Why Liberals Have to Lie Part 4; Class Warfare

More letters to the editor. The last, Obama Promotes Class Warfare, was published in the Sentential on 9.24.2011

The Rich Have Piles of Money

The left likes to blame the consolidation of wealth, or the rich sitting on piles of money for this recession. In a way that is true, but it’s not like you think. First, the rich do not like to sit on piles of money; they want to use their money to make more money. In the 1999 the rich were in a quandary; they had piles of money, but because Greenspan was holding interest rates so low, there was no place to invest it. Then came the American Dream Commitment Act, a progressive attempt at social engineering, which increased mortgages at such a rate, that mortgage securities became the investment dejour. Since the sub-prime meltdown, the economy continues to languish, because unlike other burst bubbles, the middle class took a direct hit. The one place where the middle class invests large sums of money and uses the equity to make other large purchases and drives a large part of the economy, has collapsed. So yes, the rich are sitting on large piles of money, because again, there is no place to invest and the current Administration continues to create more and more regulation and law, associated with the newly passed health-care and financial-reform bills.

Climate Change and the SOS

These articles on Climate Change are becoming long in the tooth (SC Sentential 9/25) . Never mind that Charles Hanley quotes some studies that have already been proven wrong, but he makes the statement that “The bases of anthropogenic- manmade global warming- has been clear for more than century, since researchers proved that carbon dioxide (CO2) traps heat.” This statement is the fraudulent basis for manmade global warming and has never, ever been proven. What has been known for more than a century is the reverse, that when world temperatures rise, the oceans emit a higher level of carbon dioxide; in other words heat increases CO2; not the other way around). The reason this has been turned around is that the only basis for CO2 trapping heat is in computer models, fudged to prove man made global warming exists and if it CO2 does not trap heat, then man made warming does not exist. And what is the answer to man made global warming? Why it’s a fascist world government with global re-distribution of wealth; seems a little harsh for a fudged computer model.

Obama Promotes Class Warfare

In President Obama’s recent speech schilling for his new American Jobs Act, he continually spoke of the rich paying their fair share. Parroting Warren Buffet, the President said a secretary should not have to pay a higher tax rate than her millionaire/billionaire boss. The problem with this statement is it is not true. In an AP article in the Sentinel by Stephen Ohlemacher he states what other fact checkers have confirmed that, “On the average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or poor…They pay at a higher rate ..and contribute a much larger share of overall taxes.” In 2008, Charlie Gibson questioned Candidate Obama about his desire to raise the capital gains tax. When Gibson reminded him the lower Capital Gains rates have proven in increase tax revenues, Obama replied, “What I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.” So we can see now that “the rich paying their fair share,” is simply code by the President for his promoting class warfare; jobs and the deficit be damned.

Defining Fascism in America

When the Tea Party says they see our Constitutional government sliding into fascism, most believe they mean the Nazi Germany form of fascism, however that is far from accurate. Fascism is a form a government that was embraced by the National Socialists (Nazis) and tailored to their needs. However, fascism is a robust governmental format, based on the pillars of combining Socialism, Capitalism and property ownership, and would look quite different in America then in Nazi Germany. So lets look at some of the pillars of fascism and how it would change the United States.

1. A reactive government led by a charismatic leader who has the final say so on everything (this could also be a committee). This would allow the government to address the serious problems facing the country such as global warming and unemployment; when a problem crops up the government reacts with a solution that is immediately put into place. This does not do away with congress, but it delegates our representatives to an advisory role.

2. A fair redistribution of wealth; fascism believes in hegemony over big business and the treatment of workers. In trade with big business for reactively removing the impediments to production, the government would dictate a livable wage for all workers and a cap on profits. Labor unions would be incorporated into the government, as it would be government’s job to settle all worker disputes.

3. Care of the collective. The US Constitution is based on individual rights over the rights of the collective. Fascism would allow the government to care for the collective in more equal manner. A singlepayer high quality health plan will be a available (and mandatory) for all citizens. Since a living wage would also be mandatory, poverty as we no it would disappear.

4. On a conservative note, a fascist state would have secure borders and strictly enforced laws. There would be no question as to liberal interpretation of the Constitution or liberal judges, as the leadership of the country would be the sole arbitrator of what is right and what is acceptable. Unlike the Communist concept of, “to each according to their ability, to each according to their needs”, the fascist motto starts out the same, “to each according to their ability,” recognizing that everyone has abilities that would benefit the state and collective, the second half of the motto is, “to each according to their contribution.” In other words, fascism recognizes that ability does not necessary equate to action. In order to be supported by the state, you would need to contribute.

So fascism seems to have something for everyone. The only caveat is the end of individual rights in the name of benefiting the collective. This however this already exists in almost all governmental programs, for almost by definition government support programs paid through the distribution of wealth, support the collective not the individual. Even, so called ObamaCare, would be facilitated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who has the final say so on approving medical procedures. While this approval system is advertised to “ensure that every treatment, operation, or medicine used is the proven best,” it is in actuality a ration system, designed to lower medical costs and favors the collective or the needs of the individual.

In a recent exchange on Fox news stemming from the Hoffa comments about taking the SOB Tea Party "out", Robert Beckel was enraged that someone would call President Obama a socialist; an insult he called disgraceful and disgusting Bob Beckel and Eric Bolling Get in Heated Argument Over Hoffa Comments. Righfully Eric Bolling asked Beckel if he even knew what socialism was, to which Beckel blew up and the show took an unscheduled cut to a commercial. What is obvious from this exchange is the continuing intellectual dishonesty of the left. Beckel rightfully knows that President Obama leans toward socialism, however to allow that to be even discussed is simply to damaging to the left, so like fascism, any discussion of the President moving the country toward socialism is now labeled a pejorative by the left, so the issue can not even be discussed.

The reason the secular progressives must be intellectually dishonest, is because they know the citizenry is by definition ignorant and would never accept the principals of socialism/fascism. However, secular progressives know that socialism is what’s best for the ignorant collective, even if they don’t know what’s best for them. Therefore they must convince the citizenry that they are not socialist/fascists as the incrementally move the country in that direction. ObamaCare is a major step forward, for designed into ObamaCare is the next all encompassing government program that forces the entire population to view themselves as a collective under the care of the government.

Obama: A Lying Sack of Jello?

The following are excerpts from a Op-Ed piece in the Washington Times . It lists the lies told by Obama during the debt ceiling negotiations. What has been obvious from the beginning is President Obama firmly believes that lying is a normal part of campaigning; and he might have a point there. Many candidates campaign on promises they know they can never keep and Obama was not able to follow through with any of his promises, save Obamacare, which fell far short of Democrat expectations. The problem is the President has never stopped campaigning and continues to create his own reality that has no semblance to reality. Below are examples starting with what Obama said, followed by what really happened from an "insider"; a person intimately involved in the negotiations.

Obama “I just got a call about a half-hour ago from Speaker [John A.] Boehner, who indicated that he was going to be walking away from the negotiations,” he said.
Insider: “The White House made offers during the negotiations,” “and then backtracked on those offers after they got heat from Democrats on Capitol Hill. The White House, and its steadfast refusal to follow through on its rhetoric in terms of cutting spending and addressing entitlements, is the real reason that debt talks broke down.”

Obama:“You had a bipartisan group of senators, including Republicans who are in leadership in the Senate, calling for what effectively was about $2 trillion above the Republican baseline that they've been working off of. What we said was give us $1.2 trillion in additional revenues.”
Insider:“The White House had already agreed to a lower revenue number — to be generated through economic growth and a more efficient tax code — and then it tried to change the terms of the deal after taking heat from Democrats on Capitol Hill,” our insider said. Bowing to the powerful liberal bloc on Capitol Hill — Mr. Obama demanded another $400 billion in new taxes: a 50 percent increase. (Boehner: Obama moved the goalpost).

Obama“We then offered an additional $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs — Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security.”
Insider: “Actually, the White House was walking back its commitments on entitlement reforms, too. They kept saying they wanted to ‘go big.’ But their actions never matched their rhetoric.”

Exasperated, Boehner finally said , "Listen, we've put plan after plan on the table. You know the House passed its budget. We had our plan out there. The House passed the 'Cut, Cap and Balance'. Never once did the president ever come to the table with a plan." Then he said to the Obama, " As I read the Constitution, the Congress writes the laws and you get to decide what you want to sign"

Again, one of the column supports of socialism is always promise more than you can deliver; the socialist will look compassionate and the conservative will appear heartless. The lies will continue until, like Greece, a country you will be so deep in the hole there is no realistic way out, outside of begging other countries for help.

Democrats like their Jello Negotiator?

On Sunday, July 17th the Santa Cruz Sentinel published a letter I wrote commenting on the lack of commitment President Obama has toward anything he says. The Sentinel then printed a response by a liberal letter writer named John Beisner. Beisner gets his letters published 4-6 times a month and but always says exactly the same thing. This response is a typical example how Beisner and most Democrats really can't defend the big lie, they simply try to bury it in political rhetoric.

My letter
One has to feel a certain amount of sympathy for John Boehner as he stated negotiating with the President is like trying to nail down Jell-O. Never has this country ever had a President who's word means so little; it’s as if every statement by the President has a 12 hour expiration date. The President has claimed he will not engage in partisan rhetoric and then refers to Republicans in the most derogatory terms. The President has said that not keeping the Bush tax cuts would slow the recovery and now wants to wipe out the same tax cuts even though the recovery has stalled. Obama claims the deficit is a threat to national security, but wants to increase it by $10 trillion. The President said he will balance the budget including cuts in entitlements, but has never purposed any changes to Social Security or Medicare.Trying to get the President to commit to anything concrete only results in nails covered with green slime.

John Beisner
In response to Brad Goodwin's letter, one has to feel a certain amount of sympathy for President Obama since negotiating with John Boehner is like talking to a rock. Never has this country ever had a speaker whose position was dictated by a pledge to a private citizen Grover Norquist. Boehner has claimed he won't engage in partisan rhetoric and then refers to Democrats in the most derogatory terms. The speaker has said he wants to create jobs, but has yet to offer a jobs bill. The speaker has said the deficit is a threat to national security, yet offers no solution other than cutting spending. When offered a chance to negotiate cuts to entitlements along with revenue increases, Boehner refused. Trying to get Boehner to commit to anything is like talking to a rock.

Beisners response just didn't work. He tried to use my letter as a template, but he could not address the point that the Democrats have no plan, no budget and the President won't hold himself to anything he agreed to the day before. He then tried to make it a negative that Boehner is holding fast to his principals like a rock.

My response
One has to just shake their head and smile that Beisner is so oblivious of his own ignorance. First Boehner has never claimed to be non-partisan; he revels in his partisanship. Second, as a rock at least you know what he stands for, unlike Obama who stands only for Obama and the way the winds blow (do away with polling data and the President would be rendered mute). I, like Beisner judge politicians by the company and ideology they keep; Boehner listens to the like of Grover Norquists and the ideology of Ronald Reagen; Obama carries out the dictates of George Soros and Andy Stern; you make the call here. Poor Mr Beisner has also not yet figured out that there is no such thing as a jobs bill, government can not create jobs. However, every bill that keeps taxes low, reduces regulations and fees, shrinks government and/or creates a stable environment so small business does not have to face the uncertainty that the Democrats have created, will grow jobs; a jobs bill simply anything that gets government off the backs of employers. Further it has been said over and over, but Beisner does not get it; we do not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. If the Democrats got their way and the Bush tax cuts were reduced to the Clinton levels, it would raise about $800 billion in ten years; the deficit is scheduled to increase by $10 trillion during the same time period; even a California High School graduate could do this math. Finally, as Democrats always do, he continually contradicts himself, sense all Democrat arguments are nothing more than hollow political rhetoric. In one sentence Beisner complains Boehner is holding steadfast to his positions (i.e. a rock) and the next he said Beisner won't commit to anything. What really stands out with Beisner reply to my article however, has nothing to do with Boehner or the Republican party. It is the fact that Beisner didn't dispute one point that I made in my earlier article. Even Beisner knows that he would look even more foolish trying to defend Obama and the fact that his word means nothing and there is no sincerity or honesty in anything; ANYTHING the president says.

I'll leave you with this. Which negotiator would you rather have on your side? Someone that is compared by his opponent as a rock, or someone that is compared by his opponents as Jello?

A Look at Liberal Pseudosciences

The following was an exchange in their blog about one of my letters that was printed in the Santa Cruz Sentinel. The letter was about, what I call pseudosciences, or belief systems that are portrayed as settled sciences so they can be used by government to oppress the citizenry. There were two themes in responding to this letter. The first and most common was most of the pseudosciences I called pseudosciences were not actually not a science. My response was I know that, that’s why I called them pseudosciences. The second was to argue climate change. Here I explained that climate change was far from settled; but regardless it is a pseudoscience because it is being used by governments to try and oppress the citizenry; it common knowledge that those who are zealots about protecting the earth from Anthropogenic Global Warming, referred to themselves as enviro- fascist and they profess the wish that a world fascist government be established so AGW can be properly addressed.

A look at pseudosciences
There are pseudosciences from eugenics to Karl Marx's inevitability of communism, Anthropogenic Global Warming AGW and even Keynesian Economics. All of these pseudosciences have one thing in common -- they do not contain a method for proving them wrong. "A good theory or hypothesis also must be falsifiable, which means that it must be stated in a way that makes it possible to reject it. In other words, we have to be able to prove a theory or hypothesis wrong. Theories and hypotheses need to be falsifiable because all researchers can succumb to the confirmation bias. Researchers who display confirmation bias look for and accept evidence that supports what they want to believe and ignore or reject evidence that refutes their beliefs". Research methods One of the basic truisms of science is that a theory is not scientific unless it passes scrutiny, but the proponents of these pseudosciences simply claim the science is settled. Eugenics says the superior races must reduce the number of useless eaters; Marx said all human endeavors must lead to a dictatorship and collectivism; AGW claims all climate change is a result of human-produced carbon dioxide; and Keynesian economics believes in government-controlled economies, which fail only due to a lack of enough stimulus. So perhaps Marx was right, a least to the point that governments will use so-called settled science to control its citizenry and redistribute wealth for the purposes of social engineering.
Brad Goodwin, Santa Cruz

scienceguy5: And with one swipe of the pen, Brad Goodwin has provided himself with an untestable psuedo-argument that allows him to use his own version of psuedo-science to gainsay anything he doesn't want to believe. Theories don't always have a built in mechanism that will allow them to be "proven" absolutely right or wrong. What scientists do is build a theory on empirical evidence. As long as the evidence supports the theory, the theory stands. When the theory can't incorporate new evidence, or new evidence flat out contradicts the theory, then the theory is modified or abandoned. That's how science works. Communism a science? Where did you come up with that? Eugenics was pure political racism, not a product of science. Economics a science? Not likely ... but I'd take a version of Keynesian over the trickle down, which has been proven BY THE EVIDENCE to NOT work (otherwise we would have been flying high after Bush, who oversaw a shift of wealth from the middle class to the wealthiest which paled even Reagan's!). Asimov said that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. That says more about the observer than the technology. You've now added the corollary, "Anything I don't understand is a psuedo-science"

My reply: scienceguy5, you miss the whole point. No these are not sciences, but they are presented as science by government for the purposes of tyranny.. You apparently are not a student of history, or you would know that Communism and Eugenics were presented as social sciences at the time (making it the darling, even today, of progressive thought). I am also amused by your argument that if I say something you don't agree with then I am ignorant of the subject; this is always the rational of the left. BTW, I did not mention Keynesian economics in relation to supply side economics; I am simply of the FA Hayek thought that any attempt by the government to improve (ie control) the free market (other than reasonable regulations) will result in inevitable serfdom.

kitty-kitty46: No Brad, I don't think he missed the point. Lots of ideas are promulgated as "science" that are not. You were probably right about governments using pseudoscience to control the population, but that is hardly the realm of any particular type of government, or of governments alone. Denying that Marijuana has any legitimate medical uses based on "scientific" research, teaching "creationism" as science, or other examples where ideology is confused with science are used by many parts of society to manipulate others. This is certainly not just a tactic of the left. Understanding complex issues is not easy, and belief is too often a substitute for critical thought.

My reply: kitty-kitty46, you say that scienceguy5 didn't miss the point, them you go on to agree with me. Yes, the marijuana laws (and drug laws in general) are ludicrous and undermining the security of our country. I will leave the government vs religion for another day. And it really doesn't matter if there are "other examples where ideology is confused with science are used by many parts of society to manipulate others." It only matters if it is done by government, because government has the ability to forcefully control lives; it's called tyranny..

Steven Hauskins: Sorry Brad, when you make statements like this:

"AGW claims all climate change is a result of human-produced carbon dioxide;"

You really don't understand what climate scientists are saying.

There is much evidence in support that human activity adds to the CO2 levels in the atmosphere and that in turn causes more heat to be trapped.

Do you think human activity has caused other issues in the earth's environment? Say air pollution, ground water pollution, ocean pollution. Poisons like DDT in the food chain I suppose just got their naturally. We also have the ability to turn the entire Earth into a radioactive ghost land. Humans have a vast ability to change the world physically, with that comes a great responsibility.

As to keynesian economics and eugenics those are not hard sciences.

jaj48: The global warmers have it backwards. The heat precedes the CO2.When Greenland was Florida east,the suv was unknown.

My reply: I will agree that scientists do not say all climate change is caused by AGW, but they believe it is significant enough that we need a fascists world government to stop the damage caused by man. I thoroughly believe that man is poisoning the earth, a fact that has been relegated to the back seat because of all the attention and money being thrown at AGW. My point is it doesn't matter if Keynesian economics and eugenics are not hard sciences,if government funds them and forces the concepts as settled sciences they result in tyranny; that is why I called them pseudosciences. Further, the concept that CO2 traps heat continues to be unprovable, based solely on proxy science with very questionable research data. as jaj48 said, it is reproducible that as the ocean warms it releases CO2, but it in not reproducible that increased CO2 traps and warms the ocean. Al Gore has been called on this so many times, that he now refuses to debate the issue anymore.

Creeping Fascism

The following was response to Rebecca Costa of the Costa Report Radio show. Her guest was Texas anti-government activist Alfred Adask.

Ms Costa, while listening to you on KSCO with Alfred Adask and you had a discussion on sovereignty. You remarked that that there are many you do not want to make independent decisions and that large centrally run companies are more efficient then small independent (or sovereign) businesses. While I don’t disagree with your premise, I do wonder if you have considered the unintended consequences of such efficiency. F A Hayek, describes this well in “The Road to Serfdom;”

“We must here return for a moment to the position which proceeds the suppression of democratic institutions and the creation of a totalitarian regime. In this stage it is the general demand for quick and determined government action that is the dominating element in the situation, dissatisfaction with the slow and cumbersome course of democratic procedure, which makes action for action’s sake the goal.”

I would also put to you that it is government itself and not just complexity that is the driving behind the seeming inability to address today’s problems and is exacerbated by the concept of never let a crisis go to waste; the crisis becomes a vehicle, not a problem to be solved. By it’s very nature a government progressing toward planned efficiency offers much more than it can ever deliver. Any Constitution Convention, which you referred to, would no doubt end personal freedom as we know it today in the name of a perceived moral change, as President Obama once said “The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society."

Our Constitution is not a living document, it is a legal document meant to design a representative government while simultaneously protecting the people from government tyranny. F A Hayek also commented on the fact that those that seek public office are generally the least desirable people we would want in positions of power. It is the inefficiency and built in protections that protect our personal freedoms and protects us from fascism. I would like to qualify this by saying I am not exercising the Godwin principle nor am I referencing National Socialism. Fascism is an umbrella form of government unique to every country were it has been embraced; the President has certainly praised the Chinese fascist model, and in the US it seems to be forming around the redistribution of wealth, Cass Sunstein’s “Nudge” theory and the “infallibility of government” argument. I also believe that socialism as a governmental premise does not really exist and that most the time when people reference socialism, what they really mean is fascism.

As we reexamine the concept of never let a crisis go to waste we are also faced with fascism as the answer to every crisis or example of success. As I previously noted the "infallibility of government” argument is the product of fascism and this includes the right of government to ignore the law for the betterment of the whole. One sees this more with President Obama Administration than any other president since FDR. Obama re-defines the Libyan war as a military kinetic action in order to evade the need for Congressional approval, the TSA has been granted previously unheard of powers over person privacy at the Presidents whim and President Obama has declared his right to assassinate any American, anywhere in the world for purposes known only to him. Eastern Islam has long had a connection to fascism, which continues in it’s campaign to instill Sharia law. In an era of economic meltdowns, the threat of global warming, and terrorism, the progressive movement continues to promote the fascists model, calling it a compassionate government.

Ms Costa replied with the following.

Hi Bradley,

Thanks for writing. I am not a political scientist so I look at things from a different perspective that you propose. I am a sociobiologist and as such I view the root of our problems as having more to do with hardwired evolutionary imperatives than politics, It seems to me that almost every threat we now face has become so overwhelmingly complex there are no longer any simple answers. . . we have met our match and we are now succumbing to complexity which exceeds our biological capabilities. .. if you would allow me to, it would be my privilege to send you a copy of my book. . .I would be interested to hear what you think. ..if you are interested email me your address. ..

I took her up on her offer and will follow-up.

Why Liberals Have to Lie Part 3

More letters to the editor. The letters dated 5/07 and 5/12 were published in the Santa Cruz Sentinel; several were in response to other letters. Others are shorter versions of opinion pieces I have already posted. The last was in response to a blog which talked favorably about Chinese labor and blamed the low Union numbers on jobs being shipped overseas.

5/7 It’s is truly interesting how the Obama Administration has embraced practically every facet of the Bush Administration and yet continues to blame his policies for our economic conundrums. Case and point is a job counting gimmick called the Birth-Death adjustment. This was a phantom job producing adjustment scorned by the Democrats under Bush and now embraced by the Obama Administration. The B-D adjustment is supposed to take into account business start-ups and those that close down. Unfortunately, the B-D adjustment is notoriously inaccurate in a recession, as new business starts are optimistically guessed upon and those that die are poorly counted. As an example, in the April 2011 job numbers, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported 244,000 new jobs, of which 175,000 were made up using the B-D adjustment. This is one reason the BLS can claim job growth yet the unemployment percentage continues to increase; they are phantom jobs with phantom paychecks.

5/12 There seems to be little doubt what President Obama wants the American people to concentrate on. The whole Birther conspiracy has seemed propagated from the White House ever since Obama was elected. How else can you explain the Presidents lack of response until recently and the release of a document that was obviously designed to look other than authentic? Next we have the assassination of Osama bin Laden. While both the CIA (probably at the direction of Bush 43) and British MI5 had placed bin Laden on the back burner, while Obama instructed Leon Panetta and the CIA to find and kill him. Surely a worthy endeavor, but the mystery around the identification, including the burial at sea and the public conundrum to not show his face, leads one to believe that these decisions were made for the sole purpose of, like the Birther conspiracy, to keep the public distracted.

5/28 I’m sure Micheal Bihn was quite serious with his letter that the presence of Ring-Necked Doves in Santa Cruz was the result of global warming. Unfortunately there are a few problems with this logic. First, even those that profess the theory of global warming admit there has been no appreciable warming in the last 10 years. Second, Ring-Necked Doves are not indigenous to California, not even the United States; they are native to Africa. You see these are the doves most used for weddings and other similar celebrations. While Bihn is correct that some feral flocks have been spotted in some warm area of the country including Florida and Southern California, they are not a migratory bird and prefer very warm weather similar to their native Africa. Most Ring-Neck Doves show up after they have been released during a wedding and get lost. Thus many of these released birds die or are killed in a relatively short time by predators; so enjoy them while they last.

5/29 If one were to listen to Paul Krugman and David Brooks, one would think that a single House election in New York (26th Assembly district) is a death knell for Paul Ryan and his Medicare reform bill. What is only casually mentioned is there was a third party candidate Jack Davis that split the Republican vote. Now if this election was a referendum on the Ryan plan, then one would think Davis was opposed to the Ryan plan, but this where the issue becomes convoluted. Indeed Davis was opposed to the Ryan plan, but the Democrats spent millions in ads criticizing him for backing it. So one has to ask, were those who voted for Davis, voting for the Davis that backed the Ryan plan or the Davis that opposed it. Either way, it is difficult to determine exactly why anyone voted for Davis or what if anything this election meant in regards to Medicare reform.

5/29 On it’s face John Beisner’s complaint that Republicans prefer to let suspected terrorists buy guns seems legitimate, since they killed a bill in the Senate that would have prohibited anyone on the Terrorists Watch List from buying a firearm. However, if you look a little deeper you will understand. You see the Terrorists Watch List has quickly become an arbitrary list that contains the name of over 1 million Americans. Many of these names have been placed on the list simply because certain Intelligence officers have a quota that they must add a certain amount of names a month. The list has been criticized on civil liberties and due process grounds, due in part to the potential for ethnic, religious, economic, political, or racial profiling and discrimination. Further, if you have been placed on the list, there is no mechanism to have it removed or even explain why it was placed there in the first place. If we have learned anything it’s usually an overreaching government that places your name on an involuntary list.



Based on your graph of Union membership, it appears unions have been on a slow downward trend since the 1950 (certainly before union labor went overseas). Lets not forget that up until this year the US was the largest industrial producer in the world and is still a close second to China (BTW the size of the middle class in China is 15% of the population or 197 million workers; in the US it's 91%. So there is still a lot off have-not cheap labor in China). The slow decline of unions in the private sector was the eventual result of "employee centered management" (ECM). When employees were viewed as replaceable cogs, unions had social value. However once the advantages of ECM become apparent (pioneered by Henry Ford) private sector unions became redundant and a huge impediment, managing to keep a hold through political contributions and graft. Seeing the writing on the wall, unions migrated to the public sector, were the concept of labor and management is often blurred and there is also a lack of traditional adversarial relationships. Collective bargaining in the public sector has been disastrous to State and local governments (it does not exist for federal employees) and while there will be a lot of kicking and screaming, the days of unions in the public sector are numbered.