Saturday, April 11, 2009

Bob Barr on Gun Control

Bob Barr on Gun Control

Bob Barr published the following article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

Gun-control crowd pushes radical goal

by Bob Barr, April 1, 2009

As the little girl in the 1980s flick, “Poltergeist,” said, “They’re back.” Now, after consciously maintaining a low profile the last two years, even though the Democratic Party maintained a majority in both houses of the Congress, the gun-control crowd is stirring. Yes, they’re back. And they’re feeling their oats.

Smartly, congressional benefactors for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the nation’s most notorious gun control organization, had lain low; and gun control was but a minor issue in then-Sen. Obama’s campaign for the White House.

Read the full article here.

Libertarians cordially invite you to a Tea Party

Press Release

For Immediate Release
Wednesday, April 8, 2009

Libertarians cordially invite you to a Tea Party

Anti-tax rallies "the kind of ‘community organizing’ Obama should have been doing"

WASHINGTON -- America’s third largest party is urging Americans to join millions of libertarians and other advocates of economic freedom at one of thousands of “Tea Parties” being held on April 15.

The "tea party" concept started with the Libertarian Party of Illinois (LPI) who began organizing a 2009 Tax Day ‘Boston Tea Party’ in Chicago back in December of 2008 and created a Facebook group for it on Feb. 10, 2009, according to the LPI. Nine days later, CNBC’s Rick Santelli, broadcasting from the floor of the Chicago stock exchange, popularized the concept.

“Americans agree with the Libertarian Party that taxes and spending are out of control, and that bailouts and nationalizing industries destroys freedom and prosperity. The Libertarian Party is the only party supporting shrinking budgets, lowering tax burdens, eliminating deficits and getting government out of the way of recovery,” said Ferguson.

“With the Republican Party in Washington joining Democrats in proposing their own bloated budget that expands spending and explodes the deficit, and Republicans in other states touting their plans to raise taxes and jack up spending during a recession, Americans must speak out and speak out forcefully,” said Ferguson.

The public rallies, organized locally by concerned citizens of various political affiliations around the country, will express the widespread majority opposition to the government takeovers of private industries led by Obama, and the bailout programs, expanded spending and larger deficits proposed by both Democrats and Republicans.

“Tea Parties are the kind of ‘community organizing’ Obama should have been doing, instead of peddling government dependency,” said Ferguson.

A national listing of Tea Party events can be found at If you know of a Tea Party not listed, contact with the time and location so it may be added.

For more information on this issue, or to arrange an interview with the Libertarian Party, please call Director of Communications Donny Ferguson at 703-200-3669, 202-333-0008, x. 225, or email

The Libertarian Party is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971 as an alternative to the two main political parties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party by visiting The Libertarian Party proudly stands for smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom.


Dear Stupid - You might want to wrap it next time....

Man jailed for dodging child support for 14 kids

Saturday, April 11, 2009

(04-11) 12:25 PDT Flint, Mich. (AP) --

Authorities in Michigan say a man fathered 14 children with 13 different women and owes more than $530,000 in unpaid child support.

Examples of Registration leading to confiscation:

Examples of Registration leading to confiscation:

1930's & 1940's
Himmler, head of the Nazi terror police, would become an architect of the Holocaust, which consumed six million Jews. It was self evident that the Jews must be disarmed before the extermination could begin.

Finding out which Jews had firearms was not too difficult. The liberal Weimar Republic passed a Firearm Law in 1928 requiring extensive police records on gun owners. Hitler signed a further gun control law in early 1938.

Other European countries also had laws requiring police records to be kept on persons who possessed firearms. When the Nazis took over Czechoslovakia and Poland in 1939, it was a simple matter to identify gun owners. Many of them disappeared in the middle of the night along with political opponents.


In 1941, U.S. Attorney General Robert Jackson called on Congress to enact national registration of all firearms.8 Given events in Europe, Congress recoiled, and legislation was introduced to protect the Second Amendment. Rep. Edwin Arthur Hall explained: "Before the advent of Hitler or Stalin, who took power from the German and Russian people, measures were thrust upon the free legislatures of those countries to deprive the people of the possession and use of firearms, so that they could not resist the encroachments of such diabolical and vitriolic state police organizations as the Gestapo, the Ogpu, and the Cheka."9

Rep. John W. Patman added: "The people have a right to keep arms; therefore, if we should have some Executive who attempted to set himself up as dictator or king, the people can organize themselves together and, with the arms and ammunition they have, they can properly protect themselves. . . ."10


Gun Confiscation in Democratic Societies
New Zealand has had some form of firearms registration since 1921. In 1974, all revolvers lawfully held for personal security were confiscated. (Same source as previous paragraph)

In May of 1995, Canada's Bill C-68 prohibited previously legal and registered small-caliber handguns. Current owners of such guns were "grandfathered," which means the guns are to be forfeited upon death of the owner. Bill C-68 also authorizes the Canadian government to enact future weapons prohibitions.

On 10 May 1996, Australia banned most semi-automatic rifles and semi-automatic and pump shotguns. Prior to this law, many Australian states and territories had firearms registration. Owners of these newly outlawed firearms were required to surrender them (with some monetary compensation). All such firearms are to be confiscated and destroyed after a 12-month amnesty program. Roughly 600,000 of an estimated 4 million Australian guns have been surrendered to authorities and destroyed.

"Since 1921, all lawfully-owned handguns in Great Britain are registered with the government, so handgun owners have little choice but to surrender their guns in exchange for payment according to government schedule...The handgun ban by no means has satiated the anti-gun appetite in Great Britain." (All the Way Down the Slippery Slope: Gun Prohibition in England and Some Lessons for Civil Liberties in America", Hamline Law Review, 1999)

Even in the United States, registration has been used to outlaw and confiscate firearms. In New York City, a registration system enacted in 1967 for long guns, was used in the early 1990s to confiscate lawfully owned semiautomatic rifles and shotguns. (Same source as previous paragraph) The New York City Council banned firearms that had been classified by the city as "assault weapons." This was done despite the testimony of Police Commissioner Lee Brown that no registered "assault weapon" had been used in a violent crime in the city. The 2,340 New Yorkers who had registered their firearms were notified that these firearms had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or taken out of the city. (NRA/ILA Fact Sheet: Firearms Registration: New York City's Lesson)

More recently, California revoked a grace period for the registration of certain rifles (SKS Sporters) and declared that any such weapons registered during that period were illegal. (California Penal Code, Chapter 2.3, Roberti-Ross Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 section 12281(f) ) In addition, California has prohibited certain semi-automatic long-rifles and pistols. Those guns currently owned, must be registered, and upon the death of the owner, either surrendered or moved out of state. (FAQ #13 from the California DOJ Firearms Division Page)

Chilling Words.

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA
ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve
the state." - Heinrich Himmler.

Himmler was one of most powerful men in
Nazi Germany. As Reichsf├╝hrer-SS he oversaw all police and security forces, including the Gestapo. Wonder why he didn't want regular citizens armed?

Hmmmm....has Nancy, Hillary and their buddies been reading more of their hero's works?

Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 (Translated to English)

  • Classified guns for "sporting purposes".
  • All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check.
  • Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazis from the gun control law.
  • Gave Nazis unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons.
  • The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.
  • Juveniles under 18 years could not buy firearms and ammunition.

Dear Ms. Pelosi....

Dear Ms. Pelosi, the corrupt media, and other enemies of the People.
A long time ago, in another place, people were ordered to lay down their arms and submit.

They refused.

Today you ask that We The People give you an inventory of what we have in preparation to impose hardship upon Us and open Us to violation by criminals and Traitors to our Constitution.

Our answer, is as theirs was.

You want them?

Come and take them.

We will follow the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, wisdom that you in your cowardice and fear, have chosen to ignore or forgot.

We strongly suggest that you remember the lessons of history, lest you painfully relearn it.

We The People.

Nancy Pelosi & Eric Holder: We want gun registration, 2nd amendment will be ignored

Nancy Pelosi & Eric Holder: We want gun registration, 2nd amendment will be ignored

Pelosi: We want registration; Holder: 2A won’t stand in our way

4.9.09 / Second Amendment Foundation

BELLEVUE, WA – Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on April 7 acknowledged that gun registration is on her agenda, days after Attorney General Eric Holder told reporters in Mexico that the Second Amendment would not “stand in the way” of administration plans to crack down on alleged gun trafficking to Mexico.

“These are alarming remarks from Speaker Pelosi and Attorney General Holder,” said Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan Gottlieb. “It appears that the Obama administration and Capitol Hill anti-gunners have dropped all pretences about their plans for gun owners’ rights, and it looks like the gloves are coming off.”

Pelosi’s revelation came during an interview on ABC’s Good Morning, America. While insisting that Congress “never denied” the gun rights of American Citizens, Pelosi told Roberts, “We want them registered. We don’t want them crossing state lines…” Gottlieb noted that citizens’ rights do not stop at state lines.

“But that doesn’t really matter,” he observed. “History has shown that around the world, registration has always led to confiscation.”

Read the rest of the article.

Seems Ms. Pelosi and other members of our government are looking to follow guidelines from the 1930's....a place called Germany.....

Michael Badnarik Quote

Allow me to dispel a myth. People in the Middle East do not hate us for our freedom. They do not hate us for our lifestyle. They hate us because we have spent many years attempting to force them to emulate our lifestyle. The US government overthrew the democratically elected leader of Iran and replaced him with the Shah. The US government gave weapons, intelligence and money to Saddam Hussein. The US government also helped Libyan Col. Qaddafi come to power, propped up the Saudi monarchy and the Egyptian regime, and gave assistance to Osama bin Laden. Most Americans have forgotten these events. But the people of the Middle East will always remember. It was because of American troops in Saudi Arabia, lethal sanctions on Iraq, support for states in serious violation of International Law, and siding with Israel in its dispute with the Palestinians that terrorist leaders were able to recruit those individuals who caused 3,000 Americans to pay the ultimate price on September 11, 2001.
  • July 2004

Thursday, April 9, 2009

Rebuttal: Open letter to 20/20, Permission is granted to distribute.

This is in reply to Open letter to 20/20, Permission is granted to distribute. by Andy Moynihan

Andy's posting his message in a number of places. When one doesn't own a newspaper or tv station the internet's a good medium to reach people.

I'm going to disagree with his open letter however. Not because I disagree with his feelings, I don't. I disagree with the content. It's more an emotionally charged piece than a refuting of 20/20's "facts".

20/20's piece "Easy Access: $5,000 and One Hour Buys 10 Guns" indicates there's a loophole that allows anyone to buy a gun at gun shows without background checks, etc. This may in fact be true, however the same article also indicated that one still had to present ID, and that the dealers were failing to follow that policy, -and- that the law enforcement present failed to enforce it. A system, used by sci fi cons nation wide to crack down on bootlegs might work here. It involved inspecting the booths at random times to verify they were only selling legal stuff. Plain clothes cops could go in, buy guns, and close down the non-legally operating dealers. Simple.

Another point is, I might be able to walk in and buy it, but I would still need the proper permits to carry it. Exit inspections by LEO to ensure that customers had the proper permits would also improve compliance with -existing- laws. Work such inspections within the particular states reciprocal honoring policies. You get an immediate decrease in the number of guns bought and carried across state lines. No need for more laws, just enforce the existing ones.

I also take exception to the staged depiction of a child holding a gun to their head. Such an image will set off an emotional reaction, and on an issue such as this one needs to use reason. Yes, kids are killed by guns. It's tragic. But it's only 2.5% of all child deaths.

According to the National Center for Health
3.5% of childhood deaths involve a fire arm. This includes murders (2.3%), suicides (1%) and accidental (.2%). A child is more likely to die of natural causes (44.8%), in a car accident (9.5%) or other causes.

Interestingly enough, while 1% of child suicides involve firearms, .9% involve some form of strangulation. Where is the outrage over rope and belts? Not a glamorous cause, "Ban the Belt", and those still spanking their kids (child abuse?) would object. After all, it's not the belt, it's the use that is the problem.

For more information, I refer to my article "The Myth that Gun Control is Good By Bob Hubbard", which I wrote from the non-gun person perspective. Restrictive gun laws don't stop crime as criminals break the law. All they do is prevent law abiding citizens access to a legitimate means of defense, and in fact rather than decrease gun crimes, in fact increase them as the criminals know their victims are more likely not armed, thereby giving them the advantge. For proof, one simply has to compare gun related crimes in restrictive places like New York, Illinois and DC with less restrictive places like Vermont, Arizonia and Texas. There is also the hypocracy of many anti-gun supporters who want us unarmed, but insist on having weapons themselves.

All in all, the 20/20 piece, and in fact many other "lets disarm the nation for the children" pieces tug at our hearts, and while they mean well, in fact fail to realize that the end result is in fact a more dangerous society, not a safer one. Armed and educated with strict penalty for wrongful use to me, based on the facts I've seen, seems the best policy.

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

Anti-Gay BS Video.

Nice people. "My daughter is being taught at school that gay marriage is okay, and I'm afraid!"

Of what? Equality? That she'll be taught tolerance? That Gays are people too and worthy of respect and that it's not ok to insult, taunt or assault them?

Oh good heavens! There goes the nation. What so ever will we do?

Probably collapse into utter ruin just like Canada did after they legalized same-sex marriage nation wide. They did collapse right? There's nothing but a well decorated crater where Canada once was right? Because legalizing Gay Marriage there destroyed the nation and forced the straights into Forced Decorating Camps, right after all the religions were banned and forced the nation into a heathen rainbow annihilation, right?

Oh wait. That never happened. Life just went on, and more people got to be families, and society didn't collapse.

Chuck Norris For President.....Of Texas?

On Glenn Beck's radio show last week, I quipped in response to our wayward federal government, "I may run for president of Texas."
That need may be a reality sooner than we think. If not me, someone someday may again be running for president of the Lone Star state, if the state of the union continues to turn into the enemy of the state.
From the East Coast to the "Left Coast," America seems to be moving further and further from its founders' vision and government.
Full Article

You've got my vote Chuck.

Michael Badnarik Quote

If I give you a forty five percent chance at lethal injection, a fifty percent chance at the electric chair, and a five percent chance for escape which are you going to vote for? The electric chair, because you're likely to win?
  • Constitution Class

Gay Rights News 4-8-09

Same-sex marriage rights a step closer in District of Columbia
  • Story Highlights
  • Washington Council votes 12-0 for legislation recognizing same-sex marriages
  • Council is expected to hold a final vote on May 5; if approved, must got to Congress
  • City's law provides domestic partnerships for lesbian, gay, and heterosexual couples
  • Human Rights Campaign urges federal lawmakers not to intervene

With veto overrides, Vermont legalizes same-sex marriage

  • Story Highlights
  • Vermont House and Senate voted Tuesday to override governor's veto of bill
  • Same-sex marriages will become legal in Vermont on September 1
  • Vermont becomes fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage
  • Jubilant supporters of the bill throng legislative building after the override votes

Iowa court backs gay marriage

  • Story Highlights
  • NEW: "This is a great day for civil rights in Iowa," Lambda Legal attorney says
  • Iowa joins Massachusetts and Connecticut in allowing same-sex marriages
  • Decision upholds 2007 ruling by lower court that said ban stigmatized gay couples
  • Debate rages in New England as two state legislatures consider the issue

New Hampshire House OKs same-sex marriage

  • Story Highlights
  • Gov. John Lynch has not publicly indicated whether he will veto measure
  • Lynch opposes same-sex marriage, but signed civil unions into law in 2007
  • Measure passes House by a vote of 186-179, moves on to state Senate
  • Vermont Senate also approved a measure legalizing same-sex marriage this week

Four states have legalized it: Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa.
California's Supreme Court is considering restoring the right to marry to gays.
New Hampshire looks to be legalizing it.

Sooner or later the US SC will have to actually decide the matter. Would be nice to join other civilized nations like Canada and do it.

Tuesday, April 7, 2009


I don't take credit for writing this. Follow the link to the source.


I believe that only individuals have rights, not the collective group; that these rights are intrinsic to each individual, not granted by the state; for if the state has the power to grant them, it also has the power to deny them, and that is incompatible with personal liberty.
I believe that a just government derives its power solely from the governed. Therefore, the state must never presume to do anything beyond what individual citizens also have the right to do. Otherwise, the state is a power unto itself and becomes the master instead of the servant of society.

I believe that one of the greatest threats to freedom is to allow any group, no matter its numeric superiority, to deny the rights of the minority; and that one of the primary functions of just government is to protect each individual from the greed and passion of the majority.

I believe that desirable social and economic objectives are better achieved by voluntary action than by coercion of law. I believe that social tranquility and brotherhood are better achieved by tolerance, persuasion, and the power of good example than by coercion of law. I believe that those in need are better served by charity, which is the giving of one's own money, than by welfare, which is the giving of other people's money through coercion of law.

I believe that all citizens should be equal under law, regardless of their national origin, race, religion, gender, education, economic status, life style, or political opinion. Likewise, no class should be given preferential treatment, regardless of the merit or popularity of its cause. To favor one class over another is not equality under law.

I believe that the proper role of government is negative, not positive; defensive, not aggressive. It is to protect, not to provide; for if the state is granted the power to provide for some, it must also be able to take from others, and once that power is granted, there are those who will seek it for their advantage. It always leads to legalized plunder and loss of freedom. If government is powerful enough to give us everything we want, it is also powerful enough to take from us everything we have. Therefore, the proper function of government is to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens; nothing more. That government is best which governs least.

So an uphappy Congressman's office calls from 202-225-2176...


UPDATED LP Monday Message: So an uphappy Congressman's office calls from 202-225-2176...

posted by Donny Ferguson on Apr 06, 2009

UPDATE: The bill to expand the powers of the Treasury and confiscate earnings actually passed the House and is now in the Senate.

You can also call the Senate switchboard at 202-224-3121 to tell your Senators whether you oppose or support the bill.

Dear friend,

I was in the middle of writing a great Message to you this afternoon about how first-time membership in the Libertarian Party has increased every month for the last three months and we’ve seen a 151 percent increase in new volunteers. People are excited about the Libertarian Party!

Then I got a phone call from 202-225-2176.

It was Congressman Alan Grayson’s office.

They’re not sharing the love.

You may have gotten an e-mail from me last Friday about the Florida Democrat and his disturbing “Pay for Performance” bill.

If you didn’t, or you’ve forgotten, Grayson’s bill would give the Treasury Secretary complete, absolute and total power to define so-called “unreasonable compensation” to ANY employee at a company the federal government owns shares of, which the government may then confiscate.

Here’s where it gets really scary. The bill does not define what “unreasonable” is. That total and absolute power is given to the unelected Treasury Secretary, who is free to write his own rules.

And judging from his years of unfiled tax returns, he’s not the kind of guy who should be writing his own rules.

That power doesn’t just apply to incompetent managers. It even applies to janitors, employees who actually performed their jobs well, or theoretically employees who make good money and oppose President Obama.

It’s also retroactive, meaning they can go back in time and steal money already paid out. Even the Soviet Union didn’t allow that!

Just how enamored is Congressman Grayson with unquestioned government power?

He even went so far as to go on national television and claim the Constitution gives the President’s administration the right to forcibly confiscate money from people the administration feels didn’t “earn” it!

Socialists have been calling for “maximum wage” laws restricting private salaries for years – and using the exact same arguments touted by Grayson. If his bill passes, advocates of a virtual “salary cap” on private individuals will have a toe in the door.

Well, apparently Congressman Grayson isn’t happy with the phone calls he’s been getting from concerned Libertarians.

His office called me around lunch to complain from 202-225-2176.

Yep, they’re giving an unelected bureaucrat – one who’s already proven he can’t follow the law – absolute power to define "excessive" pay and have the government confiscate it, and they have no shame admitting that.

They just didn’t like the fact the swarms of Libertarians calling their office were more focused on his blatant power grab and not which specific bailout packages were included.

Not that it matters. Americans are angry over the fact the Treasury Secretary is being given absolute control to write his own rules allowing the government to steal private citizen’s paychecks, and all it takes is one quiet amendment to apply the undefined powers to many more companies.

They know it’s not only the first step towards “maximum wage” laws, but that giving the Executive Branch absolute power to confiscate the property of people the president’s administration feels didn’t “earn” -- with no rules or standards in the legislation -- is a frightening step away from the free country we love.

Giving the executive branch expanded powers was a bad idea under the Bush administration, and it’s still a bad idea under the Obama administration.

And stealing the earnings of private citizens because the president’s appointee feels like they didn’t “earn” it is the first step towards the kind of economy touted by people who look at the rubble of the Soviet Union and think, “Great idea! Let’s do that here!.”

You can call Congressman Grayson yourself at 202-225-2176 to let him know what you think about his plan to give the Obama administration absolute, self-defined power to define "excessive pay."

Yep. 202-225-2176.

Tell them the Libertarian Party sent you.

With optimism,

Donny Ferguson
Director of Communications
Libertarian National Committee

PS – If you are receiving this email, and have not yet become a member of the Party and wish to do so, please click here to sign up to become a member of the only political party dedicated completely to cutting taxes and maximizing liberty. If you need to renew, please do so by clicking here.

PPS - If you have not yet contributed, please consider a donation right now of $25, $50, $100 or $1000 to the Libertarian Party. Your contribution will be used to grow the Party and expand the message of liberty. From ads to outreach, every dollar goes towards leading the liberty movement in its fight to restore the Constitution and maximize freedom.

Attorney general issues new FOIA guidelines

Attorney general issues new FOIA guidelines

By The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration advised federal agencies yesterday to release their records and information to the public unless foreseeable harm would result.

Attorney General Eric Holder issued new guidelines fleshing out President Barack Obama's Jan. 21 order to reveal more government records to the public under the Freedom of Information Act, whenever another law doesn't prohibit release.

The new standard essentially returned to one issued by Attorney General Janet Reno during the Clinton administration. It replaced a more restrictive policy imposed by the Bush administration under which the Justice Department defended any sound legal argument for withholding records.

"We are making a critical change that will restore the public's ability to access information in a timely manner," Holder said in a written statement.

Full Article:

The Obameter Scorecard

The Obameter Scorecard

Monday, April 6, 2009

You Evil Militiaman You!

So, the brain trust that's the Missouri Information Analysis Center recently came to this stunning conclusion:

"Militia members most commonly associate with third-party political groups," said the report, issued Feb. 20 by the Missouri Information Analysis Center. "It is not uncommon for militia members to display Constitution Party, Campaign for Liberty or Libertarian material. These members are usually supporters of former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr."
So, if you know your rights, support the guys you support getting government off your ass and back to what another evil terrorist named Thomas Jefferson espoused, you're likely in a domestic terrorist cell.


Lets just wave the flag and bleet our obedience to whichever clone or clown is in the big seat and do what they say.

Sorry. No.

I choose to hold law enforcement officials to the law that they are supposed to represent.
I choose to hole elected officials to their oaths, and to the law they are supposed to represent.
I choose to know my rights, my privileges, the difference between them, and weither you like it or not, hold LEO and EO accountable when they purposefully or ignorantly try to violate them.
I choose to support and will continue to support those seeking office who agree with those ideas.
I choose to support the idea of a small government that isn't so paranoid it needs to see my "papers" before I take a crap, or that having a couple bucks isn't "wrong".

Guess that makes me a suspicious person, possibly even a "terrorist" to some.

Yes folks, thinking is a crime I guess.

What a sorry condition for the nation that Washington and Jefferson and Franklin gave so much for. They would weep if they could see how far we've fallen.

Got Cash? These Nice Men Vould Like To Make You Talk.

Seems a Ron Paul campaign worker was detained by the TSA recently. He was a "suspicious person" because he was carrying $4,700 in cash. Yes, having large amounts of money on you is now grounds for detainment and interrogation.

Welcome to 1984 Komerades.


Washington Times News Article

Sunday, April 5, 2009

Obama’s promises falling by the wayside

Obama’s promises falling by the wayside
become clear that Mr. Obama's policies are slowing, if not stopping, what would otherwise be the normal process of economic recovery.
Sounds very FDR-like. I remember someone here saying something like this a while back, but he got told he was wrong. I wonder who that was.......

What do I think of Obama?
FDR 2.0
with recovery delayed decades due to mismanagement, wrong effort, and training people to be dependants, not independants.
I see Obama as a modern day Teddy Roosevelt, just more sane. Teddy, for those who aren''t familiar, did whatever he wanted, including signing treaties with other nations, years before Congress caught up to him and actually made it all legal. I see him as a modern FDR, in that he'll "save" us from Depression, by nationalizing everything possible, and making his Socialist party buddies proud (even though they say he isn't one of them, and he's ah, misplaced, his membership card and lifetime pledge of loyalty to them).
If they go the FDR route, look for the continued loss of private sector businesses, with bloated federal programs replacing them, further delaying recovery.

So you want "Change"?

So you want "Change"?

Barack Obama campaigned on the idea of "Change". He was going to change how the US was seen in the world, how we dealt with our own problems, and more. He was going to tear down to tired old "how it's always been done" walls and sweep in a new world.

So, less than 100 days in, people are screaming about "where's the change?".

First thing: Obama is the President, bound by law, constrained by decisions his predecessor made, and having to work with 2 unwilling to change branches of Congress. He is not a King, ruling by whim, whose every decree is law, descended from the gods on high. American's would do well to remember the difference. He can't just say it, will it into existence and it is so. He must work through the same tired systems, until they decide to change.

American's like the idea of change, yet continue to reelect the same people who cause all the problems, who are more concerned with keeping their jobs, than actually doing their job, which is to represent "We The People".

Maybe the problem is while we like to give lip service to the idea, we don't actually understand the idea, of "Change".

What is "Change"?

Change is the slaughtering of our "Sacred Cows", those outmoded beliefs, assumptions, practices, policies, systems, or strategies that inhibit change and prevent responsiveness to new ideas and opportunities.

What sacred cows? Some examples are the 40 hour work week, job security, holding 1 job until you die, retirement at 65, and single payer households. It is "How we always do things".

Change fails because while most of the ideas that come along sound nice, and make sense on paper, when it comes time to do it people dig in their heels and resist it. End result? Billions of dollars wasted and people get more jaded. The fail point in change is, people.

People have the power of change, or not-change. You've heard it. "Better the Devil you know....", "Who knows what will go wrong...", and so on. People say they want change, but when change comes along, they resist it, fight it, sabotage it and make excuses for it. Change opens up the unknown, it's uncomfortable, it's unpredictable and feels unsafe. "What if it fails?", "What if I get hurt", "What if?". People naturally resist change.

For Change to work, people must want Change, not just say they want it. They must be an active, willing & positive part of the whole process. One can't sit home at rest and wait for change to happen. One must move, become involved, participate, and help fuel change.

For change to happen, people need to be open to change. They must be receptive to it, to new ideas. They must be excited, not anxious about change. Be challenged, but not threatened, and commit to change as an ongoing process, not a final destination.

If you're good, you react quickly to change, but if you're great, you become the catalyst for change itself.

The old saying goes, if you want something to happen, make it happen, don't wait for it to find you.

If you like Obama's promises for change, then get involved and help him change the system and make the changes. If you don't like them, then get involved and make your own changes happen. Either way, don't sit home waiting for someone else to do it.
Copyright © 2009 Bob Hubbard. All rights reserved.