Charles Koch (the Koch Brothers) Defines A Constitutional Liberal*

(*The original meaning taken from the US Constitution as a lover of liberty; not current meaning from the post Woodrow Wilson era, as Progressives tried to publicly distance themselves from their belief in an autocratic and Eugenicists society.)

After the Supreme Court decision to strike down total limits on individual campaign contributions, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) invoked his favorite boogeymen, warning of future corruption in elections. This with half the US states having mandatory union membership and the members having no  right  to direct political donations taken from their dues; and the unions of course have pumped unlimited funds into the Democrat's political coffers for decades.

“The Supreme Court today just accentuated what they did on Citizens United, which is a decision that is one of the worst decisions in the history of that court,” Reid said during a press conference on raising the minimum wage. “All it does is take away people’s rights because, as you know, the Koch brothers are trying to buy America.”

 Democrats bash SCOTUS ruling

I have devoted most of my life to understanding the principles that enable people to improve their lives. It is those principles—the principles of a free society—that have shaped my life, my family, our company and America itself. 

Unfortunately,the fundamental concepts of dignity, respect, equality before the law and personal freedom are under attack by the nation's own government. That's why, if we want to restore a free society and create greater well-being and opportunity for all Americans, we have no choice but to fight for those principles. I have been doing so for more than 50 years, primarily through educational efforts. It was only in the past decade that I realized the need to also engage in the political process.

A truly free society is based on a vision of respect for people and what they value. In a truly free society, any business that disrespects its customers will fail, and deserves to do so. The same should be true of any government that disrespects its citizens. The central belief and fatal conceit of the current administration is that you are incapable of running your own life, but those in power are capable of running it for you. This is the essence of big government and collectivism. 

More than 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson warned that this could happen. "The natural progress of things," Jefferson wrote, "is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." He knew that no government could possibly run citizens' lives for the better. The more government tries to control, the greater the disaster, as shown by the current health-care debacle. Collectivists (those who stand for government control of the means of production and how people live their lives) promise heaven but deliver hell. For them, the promised end justifies the means.

Instead of encouraging free and open debate, collectivists strive to discredit and intimidate opponents. They engage in character assassination. (I should know, as the almost daily target of their attacks.) This is the approach that Arthur Schopenhauer described in the 19th century, that Saul Alinsky famously advocated in the 20th, and that so many despots have infamously practiced. Such tactics are the antithesis of what is required for a free society—and a telltale sign that the collectivists do not have good answers.

(adding to what  Mr Koch says here, there is a truism that says, "Liberals (ie collectivists) are tolerant; as long as you agree with them". Real constructive diversity involves the blending of world views, but with a common interest, not conflicting world views with no common interest, as it leaves only the government to sort things out. When liberals discredit and condemn their opponents simply to discourage an alternate view (and often gives an absurd amount of attention to horrid groups outside the norm that they try and tie to their target of condemnation), they obliterate the reality that there is real hatred out there that has no place in a civilized society. While in a free society these haters are free to speak their minds, that does not mean anyone has to listen.).

Rather than try to understand my vision for a free society or accurately report the facts about Koch Industries, our critics would have you believe we're "un-American" and trying to "rig the system," that we're against "environmental protection" or eager to "end workplace safety standards." These falsehoods remind me of the late Sen.Daniel Patrick Moynihan's observation, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Here are some facts about my philosophy and our company: Koch companies employ 60,000 Americans, who make many thousands of products that Americans want and need. According to government figures, our employees and the 143,000 additional American jobs they support generate nearly $11.7 billion in compensation and benefits. About one-third of our U.S.-based employees are union members.

Koch employees have earned well over 700 awards for environmental, health and safety excellence since 2009, many of them from the Environmental Protection Agency and Occupational Safety and Health Administration. EPA officials have commended us for our "commitment to a cleaner environment" and called us "a model for other companies." Our refineries have consistently ranked among the best in the nation for low per-barrel emissions. In 2012, our Total Case Incident Rate (an important safety measure) was 67% better than a Bureau of Labor Statistics average for peer industries. Even so, we have never rested on our laurels. We believe there is always room for innovation and improvement. 

Far from trying to rig the system, I have spent decades opposing cronyism and all political favors, including mandates, subsidies and protective tariffs—even when we benefit from them. I believe that cronyism is nothing more than welfare for the rich and powerful, and should be abolished. Koch Industries was the only major producer in the ethanol industry to argue for the demise of the ethanol tax credit in 2011. That government handout (which cost taxpayers billions) needlessly drove up food and fuel prices as well as other costs for consumers—many of whom were poor or otherwise disadvantaged. Now the mandate needs to go, so that consumers and the marketplace are the ones who decide the future of ethanol.

Instead of fostering a system that enables people to help themselves, America is now saddled with a system that destroys value, raises costs, hinders innovation and relegates millions of citizens to a life of poverty, dependency and hopelessness. This is what happens when elected officials believe that people's lives are better run by politicians and regulators than by the people themselves. Those in power fail to see that more government means less liberty, and liberty is the essence of what it means to be American. Love of liberty is the American ideal. If more businesses (and elected officials) were to embrace a vision of creating real value for people in a principled way, our nation would be far better off—not just today, but for generations to come. I'm dedicated to fighting for that vision. I'm convinced most Americans believe it's worth fighting for, too. 

Mr. Koch is chairman and CEO of Koch Industries. Charles Koch: I'm Fighting to Restore a Free Society

Why Republicans Won't Acquiesce to Obama and More Lies Spoken by the Left

One of the most disingenuous arguments from the left is that because President Obama won the  election, conservatives should just shut up and let President Obama follow through with his agenda. Obviously this argument is not meant for Democrats when a Republican wins an election; lest not forget the shellacking the Democrats took during the mid-term elections after President Obama won the 2008 Presidential election; in one midterm election the Republicans took 60 seats from the Democrats. This would seem to have been a strong message for President Obama to slow down his fundamental change of America, but as is known he actually doubled down on his liberal policies. The you have the Bush presidency where as early as 2001 the new Senate Majority Leader, Tom Daschel gleefully announced he planned to use the Democrat's new control of the senate and it's one seat majority,  to block Bush's future policies . Then in 2005 Harry Reid's admitted intention to "block Bush's major initiatives and thereby deny him the mandate he has claimed from his reelection victory." Democrats Are United in Plans To Block Top Bush Initiatives. And who can forget Reid's famous "This war is lost" speech and then he lied, trying to walk it back saying it was taken out of context, apparently oblivious to Youtube 

So no, there is and has never been a mandate for the losing side of the Presidential or Congressional elections to acquiesce and let the winner do it's will. But once again this is the nature of the liberals whom re-write history, always pushing their collectivist agenda, and in any liberal endeavor the first casualty has always been the truth.

Why Does Our President Hate Our Federal Parks? Or Is It Us?

These were two letters to the editor written into their 150 word framework, but they work together to complete this argument of how little the Democrats and our President cares for the citizenry; their collective agenda is everything.

The evidence is in and there is little doubt the White House is directing the closure of all the Federal Parks in the country * and not because there is no choice because of the partial Government shutdown; the US has had numerous partial government shutdowns, but only under this President have the parks been closed (maybe it's a Democrat thing as Governor Brown pulled the same stunt in California  in 2011 in order to save .1% of the budget it takes to keep the parks open**). In this case it costs nearly twice the cost to refuse access to many parks as it does to keep the parks open***. One might ask wonder why our President dislikes the Park system that the American people love so much. The answer comes from a DC Park Ranger when he explained his marching orders, We’ve been told to make life as difficult for people as we can." ..So it's not the Parks; it's us!

*Further proof President Obama is personally directing the closing of Federal Parks, Nancy Pelosi at a rally for illegal immigration rights , defended the president, thanking him for making an exception to the shutdown and “enabling us to gather here.” "She also said veterans told her the administration “bent over backwards” to allow them to visit the World War II Memorial on the Mall, which has been the site of several clashes between the public and park rangers since the shutdown began." The truth of course the is no need for the President to bend over backwards, he could simply allow the veterans to visit the WWll Memorial as he allowed the illegal immigrants on the Mall; something he shows no interest in doing. As Harry Reid recently said, "Why would I want to do that?" The end result is it is not a huge jump to realize that The President and the Democrat leadership has no respect at all for the American people; they are simply a means to an end. 

**The Federal Park System budget is approx $3 billion which is .08 % of the countries $3.7 trillion Federal Budget (that's about 1/15 of 1%). In other words the President wants to close down the crown jewels of country, which it is estimated to costs local communities $30 million a day, for what boils down to a rounding error of the Federal budget,

***People first noticed what the NPS was up to when the the World War II Memorial on the National Mall was “closed.” Just to be clear, the memorial is an open plaza. There is nothing to operate.Sometimes there might be a ranger standing around. But he’s not collecting tickets or opening gates. Putting up barricades and posting guards to “close” the World War II Memorial takes more resources and manpower than “keeping it open.” Park Police 
 
Our President just wants the American people to suffer unless he gets his way. The White House has ordered every  Federal park closed, but made sure the federal golf courses were left open. Many of these are open air parks that  cost more to close, than to keep them open. Harry Reid, when asked about keeping the funding for NIH child cancer patients, flippantly  said, "Why would I do that?," apparently meaning that regardless of the cause, the American people will continue to suffer. While the press and Democrats continue to harp on not stopping Obamacare (it's the law and constitutional), it was enacted against the will of the people and remains the most contentious law in memory. American exceptionalism means the will of the people is more important than taxes or the over reaching dictates of a repressive  government. That's what 1776 was all about, or have we all forgotten?

Edit:

This added item is enough to leave one speechless with the governments hubris;
In South Dakota the Park Service attempted to cone off  the pull outs on the highway near Mount Rushmore! so the mountain could not be viewed! When they were caught and questioned about it the Federal park system told representatives of the the state the cones were a safety precaution to help channel cars into viewing areas rather than to bar their entrance. Look at the photo and you decide what purpose the cones served.

Gestapo Tactics Meet Senior Citizens at Yellowstone "...thousands of people ... found themselves in a national park as the federal government shutdown went into effect on Oct. 1. For many hours ... (a) tour group, which included senior citizen visitors from Japan, Australia, Canada and the United States, were locked in a Yellowstone National Park hotel under armed guard. The tourists were treated harshly by armed park employees, she said, so much so that some of the foreign tourists with limited English skills thought they were under arrest."

 

Reid's Core Racism Comes Out

There has been a recent uproar regarding statements made by Senator Harry Reid, that showed up in a recently published book. The statement was, "He [Reid] was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama -- a 'light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one'”. The statement is racist on so many levels it boggles the mind. First, the statement says that white America is racist and would not vote for a dark skinned black presidential candidate, especially if he had a “Negro dialect" (whatever that is; Ebonics?), that blacks will only vote for a black candidate with ghetto credentials, and third is condescending to the Black America, implying they are be so easily manipulated. It was the same when Vice President Biden said of Obama, “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.” Both statements present candidate Obama, not as member of the white political elite, of which both Reid and Biden see themselves as members, but a black electable figurehead.

I was raised with an almost politically correct mindset; not the PC that prohibits critical thinking, but the PC that recognizes that one can not be sensitive to race, while they continue to entertain racist thoughts; your core beliefs always find a way of coming out. Both Reid and Biden show that they have a core belief that whites are superior to blacks, as blacks are somehow not clean or are mired in an uneducated world view that is personified by what they view as form of black specific speech. As Janeane Garofalo said, “This is racism, straight up”.