consent from membership as individuals.Paycheck protection programs have proved to be effective, so long as they remain comprehensive. Given the scope of unions in the Commonwealth, Pennsylvania workers stand to retain greater freedom and more of their hard-earned paychecks if an undiluted paycheck protection program is implemented in the state.
Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) has been playing a bad messaging strategy, one that raises tactics above principle, conflating the fortunes of the Speaker with that of his party and his party with the broader conservative movement.
The Speaker asked House conservatives to vote for an unpassable bill they didn't want in order to show President Obama's intransigence. Whether it had passed or not, that message would not have been received, but another would have: conservatives would have voted for a tax increase after having campaigned against doing so. Had it gotten to President Obama's desk, he would have vetoed it, but the blame would still have been put on Republicans.
After watching Speaker Boehner manipulate his way into the creation of the fiscal cliff, back primary challengers to conservatives, and then toss conservatives off key committees, the lack of trust was too great in the Speaker. He reached a tipping point past which his promises meant nothing and threats served only to steel his opposition.
Everyone's taxes were always going to go up. The fiscal cliff negotiations are about who gets the blame. Boehner wanted to pass something the Democrats would block, so he could avoid blame for going over the cliff he himself had created.
President Obama demonstrated repeatedly that he was not interested in bargaining, but would like to go over the cliff, allowing tax rates to rise on everyone, so that he could then lower rates for everyone but the rich. No longer would we refer to the "Bush Tax Cuts," but "The Obama Tax Cuts."
As Erick Erickson put it,
The fact is the GOP is going to get blamed no matter what. The fact is, if the GOP signaled to the American public it was willing to raise taxes on anyone, Barack Obama would have still rejected their deal and the GOP would still get blamed.
Democrats were not going to pass that bill. They were rallying against it, using absurd analysis from the left-leaning Tax Policy Institute to claim it was a tax hike on the middle class and tax cut for the wealthy.
As Daniel Horowitz said over at Redstate, the Plan B episode was a chance for House conservatives to show they learned from the Cut, Cap and Balance fight of 2011:
Despite the fact that we all warned that Boehner would never stand by the plan and that they’d be breaking their CCB/debt ceiling pledge for nothing, they passed his bill. Yes, unlike this time, there weren’t enough intransigent, knucklehead, knuckle-dragging, Tea Party rubes who were willing to block it. Even though not a single Democrat supported it, the bill passed 218-210. They all rallied behind Boehner to “strengthen his hand” in the hopes of getting a good deal. Well, less than 24 hours later, he announced the grand bargain, which gave Obama a $2.1 trillion blank check with no balanced budget amendment and a defense sequester trap that they are dealing with to this day. Boehner said at the time that he got 98% of what he wanted from the deal.
Conservatives were told in March, 2011 for the Continuing Resolution (pdf) and then again in July, 2011 for the debt ceiling (pdf) that we must not go to the mat over these crises, that brinksmanship was a losing proposition. We were told to "keep our powder dry" for the 2012 elections, after which we would gain seats in the House and Senate and win back the White House. A Republican President would sign Obamacare repeal and bring spending back to normal levels.
Speaker Boehner would not risk giving President Obama an election-year talking point, even though Boehner was put into that office largely to get rid of Obamacare and cut spending. He continued to bring up for vote fruitless and vain repeal bills, knowing that none would pass.
These messaging bills, designed to give the Speaker cover as a repeal hawk, did nothing except frustrate his membership.
The Speaker bet the farm on winning the 2012 elections, and lost.
Conservatives in the House were disappointed in the Speaker when again, he started the fiscal cliff fight negotiations from weakness, arguing about how much to raise taxes rather than on how to cut spending. Echoing Sen. Marco Rubio, Rep. Tim Scott, soon to be Senator from South Carolina said,
We must focus on cutting spending. If the conversation is starting with revenues, we're having the wrong conversation.— Tim Scott (@RepTimScott) December 21, 2012
FreedomWorks President Matt Kibbe wrote to members of Congress urging them not to support Plan B, saying that while it did not actually raise taxes, that's what the public perception would have been. Republicans would have given up a key differentiator with their opponents:
While Speaker Boehner’s “Plan B” does not, strictly speaking, contain any tax hikes, its passage will be widely interpreted by the Washington establishment and the left-wing media as a capitulation to the President’s demand for higher taxes. That will only embolden the supporters of ever-bigger government. Republicans, especially, should take a strong stand against President Obama’s cynical politics of dividing Americans against one another.
There is a better way to avoid the fiscal cliff. FreedomWorks has been urging Congress to keep its promise of $1.2 trillion in ten-year sequester savings, extend all current tax rates for one year, and reform taxes and entitlements.
House leadership threw everything they had into Plan B, in the end making it a vote of confidence on the Speaker himself. In the end, they had gone to that well too many times, and it had run dry.
If the argument for going along with Boehner's proposal is that it will weaken him to oppose him then you can never oppose him.— David Limbaugh (@DavidLimbaugh) December 21, 2012
For members of Congress to allow themselves to be painted as raising taxes, it ought to be in exchange for something of equal value. A mere messaging bill, and one that would not even have sent its desired message, is not of equal value. Taken together with the long train of abuses which the Speaker has visited on House conservatives, it's no wonder they have declared their independence from him.
Speaker Boehner should resign as Speaker, or at least, remove his name from consideration in the 113th Congress. He has abused the trust of the members and can not provide the leadership needed to achieve success in the current environment.
Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) has been playing a bad messaging strategy, one that raises tactics above principle, conflating the fortunes of the Speaker with that of his party and his party with the broader conservative movement. The Speaker asked House conservatives to vote for an unpassable bill they didn't want in order to show President Obama's intransigence. Whether it had passed or not, that message would not have been received, but another would have: conservatives would have voted for a tax increase after having campaigned against doing so. Had it gotten to President Obama's desk, he would have vetoed it, but the blame would still have been put on Republicans.
Police in Michigan turned aside oganized labor violence on Thursday as opponents of workplace freedom tried in vain to intimidate lawmakers in their workplace. The Michigan Senate passed Right To Work legislation, which goes to the House for a vote on Tuesday.
Ironically, the agents of forced unionization claim that Right To Work (RTW) laws endanger employee safety. RTW laws, which defend the right to be secure in a job without being forced to pay union dues, do not affect employee safety. The kinds of work people do in the states that happen to have chosen workplace freedom allow unscrupulous people to offer misleading statistics.Representative Keith Ellison of Minnesota tweeted a talking point:
According to BLS stats, rate of workplace deaths is 52.9% higher in states with Right-to-Work laws.— Rep. Keith Ellison (@keithellison) December 6, 2012
This talking point is accepted dogma on the left, apparently having originated with the Minnesota AFL-CIO.
It turns out that while states with RTW laws do have a higher rate of workplace deaths, that rate is 33% higher, not 52.9%. The difference is certainly not caused by the passage of a law allowing employees not to be forced into a union to get a job.As James Hohman of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy explains,
It's true that right-to-work states have a greater incidence of fatal workplace injuries, but the very dangerous occupations are concentrated in just a couple of industries and in occupations like farming, fishing and forestry regardless of whether the state has a right-to-work law.
"The bottom line," said Paul Kersey of the Illinois Policy Institute, "is that fatalities are more a function of what types of jobs are available than of RTW."
Right-to-work laws protect people from being forced to pay for a service they don't want. Unions and other associations should be able to compete in the marketplace just like everyone else. If your product -- or in this case, your club -- is so good, you shouldn't need a law to force people to buy it.
Data gathered from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, tabulated below, show the number of workplace deaths by state in 2011, the number of employed people in October of that year, and calculate the number of deaths per 100,000 employed people. To get a more exact figure we should use an average of several years. The more important information, however, is what happens in a state that changes its laws to allow workplace freedom.
The enactment of a state right-to-work law is not associated with an increase in workplace fatalities, said Kersey, citing the example of Oklahoma. "There were fewer workplace deaths in Oklahoma in the five years after right-to-work took effect than there had been in the five years prior."
|State||2011 Deaths||Payroll 10/2011||Per 100K|
Police in Michigan turned aside oganized labor violence on Thursday as opponents of workplace freedom tried in vain to intimidate lawmakers in their workplace. The Michigan Senate passed Right To Work legislation, which goes to the House for a vote on Tuesday.Ironically, the agents of forced unionization claim that Right To Work (RTW) laws endanger employee safety. RTW laws, which defend the right to be secure in a job without being forced to pay union dues, do not affect employee safety. The kinds of work people do in the states that happen to have chosen workplace freedom allow unscrupulous people to offer misleading statistics.
On Sat, Dec 1, college football was the center of attention in many American households as the Alabama Crimson Tide and Georgia Bulldogs squared off in an intense battle for the SEC Championship. During the game, Marco Rubio, the 41 year-old GOP senator from Florida, sent several tweets related to the game. I thought to myself, 'This guy gets it!' Not that a college football game resembles politics, but sports do reflect culture, and culture is essential into making political gains in the ever so changing demographics.
Making politics acceptable, in part, is realizing that most voters do not live in a political space but yet are immersed in culture. Therefore, even politicians, especially politicians must reach out to that culture in whatever means available and Rubio's engagement on social media and footbal is part of that effort. Whether it’s keen knowledge of sports, music, spirituality, or the arts, the intertwining of culture and politics will produce a renaissance in the 21st century.
Nothing irritates me more than seeing old, half-bald men, who are only accustomed to phone banking and door knocking in an election year, trying to lead the narrative on engaging the youth. It's not to say that there isn't wisdom to be gained from seasoned activists, but new voices must emerge. Millennials should be the most active, energized and engaged and advocate for cultural appeal among the conservative movement. Politicians are a synopsis of their society. Culture is a synopsis of society. If we want more politicians elected that inhabitant a moral conscious and a law of ethics, we must be willing to change the cultural environment.
Many youth are reluctant to obey rules that are set before them, it's why I'm positive that they would be hesitant to embrace a nanny-state America if they truly understood what liberties were at stake. Letting young people know what the power of free markets and individual liberty looks like and how it can empower them will enable them to boldly tell the government "hands-off" of their freedoms.
Young conservatives have done quite well in engaging in technological euphoria of social media. There is an immense amount of conservative talent that amasses Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. The intellect and wit of conservatives on these websites are undeniably second to none. However, it is quite easy to abide in the political bubble of social media and not change a single heart or mind.
It can be entertaining and comfortable to use social media as an outlet to vent frustration and to bring awareness of the liberal agenda within the mainstream media, but it will not change anything if there is no actual engagement in culture. We must feel obliged to not just use social media, but to be physically active in our cities and communities. It’s time to dispose of the coat and tie, and appeal to the youth.
Within our own political circle of trust, we find it easy to discuss taxes, budgets, deficits and use mathematical statistics to prove our points. However, this is only appealing to political enthusiasts, not the average millennial. I sincerely believe that the message of freedom and liberty is universal and transcends to all generations. Young people, who I believe by nature are driven by self-interest, should be informed of the rising student loan crisis and the lack of jobs being awarded to college graduates, as well as the entitlement crisis to which they are footing the bill. These are issues that are front and center in the lives of today’s youth. The bigger the government, the less of a chance that today’s youth will have the opportunity to exercise their God-given rights.
Conservatives are known for talking about the corruption of culture that exists in Hollywood, schools, colleges, etc. But let’s not just talk. Let’s activate change. Culture will remain contaminated unless we vocalize our alternatives. We should be present in the areas that are dominated by liberals. If we’re going to win this culture war, we must define the narrative. Because the future of the youth is at stake, a cultural renaissance must occur within the conservative movement. It must be bold, courageous, fierce and unprecedented.
On Sat, Dec 1, college football was the center of attention in many American households as the Alabama Crimson Tide and Georgia Bulldogs squared off in an intense battle for the SEC Championship.
Andrew Leonard at Salon wrote a piece this week titled, "The GOP’s horrible California nightmare." The title of the piece should have been "California's Democratic nightmare."
From the article published on November 7th, 2012:
Before 1992, California had not given its electoral votes to a Democrat running for president since Lyndon Johnson’s 1964 electoral landslide. But in the early 1990's California became a majority-minority state, and since then the state has inexorably turned bluer and bluer (aided by ham-handed Republican legislation on immigration that profoundly alienated Hispanics). Only 30 percent of Californians are now registered Republicans, the lowest mark since record-keeping began. In 2012, every single statewide office belonged to Democrats, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein ran essentially unopposed. Arch-conservative Republican Dan Lungren was the state’s attorney general from 1991-1999. He lost his U.S. House of Representatives seat last night.
Of course, Leonard and Democrats cheer this news because maintaining power has always been the goal of Democrats.
And after thirty years of absolute Democrat control the once Golden State now looks like this...
Today California has the highest poverty rate in the nation.
Deseret News reported:
California’s poverty rate of 23.5 percent is the highest of any state in the country, according to new information from the U.S. Census Bureau.
The Census Bureau worked with the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics to compile a Supplemental Poverty Measure, which factors in government programs to assist low-income people and families that aren’t included in official, income-based poverty measures that were developed in the early 1960s.
The new measure’s thresholds factor in the amount families spend on a basic goods including food, clothing, shelter and utilities and a small additional amount to allow for other needs such as household supplies, personal care items and non-work-related transportation. It’s adjusted to factor in geographical differences in housing costs, and also includes resources beyond income, such as nutrition assistance, subsidized housing, and home energy credits.
The nearest three-year (2009 to 2011) poverty rate to California’s is the District of Columbia with 23.2 percent. The next-highest poverty rate for a state is Arizona at 19.8 percent.
And in 2011 California was the second brokest state. Only Illinois is more broke.
But Democrats see this as success. California is on the path to Third Worldism and Democrats cheer. After all, they're in charge and that's what matters. And now Obama wants to turn the rest of the country into California.
Andrew Leonard at Salon wrote a piece this week titled, "The GOP’s horrible California nightmare." The title of the piece should have been "California's Democratic nightmare." From the article published on November 7th, 2012:
Politicians love to talk about a "mandate" when they are elected, as if the margin of their victory or the issues on which they ran their campaigns form a basis for governing. In fact, the only mandate an elected official has is to perform his duties.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) underscored that idea in the current political environment in a speech to the Senate:
"In politics, there is always a temptation among those who win office to think they have a mandate to do what they will," McConnell will say, according to prepared remarks. "But it’s important to remember that in this case the voters also re-elected a Republican-controlled House last week, and a closely divided Senate. And in a government of three equal branches, that’s hardly irrelevant. Most people may focus on the White House, but the fact is, the government is organized no differently today than it was after the Republican wave of 2010."
But the importance of not attaching too much weight to a political victory can not be overstated. There are many reasons people win and lose political campaigns, and not all of them have anything to do with the way in which they intend to carry out their offices.
On the leftist blog The New Republic, Jonathan Cohn argued in the immediate aftermath of President Obama's November 6 reelection win that Republicans and conservatives need to give in to the Obama big government agenda:
Romney and the Republicans had turned the election into a referendum on liberalism—not just the liberalism of Obama, but also the liberalism of Johnson and Kennedy, of Truman and Roosevelt. They proposed massive, fundamental changes to the welfare state and wholesale rollbacks of women’s rights, and challenged the philosophy behind such policies—the whole idea that governments should act to protect vulnerable groups and to guarantee economic security.
The Obama campaign was successful in painting the Romney platform just as Cohn does, as a "rollback of women's rights," when in fact Romney's plans were rather timid, offering optional entitlement changes a decade into the future. Obama successfully, and falsely, claimed that Romney had some problem with contraception. Romney repeatedly spoke of the safety net, and while his rhetoric was of fundamental differences, his actual policy statements offered little to distinguish them from the incumbent's.
Romney lost because he failed to run a campaign like the one Cohn says he did. No, Cohn's straw man issues would never win. Conservatives and liberals mean very different things by the phrases "protecting vulnerable groups" and a "guarantee of economic security," however, and Cohn seems to equate them both to good government.
Cohn goes on to describe Obama's victory as a fundamental shift of demographics -- minorities and women throwing off their shackles and reelecting a protector of the downtrodden and rejected.
In fact, Obama just lied repeatedly about Romney, painting him as an ogre, after which the Obama campaign did a better job of getting his voters to the polls.
As Real Clear Politics put it:
So Obama owes most of his victory margin to negative personal campaigning, while Republicans held the House despite -- or because of -- their opposition to big-government policies.
And even if you reject that analysis of the campaign, which perspective on the campaign is correct is less important than the fact that there is disagreement about and many different explanations for Obama's win.
We do not in fact know why voters vote the way they do. Anyone who has done any door-to-door campaigning or other retail politicking knows that voters are often irrational, using absurd proxy issues as their criteria for supporting one candidate over the others. Our system doesn't allow voters to say why they prefer one candidate over another, merely that they do.
Since voters do not get to say why they prefer a candidate, and since the candidates themselves say many things during a campaign, there can be no clear knowledge of why a candidate has won and another has lost.
To allow elected officials to claim a mandate would be to suspend our system of government. We have a system built with layer upon layer of checks and balances, intended to make only the most popular and obvious decisions easy. Mandates for recently elected politicians are not part of that system. To suspend the rules and let a candidate who claims a mandate have his way could have disastrous consequences.
As Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan told 770KKOB.com,
"Raising tax rates hurts economic growth and of all things we need right now, to prevent a fiscal cliff, prevent a recession, prevent a debt crisis, is we need people to go back to work," Ryan said. "There are other ways of getting more revenue into our government without damaging the economy, and that's the kind of thing we hope to achieve."
No one elected official, even if a presidential candidate were to win every state, is supposed to be able to carry out all the functions of government. How much less then, a president whose election depended on less than half of one percent of the electorate.
McConnell explained that every successful candidate was elected, and if one has a mandate, so do they all. Each is given confidence by the voters who elected them to pursue the policies they want to follow. We elect officials to office, not a king to a throne.
Mr. Obama in particular ran on issues -- the availability of contraception, continued funding for Big Bird, and not using binders to contain female job seekers' credentials -- that fail to describe a real policy agenda. To yield to him the greater authority on a campaign platform such as that is at once nonsensical and dangerous.
Our elections serve only to put people into office. They do not say what those people are allowed to do -- our Constitution and laws do.
Beware any official who claims a mandate. What he is really saying is he doesn't believe in our system of government.
Politicians love to talk about a "mandate" when they are elected, as if the margin of their victory or the issues on which they ran their campaigns form a basis for governing. In fact, the only mandate an elected official has is to perform his duties.Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) underscored that idea in the current political environment in a speech to the Senate:
President Obama’s reelection triggered a ticking time bomb of fed up Americans. Across the country small businesses and large corporations alike are closing their doors or laying off hundreds of employees. The innovators and entrepreneurs of America have been weary of increasing government regulation for quite some time, now. With Obamacare on the horizon those who can leave the market are doing so in droves.
To those of us familiar with the work of Ayn Rand, particularly her much acclaimed novel Atlas Shrugged; we saw this coming. Rand’s novel portrays a dystopian America, where the government egregiously encroaches on every sector of industry, exploits productive citizens and picks winners and losers through erroneous regulation and taxation. Atlas Shrugged is a mythological reference to the Greek Titan who held up the known world, when he shrugs and no longer cares about his duty, the world falls apart. The fictional America portrayed by Rand is no longer abstract; we are living out this once unfathomable vision of America.
Families, businesses and individuals across America are now forced to question the fundamental ideas that have made this nation the greatest civilization the world has ever known. America was founded on hard work, hope, freedom and the pursuit of happiness. The Obama administration is systematically destroying our once vibrant profit motive and replacing it with the utopian idea of equality without toil and entitlement without consequence. Hard work is discouraged with disproportionate taxation, and the vilification of the wealthy. The idea of hope has been perverted; hope was once an inspirational idea that through diligence, faith and dedication one could achieve their dream. In Obama’s America, “hope” is now subject to government approval and dependent upon government stimulus. Maximum freedom, the foundation upon which this nation was built has now become a burden for the government to overcome, not a guiding principle. Finally, in today’s America, happiness is to often pursued through government programs, not personal development.
In the aforementioned novel, the working class removes themselves from society, led by John Galt, they take shelter in a hidden valley, where liberty is held dear. Today, business owners and laborers are searching for their own valley, hoping and praying to endure through to looming fiscal nightmare. Today entrepreneurs and innovators are not dreaming of expansion and success, they are dreaming of mere survival. Without a return to our core principles we are destined to fulfill Rand’s prophecy, Atlas Shrugged ends with the lights going off in New York City, symbolizing the final destruction of innovation and liberty. Unless we return to the values that set us on our journey to become that once shining city on a hill, I fear our proverbial lights will go dark as well.
We must stand and fight for a return to our core values and principles. Take the message of liberty to every corner of this nation, implore your friends, peers and neighbors to truly examine the consequences of our entitlement driven society.
America is shrugging. Answer her call.
President Obama’s reelection triggered a ticking time bomb of fed up Americans. Across the country small businesses and large corporations alike are closing their doors or laying off hundreds of employees. The innovators and entrepreneurs of America have been weary of increasing government regulation for quite some time, now.
By: Jim Hoft and Rachel Pulaski
The 2012 Legatum Prosperity Index found that the "American Dream is in jeopardy" and "The national ethos of the U.S. is under threat." The assessment of prosperity is based on material wealth and personal well-being. The Prosperity Index benchmarks countries in eight categories: Economy, Entrepreneurship & Opportunity, Education, Governance, Personal Freedom, Health, Safety & Security, and Social Capital.
The Unites States dropped out of the global prosperity ‘top ten’ for the first time to the twelfth position in the worldwide prosperity rankings and fell eight places in ‘Entrepreneurship & Opportunity’. The assesment found fewer US citizens agree that "hard work gets you ahead."
"The London-based public policy institute pegged the precipitous drop in the U.S. to a decline in consumer and voter confidence, along with a bleak economic and entrepreneurial outlook; four percent fewer citizens believe that "hard work gets you ahead," and business startup costs as a percentage of Gross National Income (GNI) have doubled in the past two years.
In fact, the U.S. economy sub-score dropped to twentieth and its personal freedom score dropped four points to fourteenth, just above Uruguay."
The report was first released on October 30, 2012, the group was hoping the report would have "electoral implications" but as always MSM remained silent:
"As the US struggles to reclaim the building blocks of the American Dream," Gedmin noted, "now is the time to consider who is best placed to lead the country back to prosperity and compete with the more agile countries that have pushed the U.S. out of the top ten."
List of the top 20 countries:
By: Jim Hoft and Rachel PulaskiThe 2012 Legatum Prosperity Index found that the "American Dream is in jeopardy" and "The national ethos of the U.S. is under threat." The assessment of prosperity is based on material wealth and personal well-being. The Prosperity Index benchmarks countries in eight categories: Economy, Entrepreneurship & Opportunity, Education, Governance, Personal Freedom, Health, Safety & Security, and Social Capital.
Voter fraud is a contentious issue of late; liberals swear it is a myth propagated by evil racist conservatives. We know better. Most on the right are aware of the voter fraud issue but many have little to no idea how to combat or report violations; consider this your crash course.
First and foremost, step one in any instance where you see or suspect voter fraud is to alert the state officials who oversee the election process. For most states this is done by the Secretary of State, in other states, there is a State Board of Elections. Notifying these officials is paramount as they are the ones who ultimately certify and authenticate elections. Alert them before you call Fox News or blow up Twitter, though drawing as much media attention as possible is beneficial, you want to make sure you follow a process. I have included a contact list for each state at the bottom of this post.
In many cases once you have alerted the state authorities they will direct you to the proper city or county officials where you will fill out paperwork. Bureaucracy at its finest. Go ahead and jump through their hoops, if you witnessed the fraud, chances are someone else did too. Make a good effort to get other witness' names and contact information as well. This will strengthen your case and increase the likelihood that state and county officials will step in and act on your complaint.
If, as has happened before, state officials ignore you entirely your next step is to contact your state Attorney General and alert them of the situation. However, before you do this you need to arm yourself with knowledge of your specific states election laws. You will be more credible if you are able to cite the specific statutes which were violated. State laws are generally published online, however it may actually be quicker and easier for you to go to your local library or courthouse and utilize their search engines. In my experience relevant case law and updated statutes can be difficult to sort through on Google or other internet search sites. The Attorney General should conduct an investigation to determine whether or not there is enough evidence and/or information to take legal action.
If state officials refuse to work with you, your next step is to alert both your State Representative and State Senator, they may intercede, and it is in the Secretary of State and Attorney General's best interest to respond professionally and quickly to these representatives.
Should you continue to hit dead ends on the state level, it’s time to alert the Department of Justice. Before doing this, call your Congressman and Senator, in some cases they will be willing to write a letter on your behalf to the DOJ. This is what your goal is ultimately; for the DOJ is less likely to ignore these officials. If going through your elected officials is a poor option, as it may very well be depending on the circumstances, review federal election law and proceed anyways.
Finally, you and I both know that the DOJ, nor liberal state officials are likely to do anything about a claim of election fraud, however, it is absolutely imperative that you go through these motions and document these steps to preserve any future legal options. Documenting instances of election fraud will continue to strengthen our case for voter ID. Furthermore it is important to press forward on these criminals, so that it's understood that we will not idly stand by and allow our elections to be manipulated.
Last but not least, use your head. If you see or suspect voter manipulation, have the courage to record it, whip out your phone and start shooting video, and report it to the appropriate authorities first.
California 916 657-2166
New Hampshire 603-271-3242
New Jersey 609-292-3760
New Mexico 505-827-3600
New York 518-473-5086
North Carolina 919-733-7173
North Dakota 701-328-4146
Rhode Island 401-222-2345
South Carolina 803-734-9060
South Dakota 605-773-3537
Washington DC 202-727-2525
West Virginia 304-558-6000
Voter fraud is a contentious issue of late; liberals swear it is a myth propagated by evil racist conservatives. We know better. Most on the right are aware of the voter fraud issue but many have little to no idea how to combat or report violations; consider this your crash course.