Chuck Gray for Russell Pearce

September 30, 2011 Leave a comment

We find ourselves in the midst of a great struggle, battling to save our country
from the enemies of freedom. Their intent is to rule over us and tell us how we
should live our lives. They are subverting our free economy, undermining our
Constitutional principles and weakening the rule of law. They are determined and
unrelenting in pursuit of their agenda. We must defend ourselves from these
attacks and I applaud those who are willing to place themselves at great personal
risk as they run to our defense. They are our champions of freedom.

Yet, these champions of freedom, to a large degree, stand alone. We should be at
their side – fighting shoulder to shoulder with them. And when they are attacked
we should quickly rise to their defense as they so quickly rose to ours.

Senator Russell Pearce is one who has consistently championed the principles of
liberty. While defending our liberties, he has been threatened, maligned and
persecuted. Those who have conspired against our American way of life are now
targeting Senator Pearce because of his effectiveness.

Liberal progressives are trying to silence the voice of this champion of freedom
through a recall election. Those who have joined to vote with the Recall
organizers, have unwittingly sided with the very people who are determined to
destroy our freedoms. When in a battle such as this, we should never side with the
enemies of freedom. That is why I fully support Russell Pearce.

Chuck Gray
Conservative Republican for Congress
Arizona District 6
(480) 382-GRAY
Contribute – Let’s take back America!

Categories: We the People

Recall of Senator Russell Pearce Spearheaded by Far Left

September 30, 2011 Leave a comment

Rachel Alexander

Rachel Alexander  

Recall of Senator Russell Pearce Spearheaded by Far Left

Town Hall

Some extremists are targeting my favorite Arizona legislator, Senate President Russell Pearce , because he sponsored Arizona ’s illegal immigration bill SB 1070. Deep pockets on the left are funding a recall effort against him. A more liberal candidate, Jerry Lewis, has been found to run against Pearce in the recall election.  A third candidate, Olivia Cortes, has also turned in enough signatures to qualify for the ballot. The recall effort is not really surprising, considering Pearce has become one of the leading mainstream figures in the country opposing illegal immigration. The left sees him as a real threat because he is also personable and well-liked. Even some of his colleagues on the far left like him, such as Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, who is so liberal she once received the Vladimir I. Lenin award from the Arizona Federation of Taxpayers.

The recall signatures were collected by a shadowy organization calling itself “Citizens for a Better Arizona.” Its website “About Us” page does not include a single real name, only a vague description. The recall organizer is Randy Parraz, a labor organizer who ran the Arizona AFL-CIO a few years ago and who also worked for the national AFL-CIO for eight years.  According to the Huffington Post, “In the fall of 2007, Randy returned to Arizona and began work in the housing industry as a political organizer for the Laborers’ International Union of North America.” Parraz  has also worked as a community organizer with Dallas Area Interfaith, an affiliate of the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF) founded by none other than Saul Alinsky. Parraz started the Student Institute for Social Change, a left wing organization. He ran as a Democrat against Senator John McCain in 2010 and finished last in the race. He co-founded the innocuous sounding “Maricopa Citizens for Safety and Accountability,” which appears to exist solely to bash Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Parraz was arrested in 2008 for disorderly conduct and criminal trespassing due to his conduct protesting Sheriff Arpaio. Afterwards, he turned around and sued the county for $500,000. He cites the Marxist book “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” as one of his favorite books.

Since Pearce is Mormon and represents a heavily Mormon populated district, the left purposely sought out a Mormon candidate to run against him. Parraz brazenly admitted to theArizonaRepublic that he wanted to find a Mormon who was a Republican to challenge Pearce. Parraz admits the recall isn’t motivated by Latinos angry about SB 1070, stating that most of his volunteers are “white people over the age of 50,” and that most of the people who signed the recall petitions were over age 50. This reveals what most conservatives have suspected all along; the opposition is mostly coming from white, aging hippies.   

The main candidate being set up to run against Pearce, Jerry Lewis, is careful not to sound too liberal and claims that he is a Republican. But if what he writes on his website is examined closely, it is clear he is no conservative. On the Issues page of his website, he reveals his big government side, “Certainly hard economic times demand that we all tighten our belts and eliminate non-essential spending in an informed manner. However we must not be hostile to local governments in doing so.”

Lewis does not take a conservative position on illegal immigration, and uses the language that many open borders proponents use. He writes on his website, “While the federal government fulfills its responsibility to secure the border, I support a rational and fair solution for dealing with immigrants who have committed no crime other than being here without proper documentation. Reasonable, enforceable and sustainable immigration reform must be guided by principles of maintaining national security, respecting all humanity, preserving families, enforcing the rule of law, and weighing economic impact.” He goes on to say that it is the federal government’s responsibility and that we need to move beyond “polarizing, contentious and fear-based rhetoric.”

The problem with saying it is the federal government’s responsibility is that the federal government has abdicated its duties in this area. States like Arizona which have the highest rates of illegal immigration in the country have been forced to step up and fill in the void with laws like SB 1070.

The left is using classic Saul Alinsky tactics to demonize and smear Pearce. This is no coincidence considering Parraz’s association with Alinsky’s IAF. Those defending Pearce have been viciously attacked online. The left brings up red herrings in order to discredit Pearce, such as diverting attention to whether his campaign signs were improper and threatening lawsuits over it.

Pearce is not the only conservative politician in Arizona being attacked for combating illegal immigration with Alinsky tactics. Sheriff Joe Arpaio is constantly under attacks taking the form of investigations and lawsuits, which are trumpeted in the media nonstop, even though most of them never go anywhere. The Arizona State Bar is trying to disbar former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas, known for his aggressive efforts fighting crime-related illegal immigration. The Maricopa County Republican Party Executive Guidance Committee issued a resolution this month denouncing the Bar’s prosecution, calling it a political witchhunt.

The left’s Alinsky strategy to ruin the reputation of conservative politicians against whom they have no real case is to use innuendos. The left-leaning media assists them by making groundless lawsuits front page news and relegating their dismissals to the obituary pages. The left then sues Arizona government claiming abuse from these politicians, demanding millions of dollars from taxpayers, which gets spun in the media as the conservative politicians’ fault for wasting money.

Only 7,756 signatures were required to force a recall election, something that was easily accomplished by the paid signature-gathering company. Pearce’s supporters allege that some of the signatures were fraudulent and filed a lawsuit to stop the recall election. The Arizona Supreme Court will consider the challenge this week on September 13. The election is November 8, although early ballots go out October 15 and voters in a race with candidates this starkly different tend to vote right after receiving their ballots.

Even if Arizona voters are not thrilled with Pearce for whatever reason, they are not going to turn instead to someone considerably more liberal who was helped into office by the radical left. Pearce is not an “extremist” on the right as the left is trying to portray him. For example, Pearce does not advocate for laws requiring the rounding up and deporting of all illegal immigrants, something that might be considered a more radical position on the right.

Despite their deep pockets and Alinsky tactics, it will be tough for the left to defeat Pearce. He easily won election in 2010, and has won elections in his district 16 times. He beat off a challenge recently by Rep. Jeff Flake’s brother-in-law with a 2-to-1 margin. Pearce’s district, located primarily in Mesa , is safely Republican, with 26,000 Republicans, 21,000 Independents and only 18,500 Democrats. No Arizona legislator has ever been successfully recalled. The presence of a third candidate on the ballot will take votes away from Lewis. Pearce has powerful supporters including former Congressman Tom Tancredo and Bay Buchanan, who served as U.S. Treasurer under President Reagan. They haveformed a Committee to Oppose the Recall of Russell Pearce . A Mesa school bond vote that was scheduled to be on the November ballot with Pearce was shelved, reportedly over fear the election would bring out more conservatives to vote for Pearce who would not normally show up to vote against the bonds.

Nationwide, 60% of voters support SB 1070. That number is even higher even Arizona , where 70% of voters support SB 1070. One of the principles Pearce always emphasizes is the rule of law. Arizona voters in his district know that selectively not enforcing the law against certain preferred groups of people leads to chaos. 


Russell Pearce‘s Website is at:


Categories: We the People

To the Supporters of Jerry Lewis: Is This the America You Want?

September 30, 2011 Leave a comment

To the Supporters of Jerry Lewis: Is This the America You Want?

By Anita Christy

You ought to do your homework about the man who led the recall against Senator Russell Pearce : Randy Parraz.

Parraz, Democrat, born and reared in California , got a law degree from U.C. Berkeley, and a master’s in public administration at Harvard. Not exactly hotbeds of Conservative principles. In fact, back in 1992, about one third of the Communist Party USA joined with former Maoists, Trotskyites, socialists and anarchists to launch Committees of Correspondence in Berkeley , CA . Eugene Newport, former Mayor of Berkeley, served on the Advisory Board of the Committees of Correspondence. Parraz moved to Tucson , Arizona , where he fought against the passage of SB1070, and he ran against US Senator John McCain in 2010.

Parraz was a leader for 9 years in the IAF and the AFL-CIO. These two Democratic Socialist machines are powerful beyond anything you can conceive, and their mission is to destroy our culture and every value that defines us as a nation. They are relentless in turning America into a “socialist utopian dream.” Of course, their intellectual elites (such as Parraz) and wealthy elites (such as George Soros) will be in charge of all of it. They despise you, and they will use you for their own purpose and when that’s accomplished, you will be pushed aside. Not just you, but everything you stand for.

You are dangerously naïve if you think this upcoming recall election in LD18 is between Senator Russell Pearce and Jerry Lewis. It isn’t. This is all about the Left’s mission to destroy Russell Pearce and everything he has accomplished. They hate him because he is not a weak Republican. He is strong and has been successful in standing up for traditional American values.

What are those values that the Leftists hate? · Free Enterprise · Individual Liberty · Equal Opportunity · Self-Reliance · The Rule of Law · Individual Property Rights · State’s Rights · The 2nd Amendment · Respect for Contract What was the first successful contract with America ? The United States Constitution.


Their method? They take out the enemy by Demonizing him. Find the weaknesses and pound away at them. Throw in half-truths and lies for good measure. They label conservative principles “extremist” and refer to their own, no matter how extreme, as “civil,” “rational,” “reasonable” and “moderate.” They are respectful and collaborative and possess great political sophistication when describing their own views. Repeat all of the above to the public often enough, and the public will soon forget anything good that Russell Pearce has ever done. Instead, they will listen to whatever the Left tells them. It has already begun, with the media cheering them on, in Vents, Letters to the Editor, Facebook, comments at the end of online news articles. It will continue with their Anti-Pearce Campaign.

You think Russell Pearce has flaws you simply cannot tolerate? You think he’s “extreme”?

Take a look at Russell Pearce :

Now, take a look at Randy Parraz’s associations and answer this question:


IAF: INDUSTRIAL AREAS FOUNDATION. Randy Parraz – Leader Founded by Saul Alinsky with the backing of Leftist millionaire Marshal Field in 1939, the IAF’s chief purpose is power and its chief product is social change. Alinsky is the author of RULES FOR RADICALS. Alinsky acknowledged Lucifer as “the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom.” The IAF trains community organizers, the most famous being President Barack Obama. Randy Parraz was an IAF leader for 9 years. He learned his trade well.

Saul Alinsky: “In the guise of a sociologist and as a self-described professional radical, Alinsky has preached and waged class warfare: the haves vs. the have-nots, by organizing poor people… against “the white Establishment,” and the city hall “power structure”….. (reference: Saul Alinsky – KeyWiki) “His utterances and writings cannot be identified with a single ideology. They contain elements of Marxism, Fascism, anarchism, Socialism, and racism, along with contempt for religion, the business world, and the traditional American political process.” (reference: Saul Alinsky – KeyWiki) AFL-CIO: AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR-CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS.

Randy Parraz – Leader.

The AFL-CIO is the largest labor union federation in the United States . Randy Parraz was the Arizona State Director for the National AFL-CIO for 9 years. The AFL-CIO pours millions of dollars into efforts to destroy “dangerous” Republicans and to get Democrats elected. They were a primary financial contributor to the toppling of Republicans in Colorado . The AFL-CIO is also a part of an 80-donor secretive Washington DC-based network called the Democracy Alliance. To be a member, you commit to a pledge of $1 million to fund the Alliance . Through a complicated organizational system, they “franchise their operations at the state level.” Lots of states. (Reference: THE BLUEPRINT: How the Democrats Won Colorado . Adam Schrager and Rob Witwer). Back in 1994-95, a “progressive coalition” of labor unionists ousted conservative AFL-CIO president Lane Kirkland and replaced him with DSA (Democratic Socialists of America) member John Sweeney. As stated by Harold Meyerson, when he was the DSA vice-chair: “The differences here are magnified because the strategic importance of unions in American politics has increased almost exponentially since John Sweeney took the helm at the AFL-CIO in 1995. It’s the unions that have brought the Democrats back to the brink of retaking Congressional power.” The effort to elect Sweeney was led by several DSA affiliates, including Richard Trumka, the current president of the AFL-CIO. Trumka is a nasty character you wouldn’t allow your daughter to date under any circumstances. He made this comment to union members about workers who continued to work during a strike, “kick the shit out of every last one of ’em”. (Reference: “Sabotage Attempt Foiled at Peabody Coal Beltline. Nashville News. Sept. 8, 1993) Here’s detailed information on Richard Trumka, if you’ve got the stomach for it. Why on earth would Jerry Lewis associate with Randy Parraz, a leader for 9 years in the AFL-CIO? Surely Lewis has heard of Richard Trumka. Surely he’s heard of Saul Alinsky.

Did you take a close look at Randy Parraz before you joined him in his destruction of Russell Pearce ?

Are you being lulled by the silver-tongued, highly educated, highly trained, Leftist Elitist Parraz?


Categories: We the People

Obam’s Impeachable Offenses

June 5, 2011 1 comment Obama’s Impeachable Offenses Submitted by Guest on Mon, 04/04/2011 – 16:54 by Michael Connelly Mr. Connelly teaches law, including constitutional law, through Education to Go, an online company that provides courses to numerous universities. The author of three books and publisher of a website, he resides in Carrollton, Texas, and can be reached by email. I have recently been asked by a number of different people if I think that the President of the United States, Barack Obama, has committed any offenses that subject him to being impeached by the Congress of the United States. The answer is without a doubt yes because he is repeatedly breached his oath of office. The oath of office of the President of the United States the simple and concise. It reads: “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Instead of living up to that oath, President Obama has actively attempted to subvert, ignore, and completely destroy large parts of the Constitution. I believe the President of the United States is well aware of what he is doing, and it is completely intentional. Listed below are what I believe are impeachable offenses and the list continues to grow. 1. President Obama has appointed numerous people to cabinet level positions without the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate, as is required by the Constitution. These individuals are given extraordinary power and independent funding, and are not under the scrutiny of Congress. The fact that Obama calls them Czars does not make them legal. 2. The push by Pres. Obama to pass health care legislation in the Congress of the United States that he was fully aware was unconstitutional. He has continued to use his powers and executive branch of government to implement this legislation despite the fact that a federal judge has declared the entire law unconstitutional, and ordered that it not be implemented. 3. Despite the fact that the United States Senate refused to pass the Cap and Trade bill, the President has ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to use regulations to implement key portions of the bill, including those regulating so-called greenhouse gases. Obama himself has acknowledged that this will force energy prices in this country to skyrocket. He is taking these actions in direct defiance of the will of the people of the United States, the will of Congress, and the Constitution. 4. Through the Department of the Interior Obama has placed a moratorium on offshore oil drilling or exploration off both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the United States and in parts of the Gulf of Mexico. He is also prohibited new drilling exploration in any states in the United States. These actions by the Department of Interior have continued in direct defiance of several court orders issued by a federal judge in New Orleans, Louisiana the declared that the department had no authority to issue such a moratorium. In fact the Secretary of the Department of the Interior has been held in contempt by the same judge. 5. Instead of allowing American companies to drill for oil domestically, Obama has betrayed the American people and authorized loans of billions of dollars to countries like Brazil and Mexico so that they can drill for oil, and then sell that oil to the United States. This will dramatically increase our dependence on foreign nations such as Venezuela, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, and even Libya that do not serve the interest of America or the American people. 6. President Obama has abdicated his responsibility to enforce the laws of the United States against illegal immigration. He has virtually declared our southern border an open border by declaring certain areas of federal land in states like Arizona as off-limits to federal, state, and local authorities. This is despite the fact that these areas are being used to bring in thousands of illegal immigrants, massive amounts of drugs, and also being used by foreign terrorists to infiltrate the United States. He has also ordered the border patrol not to arrest most illegal immigrants entering the country, and has stopped deportation proceedings against thousands of people in this country illegally. He is bypassing the Congress of the United States which has sole authority over immigration matters. 7. The President and his Atty. Gen. Eric Holder have clearly violated their oath of office by joining with foreign countries in a lawsuit against the sovereign state of Arizona to stop it from enforcing the federal immigration laws. 8. President Obama has ordered the Federal Communications Commission to adopt regulations giving the federal government control of the Internet and its contents, including providing Obama with a kill switch that gives him authority to shut down the Internet if he sees fit. This is in direct violation of a decision by the United States Supreme Court that the FCC has no Constitutional authority to control the Internet. 9. One of the paramount responsibilities of the President of the United States and his executive branch of government is to enforce and defend laws adopted by Congress unless they are declared unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court. Obama has decided that he should ignore this Constitutional mandate, and that as President he is more powerful than either the Congress of the United States or the Supreme Court. He has unilaterally declared that the Defense of Marriage Act passed by the Congress is unconstitutional, and further declared that he will not have the Justice Department defend it against lawsuits. He has essentially said that he is the supreme ruler of the United States, and that the Congress and the Federal Judiciary are irrelevant. 10. It has recently been learned that acting through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms the Obama administration has been involved for the past several months in getting legitimate and law-abiding gun store owners along our southern border to supply weapons to straw buyers that the government knew would deliver them to the drug cartels in Mexico. This was billed as a sting operation against the cartels when in fact it was designed to produce fraudulent data showing that large numbers of weapons were going from the United States to the Mexican drug dealers. This data was then to be used, and is being used, to try to justify new gun control regulations to limit the rights of American citizens to keep and bear arms. It has nothing to do with arresting members of the drug operations. The administration has, in effect, armed our enemies, and one border patrol agent has already been killed by one of these weapons. Now, he intends to impose gun control laws by Executive order so he will not have to deal with Congress. 11. The President of the United States is not authorized by the Constitution to take our nation to war without the consent of the Congress of the United States. The only exception to this is the authority granted to the President by Congress under the War Powers Act. This law allows the President to take immediate action without the consent of Congress if there is an imminent threat to the security of the United States, or its citizens. Although there was clearly no such imminent threat caused by the Civil War in Libya, the President committed members of the United States military to combat missions in a foreign country without the consent of Congress. He based his authority on a United Nations resolution, and a resolution by the Arab League. 12. Last but not the least, of my dirty dozen of impeachable offenses, is the fact that since taking office the President has used executive orders, laws pushed through Congress in the dark of night, and administrative actions by his departments to nationalize and control automobile manufacturers, banks, insurance companies, and portions of the healthcare industry. This is designed to take our country from a free enterprise economy to a socialist economy. There is absolutely no authority in the Constitution of te United States that allows the President to do this. Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution provides as follows: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” I contend that among those high crimes and misdemeanors is the intentional violation of the oath of office administered to the President and all other federal officials. In fact, federal law at 5 U.S.C. 7311 specifically provides that violation of the oath of office includes advocating the overthrowing of our constitutional form of government. This is specifically declared a criminal offense in 18 U.S.C. 1918 and is punishable by both a fine and imprisonment. In the 12 areas I mentioned in the paragraphs above I firmly believe that Obama, Eric Holder, and numerous other members of his administration have gone beyond just advocating the overthrow of our constitutional form of government. They are actually engaged in making it happen, and as a result should be impeached and convicted. Will there be an impeachment and conviction in the current Congress? Probably not, since it takes a two thirds vote in the House of Representatives to impeach, and a two thirds vote in the Senate to convict. With Harry Reid and the progressives still in control of the Senate, and many of them guilty of some of the same impeachable offenses, they will resist it. However, we are the American people and we still have a right to control our government, and the people elected to represent us. Therefore, I am personally calling on the conservative members the House of Representatives to bring this action based on the grounds I have enumerated so that the American people can understand what is really at stake here. Then “we the people,” can make our voices

Categories: The Constitution

Random Political Stuff

May 28, 2011 1 comment

Vol. 18, No. 21      05/27/11

Gun Ownership Skyrockets, While Violent Crime Drops…Again

Click here to vote in this week’s poll.

This week, the FBI estimated that the number of violent crimes decreased 5.5 percent from 2009 to 2010, including a 4.4 percent decrease in the number of murders.  Because the U.S. population increased during the period, the figures imply that the total violent crime per capita rate and the murder rate decreased more than six percent and five percent, respectively.  Based upon the preliminary data, it appears that violent crime fell to a 37-year low and murder fell to a 47-year low.  The FBI will report final figures for 2010 later this year.
We’re repeating ourselves, but, as has been the case for quite a while, the decrease in crime coincided with an increase in the number of privately owned guns—particularly handguns and detachable magazine semi-automatic rifles.  For example, Americans bought over 400,000 AR-15s in 2009, and trends in AR-15 sales over the last few years suggest a similar number for 2010.
Those who have followed the gun control issue for a few years probably have noticed that with crime declining and gun numbers rising year after year, gun control groups have all but abandoned their previously perennial claims that more guns equal more crime. Even their friends in the news media don’t believe it anymore.  The Violence Policy Center and, breaking with past habit, the Brady Campaign didn’t even try to claim that the decrease in crime in 2010 was attributable to gun control. 

Statement by Judicial Watch and its Client AZ State Senate President Russell Pearce on Supreme Court’s Decision to Uphold E-Verify Law


Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:

“This decision will have an enormous impact on states across the country suffering from the scourge of rampant illegal immigration.”


Arizona State Senate President Russell Pearce: 

“This decision ensures that scofflaw businesses that put profits over patriotism can and will be punished.”


(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton and Judicial Watch client Arizona State Senate President Russell Pearce offered the following statements today regarding the Supreme Court’s decision upholding the constitutionality of Arizona’s “Legal Arizona Workers Act,” legislation crafted by Pearce to penalize Arizona businesses that knowingly hire illegal aliens (Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, et. al,(No. 09-115)).  The decision also upholds the constitutionality of the provision requiring all Arizona employers to use the E-verify system to confirm the eligibility of new employees.


“This Supreme Court decision is a tremendous victory for the rule of law.  This decision will have an enormous impact on states across the country seeking to ease the burdens caused by rampant illegal immigration.  State Senate President Pearce carefully crafted this legislation to be entirely consistent with federal law.  And we are pleased the Supreme Court recognized once again the critical role states must play in enforcing our nation’s immigration laws.  The Obama administration’s plan of lax illegal immigration enforcement, sanctuary policies and amnesty only serve to worsen the illegal immigration problem.  The High Court rightly called the Obama administration’s legal arguments attacking Arizona’s commonsense statute ‘contrary to common sense’ and having ‘no basis in law, fact, or logic…’ It’s time to take the only approach that works:  law enforcement,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.


I applaud the Supreme Court’s decision today upholding the Legal Arizona Workers Act.  This legislation is based on a simple but powerful solution to the illegal immigration crisis:  enforce the law.  It would be ideal if the federal government would do its job and secure the border.  However, in the absence of leadership in Washington, states like Arizona have a responsibility to protect their citizens and uphold the law.  This decision ensures that scofflaw businesses that put profits over patriotism can and will be punished.  At the same time it will encourage illegal aliens in search of employment in Arizona to look elsewhere,” said Arizona State Senate President Russell Pearce.


Fri, May 27, 2011 3:49:47 PM

Can this be happening where we live?
H/E Haws <>
To: Edna HaWS <>

Concerned citizens—   I’m wondering if our governments, wherever we live, have this kind of abuse and we don’t know about it. We the People ARE making a difference; after so many years, we are now asking questions, listening and learning. Government BY the people—with a free press—is the way it is supposed to be. Let’s never forget that!  —Edna


Concerned citizens—   Here is an illustration of Government killing free enterprise and its creation of jobs. Big Government is destroying LIBERTY !  —Edna


May 24, 2011
Dependency and Votes
By Thomas Sowell
Those who regard government “entitlement” programs as sacrosanct, and regard those who want to cut them back as calloused or cruel, picture a world very different from the world of reality.

To listen to some of the defenders of entitlement programs, which are at the heart of the present financial crisis, you might think that anything the government fails to provide is something that people will be deprived of.

In other words, if you cut spending on school lunches, children will go hungry. If you fail to subsidize housing, people will be homeless. If you fail to subsidize prescription drugs, old people will have to eat dog food in order to be able to afford their meds.

This is the vision promoted by many politicians and much of the media. But, in the world of reality, it is not even true for most people who are living below the official poverty line.

Most Americans living below the official poverty line own a car or truck– and government entitlement programs seldom provide cars and trucks. Most people living below the official poverty line also have air conditioning, color television and a microwave oven–and these too are not usually handed out by government entitlement programs.

Cell phones and other electronic devices are by no means unheard of in low-income neighborhoods, where children would supposedly go hungry if there were no school lunch programs. In reality, low-income people are overweight even more often than other Americans.

As for housing and homelessness, housing prices are higher and homelessness a bigger problem in places where there has been massive government intervention, such as liberal bastions like New York City and San Francisco . As for the elderly, 80 percent are homeowners. whose monthly housing costs are less than $400, including property taxes, utilities, and maintenance.

The desperately poor elderly conjured up in political and media rhetoric are– in the world of reality– the wealthiest segment of the American population. The average wealth of older households is nearly three times the wealth of households headed by people in the 35 to 44-year-old bracket, and more than 15 times the wealth of households headed by someone under 35 years of age.

If the wealthiest segment of the population cannot pay their own medical bills, who can? The country as a whole is not any richer because the government pays our medical bills– with money that it takes from us.

What about the truly poor, in whatever age brackets? First of all, even in low-income and high-crime neighborhoods, people are not stealing bread to feed their children. The fraction of the people in such neighborhoods who commit most of the crimes are far more likely to steal luxury products that they can either use or sell to get money to support their parasitic lifestyle.

As for the rest of the poor, Professor Walter Williams of George Mason University long ago showed that you could give the poor enough money to lift them all above the official poverty line for a fraction of what it costs to support a massive welfare state bureaucracy.

We don’t need to send the country into bankruptcy, in the name of the poor, by spending trillions of dollars on people who are not poor, and who could take care of themselves. The poor have been used as human shields behind which the expanding welfare state can advance.

The goal is not to keep the poor from starving but to create dependency, because dependency translates into votes for politicians who play Santa Claus.

We have all heard the old saying about how giving a man a fish feeds him for a day, while teaching him to fish feeds him for a lifetime. Independence makes for a healthier society, but dependency is what gets votes for politicians.

For politicians, giving a man a fish every day of his life is the way to keep getting his vote. “Entitlement” is just a fancy word for dependency.

As for the scary stories politicians tell, in order to keep the entitlement programs going, as long as we keep buying it, they will keep selling it.

Thomas Sowell
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of The Housing Boom and Bust.

TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Thomas Sowell and‘s daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.

©Creators Syndicate

Categories: We the People

The government Hijacks your cell phone

May 10, 2011 Leave a comment

Starting this year in New York the government will begin sending text messages directly to your phone via a special chip that they have mandated (read forced with no law to back it up, thank you home land security) be put in all cell phones.  I’m sure there are plans in place to roll this out to the rest of the country in due course.

 There will be three types of messages. 

  1. Amber alerts
  2.  Terror alerts
  3. Presidental messages. 

You can opt out of the first two, but not the third.  Now I don’t know about you, but I find it odd, if not down right Orwellian that you don’t have to opt-in for such a program in the first place, let alone that you CAN”T OPT-OUT OF THE PRESIDENTIAL MESSAGE. 

 Just ask your self one question. 


Why can’t you opt-out of the Presidential message?

Yet another reason why I will never pay for my children to own cell phones.  The one encouraging thing about this was reading the comments that went along with the story.  I found that most of the comments agreed with me.  I’m not the only one who see’s that this is totally wrong and crazy.   I’m not the only one who see’s that the government is out of control and that we are in some serious trouble.  I just hope it’s not too late.

Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. — President Thomas Jefferson.

Categories: Government Creep

Econ Stories

May 7, 2011 Leave a comment

I wanted to share a link I ran across, (thanks Neil) that I thought you might find informative.

I’m not a big time student of economics but because of all that has been going on with the economy in recent years I’ve tried to learn a little bit, as everyone should.  Economics helps you understand what is going on why what the government does impacts what you pay for things and your ability to get and keep a job.  I’ve been surprised to find how many people think those things are just random occurrences and not based on a plan that some politician/economist came up with.

I don’t care for rap as a musical genre but I thought this was a brilliant way to distill the ideas and economic plans of Keynes and Hayek down in a way that could be easily followed and understood as well as help you draw the connections to the events of today.  I also thought the analogy of a drinking binge in this video  to explain the Keynesian model (and why it is a terrible idea, at least in my opinion) was very apropos as well a funny.

I hope you enjoy and come a way with a bit more of an understanding of economics and what is going on in the world today!
Categories: We the People