About Me

In writing the "About Me" portion of this blog I thought about the purpose of the blog - namely, preventing the growth of Socialism & stopping the Death Of Democracy in the American Republic & returning her to the "liberty to abundance" stage of our history. One word descriptions of people's philosophies or purposes are quite often inadequate. I feel that I am "liberal" meaning that I am broad minded, independent, generous, hospitable, & magnanimous. Under these terms "liberal" is a perfectly good word that has been corrupted over the years to mean the person is a left-winger or as Mark Levin more accurately wrote in his book "Liberty & Tyranny" a "statist" - someone looking for government or state control of society. I am certainly not that & have dedicated the blog to fighting this. I believe that I find what I am when I consider whether or not I am a "conservative" & specifically when I ask what is it that I am trying to conserve? It is the libertarian principles that America was founded upon & originally followed. That is the Return To Excellence that this blog is named for & is all about.

Saturday, August 28, 2010

Steve Wynn - Ratexian

Thanks to a member of our group who sent along the link for this video of entrepreneur Steve Wynn passionately describing the problems with his businesses & the American economy.

Wynn is really explaining the principles of what economists call Rational Expectations (Ratex). This theory interprets the interaction of government policies & individuals, including regular people as well as entrepreneurs like Mr. Wynn. Ratexians, like Mr. Wynn now seems to be, argue that government activism in markets causes uncertainty, complications, confusion, second guessing, & is extremely perilous. Ratex is a 20th & 21st century version of Adam Smith's beliefs that free markets are better for an economy than government tampering.

Ratex argues that active government interference is @ best ineffective & in our current case - it makes things worse.

Mr. Wynn obviously falls in the "makes things worse" camp because as of 2009 he is listed as the 468th richest man in the world - down from 277th with a net worth of $1.5 billion down from $3.9 billion.

It is no wonder Mr. Wynn appears bitter with BO. I have my own reasons & not all of them are economic.

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

More Responses - Pete Stark - No Problem - Throw The Constitution Out

Well the responses last night stirred up more. Below are two more that are representative of those that came in. I am just so surprised @ how surprised so many are @ what was portrayed in the original video - it was business as usual to me. I add a few comments in red below.

---Response #1---

I thought the woman spoke eloquently and to the point! Did u c the look on Stark's face?? Deer in headlights.... had no answer. OMG this is what's been running our country!! & for far too long

---Response #2---

It is almost beyond belief that Stark, as seen on the video, has no conception of what the Constitution stands for, or means to this country. Stark knows exactly what the Constitution means to the people of this country - that is how he has been elected 18 times in 37 years. Yet fools in CA vote this clown into office year after year. Because he delivers what they want. Pete must be similar to a sheep, following along with the crowd, having a thick coat to protect him from the opposition. No wonder Ca. is bankrupt. Look who is leading the flock, Pete & Nancy. Hopefully, not for long!!! I for one am not holding my breath that he will lose re-election.

Repsonses - Pete Stark - No Problem - Throw The Constitution Out

The subject message & video brought a flurry of responses like the three representative ones below.

---Response #1---

Constitution? What Constitution? Oh, you mean that extremely old and outdated document written by men who owned slaves! That can't really be law since there were no earmarks attached to it.

---Response #2---

How many more like him are out there? Scary.

---Response #3---

Have seen this video, it shows what they really think about you - Mr. America!

I do wonder how many in congress are promised an Ambassadorship when the transfer into socialism occurs.

Sunday, August 22, 2010

Pete Stark - No Problem - Throw The Constitution Out

Thanks to our Midwest member for sending along the link for this video of an exchange between California Congressman Pete Stark & one of his constituents re what the federal government is not authorized to do if the Constitution is followed - which of course it is not every day of the week in our nation's capital.

Stark has been elected 18 times in 37 years so the majority of his constituents approve of his positions. Surprisingly Stark is graded "D" by NTU with a 27% favorable rating - one of the highest of any Democrat. Being this favorable to taxpayers' interests in California makes me wonder how he got reelected so many times.

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Responses - The Danger Of Practicing Islam

Thanks to everyone who responded to the subject message re the building of the mosque two blocks from Ground Zero - I am always grateful for the insight you give me on every issue with your thoughts.  Below are three responses I think add to the discussion that really picked up steam when BO broke his silence on building the Ground Zero Mosque @ a White House dinner celebrating the start of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan last Friday. 
The hostile anti-American media is trying to paint anyone who is against the building of this mosque near Ground Zero as a bigot citing the Constitution & freedom of religion.  Now any time you hear these detestable people talk about following the Constitution, fighting the deficit, or being concerned about freedom of religion you know they are using our values as a weapon against us & common sense says beware & recognize this - just think of the last few Christmases & how these same suddenly religious tolerant people wanted to make Christmas trees Holiday trees & take the manger out of the public square & you know you are being played for a fool by this mosque issue.  I don't know one person who receives these messages that I think is a bigot - but I do know all of you have plenty of common sense & just the thought of telling Imam Feisal he cannot build this mosque on Park Place in lower Manhattan says a lot about what Americans feel about Muslims & it is based on all the destructive unregretful remorseless evidence we have seen since February 26, 1993.
To put this in perspective - compared to hosting a Ramadan celebration in the White House BO has done nothing to actively support the National Day of Prayer that was established by Congress in 1952 (& is currently being challenged in court as unconstitutional).  Wait a minute - there is something about those words "White House dinner celebrating the start of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan" that may be the biggest point & most overlooked story here.
---Response #1---
I wonder what would happen if a synagogue, say 14 stories tall, were to be built directly to the east, i.e. next door.  That way, all of the Muslim prayers would have to pass through the synagogue to go to Mecca.  That might sour them on building their shrine to 9-11 there.  I am sure you could find millions of people willing to pitch in $5 or $10 for the cause...
---Response #2---
I think Pat Condell's video is frighteningly true, and we really do need to express our feelings about such an atrocity as a Mosque at Ground Zero.  Dan H's map really got the situation into perspective, seeing the proposal in black and white.  Thanks for sending both!
---Response #3---
I just learned tonight that the site that they plan to use comprises the Burlington Coat Factory Store that was actually part of the collateral damage during the attack when a section of the plane that hit one of the Towers broke off on impact and landed on the roof of the building and through two floors of it.  I understand the store hadn't opened for the day's business yet so there was no one in it. Had it been a little later, even more people would have died  I believe this makes the choice of this property very suspect in terms of the possible propaganda use. I wonder why this information has not been common knowledge up to now. 

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

FairTax Briefing - District 11 Libertarian Candidate Jim Gawron & Responses

Below is a report of the subject briefing that was sent out yesterday to several e-mail groups.  Since this blog posting is a day behind those groups I also include five responses below that are representative of the type of interest that has been generated for the FairTax & FairTax supporting candidates that really started on the August 3 Candidates' Night event.  Keep looking for the type of candidates we need to make a difference whether you live in NJ or elsewhere. 
---Original Briefing Report---
In July I reached out to both Doug Herbert (Democrat) & Jim Gawron (Libertarian) to see if either or both would agree to a briefing on the FairTax - both are congressional candidates in District 11 running against incumbent Rodney Frelinghuysen (Republican) who has said he "is more against the FairTax now" than he was in October 2007 when Carol & I met him in his Washington office.


Mr. Gawron & I had an hour long minimum telephone conversation in late July @ which time he expressed favorable feelings toward the FairTax & said he would do his own study to determine if he would endorse the FairTax in the campaign.  Mr. Gawron called me a few days ago & we set up a meeting for earlier today in which Sandy Sherman joined Carol & me for the briefing which was barely needed.


Mr. Gawron has an excellent knowledge of economics & needed a brush up on only a few points on the FairTax @ the briefing.  He will not need a training session to prepare for the attack ads & misleading debate points that are used by FairTax enemies.  He has read The FairTax Book & many of the postings under "The FairTax" on ReturnToExcellence.net as well as the Candidates Night report.   He will study the training session postings on the blog for both 2009 & 2010 which include the four points Bill Rollyson feels every candidate should know to fend off detractors' attacks as well as two I also encounter re paying the FairTax on a new house & black market dealings leading to a higher non-compliance rate under the FairTax.


Prior to the briefing Mr. Gawron had already placed a link to FairTax.org on virtually every page of his website.  Mr. Gawron is another candidate running in November on the FairTax against an incumbent (Frelinghuysen in his case) who will never support it.


---Response #1---



I am interested in learning more on the FairTax, in your opinion what is the best resource(s) that I can use to learn about it and recommend it to others.  Also, will there be a seminar, or something more in depth for the FairTax that I can bring people to?
---Response #2---
Thank you Doug,  for all the time and effort you keep putting into this.    When will we see your name on the Ballot?
I forward this to my family and friends and I have a category for my Grands for most of the political emails.   They have to hear this from someone.
Thanks again, and keep up the great work. 
---Response #3---
Thanks for keeping us informed on the other district 11 candidates running in this years election.  Do you think Mr. Gawron would consider attending our "New Bridgewater GOP Club" meeting in October?  It is very refreshing to know I can vote for an alternative candidate other than a Democrat in November. 
Nothing would please me more then to put Gawron in the same room at the same time with the new Somerset County Republican Coordinator.
---Response #4---
Hi Doug
Scott Sipprelle is running against Rush Holt in district 12.  I looked at his website and saw he is for tax reform but for a flat tax not the FairTax.  Have you talked to him?  He seems like someone that maybe interested in supporting the fair tax if it was explained to him.  I do not live in his district but my company is in his district.  Thanks.
---Response #5---
Gawron will get my vote.

Monday, August 16, 2010

The Danger Of Practicing Islam

I know the link to Pat Condell's video explaining why the Cordoba House Mosque should not be built near Ground Zero is making the rounds because so many people have sent it to me - thanks to all of you.  Pat Condell is a controversial British writer & internet personality so judge for yourself the content of the video to make sure it makes sense to you - as I always ask you to do with everything. 
Thanks also to Dan Henninger for providing the above map showing just how close the proposed mosque @ 45 Park Place is to the corner of Church & Liberty Streets where Carol & I attended a rally on September 10, 2005.  That rally was part of a larger effort called "Take Back The Memorial" that was organized a few months earlier because enemies of America & our freedom were pouring money into the so-called International Freedom Center (IFC) to build a memorial on this site that would have displayed many human atrocities (gulags & slavery just to list two) in history & would have diluted the portion of what happened on 9/11/01 to the basement (literally) of the displays.  One of the leaders of that effort was Canadian Socialist George Soros - a multi billionaire & major contributor to the far left wing activist group Moveon.org. 
The Cordoba House mosque is the latest affront to the Ground Zero area and how to honor & remember the people who went to work & were killed that morning in those buildings & those who risked & lost their lives trying to help save other people who they did not even know. 
So now @ a Ramadan dinner @ the White House BO tells Muslim guests he has come down on the side of building the mosque @ the location shown on the above map using the Constitution (a document he only follows when he can use it as a weapon against us) to say "...as president, I believe that Muslims  have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country."  But of course practicing their religion was exactly what Mohammed Atta & Marwan Al-Shehhi were doing on the morning of September 11, 2001.

Saturday, August 14, 2010

Responses - First - We Have To Wake Up

Responses & comments to the subject message that transmitted the Michael Medved piece that provided a breakdown of voting groups that showed BO is in good position to win the 2012 presidential election came in all over the lot.  Below are three of the Responses.  Responder #1 thinks that things are "not as dire as Medved states" & Responder #2 thinks "he is so right."  Responder #2 also agrees with the original message solution to the problem of finding rock solid congressional candidates like Jim DeMint has been doing in finding Tea Party candidates to the consternation of the establishment Republican Party.
Forgetting Medved's analysis & statistics for a second - just look @ some common sense points.  Although President Reagan won an electoral college landslide he lost 40% of the popular vote - I have used this as my starting point since 1984.  We would be fine if the 1984 mindset had continued but a government dependent expansion program was reinvigorated since then & we have slipped @ least two stages in Death Of Democracy to the "apathy to dependence" stage meaning that more than 40% of the electorate is dependent on government programs.  Currently up to 70% of the people on the working rolls pay little or none of the total income tax burden & a large voter turnout is in the 60% range @ most.  Now if a community organizer of BO's skills sees the sense in trying to get this other 40% of people to the polls just who do you think they will vote for? 
---Response #1---
While I understand the necessity of keeping the troops from becoming complacent, I think the reality is not as dire as Medved states.  First, an inordinate number of blacks showed up in '08.  Many of them are now disgruntled at the stands Obama has taken.  Some have told me they would not vote for him again by either not voting at all or voting for an 'acceptable' Republican.
I am not sure where this influx of Latino voters is coming from.  Most legal Latinos do not support the illegals (as if that is the only issue they are concerned about).  Most are very religious and family oriented, ideals the Dems don't hold dear.  The illegals may be vocal, but, as of today, they are not allowed to vote.  But with motor voter, ACORN and the rest, I am sure many have registered illegally.  Surprise.
---Response #2---
This is the scariest thing I've read but he is so right.  Those of us who believe in our Constitutional Republic form of government have our work cut out for us. Since BO and his cronies will likely be around for at least 2 more years and possibly 6, we have to work even harder on getting the right people in Congress and weeding out the career politicians who after so many years in office think they own it and can do whatever they want and get away with it.  

I sent your link to some of the people at the PRO and some friends. Do you know if any of them have subscribed?    I'll be sending this one as well in the hope that if they haven't yet, they will subscribe.
---Response #3---
I always said in a matter of years the Hispanics will decide elections.  Why? - they are the fastest growing segment of U.S. population.  I did not expect them to make a difference this fast because many do not vote now.  But they can change sooner if their "leaders" put on a drive to register them as voters.
What do you think? - I think you know what I think.

Thursday, August 12, 2010

First - We Have To Wake Up

The first member ever of our group is a very conservative Republican who was ecstatic when W won the 2004 presidential election.  Knowing how much the statists hated losing to W once, let alone twice, I remember telling our friend that he better enjoy it because if "they" every get organized the Republicans will never win another presidential election in his lifetime.  My thoughts were based on the principles of Death Of Democracy & looking around @ the people I saw on the streets of Somerville & other towns - my thoughts did not take into account BO, community organizers, MoveON.org, ACORN or any of the others who were soon to emerge.  W was the catalyst & inspiration for the statists to get organized - if the weak outnumber the strong why should the weak ever lose another election they argued?
BO rose to the top quickly with his following of the young, minorities, the extreme left, women, people feeling white guilt, & of course the hostile anti-American media backing any thing he did or said.  The fact that his ideology was in line with the statists, but many years ahead of someone like Hillary, only helped propel him forward even faster with the Democrat machine.  They have been successful in redefining & continuing to redefine the political center as BO's policies even as many conservative talk show hosts continue to proclaim that America is a center-right country - if so how in the world did we get BO & large statist majorities in both the House & Senate?
Now I don't like for one minute what is happening in our country but I do believe it is important to accurately understand the enemy & the problem we are facing - starting with the basics that we are outnumbered.  Below is a piece from today's WSJ by Michael Medved that gives you the numbers in far more detail than my back of the envelope common sense observations cited above do.  After reading this piece Carol said to me - "this is awful."
We have been asleep @ the switch & let ourselves be painted into a corner - the answer is not to go back & forth voting in Republicans & then Democrats from district to district.  It is way too late for that.  We have to start adding to our decent politicians like Jim DeMint, Tom Coburn, Jeff Flake, & Mike Pence with Tea Party candidates who bring the innocence, purity, & integrity needed whether they win or lose the next election because without them we are about to lose all of the elections one way or another, if we continue to have elections @ all.
Why Obama Is Still the Favorite in 2012

Hispanic voters hold the balance of power—and Republicans aren't winning their support.

Republicans feel heartened by President Obama's standing in recent polls, which show that only a minority of Americans want him re-elected in 2012. But savvy Democratic analysts look at the same numbers and confidently predict another victory when the president seeks his second term. A breakdown of voter sentiment by race can help clarify the apparent contradiction.

According to a revealing poll from Quinnipiac University (covering 2,181 registered voters in late July), only 36% of American voters would support Mr. Obama against an unnamed Republican candidate "if the 2012 election were held today." The main reason for the president's performance in this survey is his pathetic standing among self-identified white voters: Only 28% of the nation's demographically dominant racial group plans to back him for a second term.

Republicans look at those numbers and say there is no way that Mr. Obama can recover without bringing about a major turnaround with the white majority. Yet Democrats point to the figures and argue that the president will safely win a second term even with this dismal performance in the white community—as long as he replicates his 2008 popularity among African-Americans, Latinos and Asians. They also believe he may do even better among Latinos and Asians when he runs in 2012.

Is this reasoning realistic or ridiculous?

The truth is that Mr. Obama's low standing among white voters is nothing new. He lost that group to John McCain in 2008, winning only 43%. If he fails to improve his terrible standing in the current Quinnipiac poll, and if all currently undecided white voters (25%) break down in the same way as those who have already made up their minds, he'd end up with 38% of white votes.

That's obviously a worse performance than four years ago, but it would yield approximately the same percentage of the overall electorate. Why? Because all observers agree that white voters will comprise a smaller piece of the total voting population than the 74% they represented two years ago. With strong increases in the Latino and Asian voting blocs—due to general population growth and sharply increasing rates of citizenship through naturalization—the "non-Hispanic white" electorate will likely slip to 70%, or perhaps slightly lower.

If the president performs as poorly in the white community as current polls indicate, he will still win an electoral majority as long as he commands the same percentage of nonwhite voters (83%) that he won in 2008. This seems entirely possible, and based on current polls, it looks likely.

The Quinnipiac survey indicates that Mr. Obama still enjoys huge popularity among people of color, winning his trial heat against an unspecified Republican 44 to 1 among blacks (87% to 2%) and nearly 2 to 1 among Latinos (49% to 26%). In other words, the president maintains his near unanimous support in the black community and has dipped only slightly among Hispanics, where he drew a commanding 67% of the vote in 2008.

Only 65% of Latino voters expressed a candidate preference in the survey's trial heat. That means if Mr. Obama can sway the bulk of the 35% of Latinos who say they "don't know" or are currently uncommitted, the president will replicate his victory formula from 2008. Undecided Hispanic citizens, representing as many as three million votes in the next election, may hold the balance of power in a competitive race.

These numbers help to explain the president's current position on immigration reform and his efforts to block Arizona's tough new immigration law. That legislation is overwhelmingly resented among Latino voters: 66% of Hispanics say they disapprove of it, and 71% say they don't want a similar law in their own states. By nearly 2 to 1 (59% to 32%), these Latino voters want immigration reform to emphasize "integrating illegal immigrants into American society" over "stricter enforcement." This is in stark contrast to both white voters and black voters, who strongly prefer "stricter enforcement."

The administration and its strategists reason that nothing they do on illegal immigration will undermine the enthusiastic support for the president in the black community, or drive his popularity lower among whites. With only 28% of white voters currently committed to backing Mr. Obama for re-election, his standing is already near rock bottom.

But if the Democrats can use the immigration debate to drive the president's numbers even higher among Latinos than in 2008, they can't lose. Viewed another way, if Republicans continue to conduct the immigration debate in a way that drives their numbers even lower among Latinos than in 2008, they can't win. Talking about changing the Constitution to eliminate birthright citizenship, for instance, may bring short-term gains, but it will produce disastrous long-term results in the key voting bloc that is likely to decide the next presidential race.

For Democrats, this analysis offers reason for hope in a dark, dysfunctional season. For Republicans, the numbers suggest a strong basis for recalibration as they look ahead to 2012.

Mr. Medved is the host of a daily, nationally syndicated talk radio show and author of "The 5 Big Lies About American Business" (Crown Forum, 2009).

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Can We Turn Back After Crossing This Divide?

Although I'll have to see it to believe it many pundits are convinced that the Democrats will lose enough seats in the November mid-term election to lose control of both the House & Senate. In preparing for this possible eventuality the House voted today 236 to 163 against a ban to hold lame duck sessions of Congress between November 3 & January 3, 2011. It has been widely circulated that if the Dems lose control of either the House or Senate that they plan to ram through as much of BO's agenda as possible in the lame duck session - Cap & Trade taxes, VAT in addition to income taxes, Union Card Check, & Amnesty for Illegals for openers - wonder if any one will notice as we get ready to celebrate the holidays? Today's House vote literally validates the Dems intention to pursue the lame duck fall back position if needed.

As Charles Krauthammer recently wrote - "But assuming the elections go as currently projected, Obama's follow-on reforms are dead. Except for the fact that a lame-duck session, freezing in place the lopsided Democratic majorities of November 2008, would be populated by dozens of Democratic members who had lost reelection (in addition to those retiring). They could then vote for anything -- including measures they today shun as the midterms approach and their seats are threatened -- because they would have nothing to lose. They would be unemployed. And playing along with Obama might even brighten the prospects for, say, an ambassadorship to a sunny Caribbean isle." If you are going to play the game you have to know the rules & BO knows all the rules by heart - we have no match for him & we are outnumbered.

In line with these thoughts thanks to our wonderful Midwest member who passed along this link to Dennis Prager's appearance @ the University of Denver where he so eloquently discussed America's biggest threat - & no it was not BO - it is even bigger & was already mentioned above.

Carl Degler sums up @ least part of Mr. Prager's remarks when he writes - "The searing ordeal of the Great Depression purged the American people of their belief in the limited powers of the federal government & convinced them of the necessity of the guarantor state. And as the Civil War constituted a watershed in American thought, so the depression & its New Deal marked the crossing of a divide from which, it would seem, there could be no turning back."

Monday, August 9, 2010

Social Security Trustees' Dismal Report

Last Thursday the trustees for Social Security & Medicare released their annual report indicating that Social Security will pay out more in benefits than it takes in both this year & next. Although Medicare's longer term theoretical solvency calculation improved those improvements were the result of promised cuts in payments to doctors & hospitals - the very people & institutions we rely on when we are sick & need medical treatment - how preposterous a premise for a calculation.

Please refer to "Your Social Security Statement" that you receive every year from the federal government who counts on you not reading the front page which says that "at this point (when the fictitious, non-existent, & misnamed Social Security Trust Fund is theoretically exhausted), there will be enough money to pay only about 74 cents for each dollar of scheduled benefits." This means that the government is telling you that if you are collecting or counting on collecting $1000 per month your payment will be reduced to $740 per month (until the finances get even worse) once the Trust Fund is not able to be financed sufficiently by other government sources.

Just look how scarce money is all over America right now - like in your household - & wonder where funds for a VAT addition to the income tax system or additional taxes to pay for Social Security benefits will come from in just a few short years.

To put all of this into perspective please consider my letter below published in The Reporter on August 4, 2005. Not much has changed except doomsday for our entitlements is closer than 2018 as indicated in the trustees report projecting shortfalls in Social Security funding the next two years for starters.

Dear Editor,

In Martin C. Stark’s letter to the editor in the June 16, 2005 Reporter he relies on the Social Security Trust Fund to fund any shortfalls between incoming FICA taxes & the outgoing beneficiary payments after 2018.

We should understand that this trust fund is nothing more than a stack of IOUs that is not backed by real assets.

Tracking the current Social Security surplus you will find that the money is received in a Social Security surplus account, from which it buys the government bonds that make up the trust fund. From there it is moved to the general treasury from which it all has already been spent financing roads, foreign aid, & other current government consumption.

There is no real money in the trust fund so that when 2018 comes & we call on the trust fund to support the actuarial shortfall we will have to sell the bonds (but to whom?) or print more money thereby causing inflation. The other choices are to raise taxes or lower benefits. Social Security cannot continue under the current system based on this information.

The Social Security solvency problem can very easily and fairly be solved by replacing the wage index formula for calculating benefits with the CPI formula – see Susan Lee’s Wall Street Journal article dated November 23, 2004.

Mr. Stark claims that benefits are guaranteed for life – this too is not true. Quoting from the aforementioned Susan Lee article – “Social Security benefits are not guaranteed. Just like all entitlement programs, they can - & have been – changed by Congress. The Social Security administration itself says so & so did the Supreme Court when it ruled, in Fleming v. Nestor, that workers & retirees have no legal claim to benefits. Regardless of how much in taxes they have paid into the system.”

For example, people who found their benefits taxed in 1983 & those who had those taxes raised in 1994 can not feel that there is a guaranteed benefit amount.

Mr. Stark asks, “What type of social security insurance system do we want…?” My answer is that we want a system of me taking care of my retirement & him taking care of his. FDR created Social Security to help the elderly after the Great Depression because the elderly had no time to recoup their loses from that terrible economy.

We should not have private accounts because of any Social Security system solvency problem but quite simply because they are a better idea in a free enterprise capitalistic country. Young people should be learning to take care of themselves since they are the only ones they can really count on anyway, as they will find out as they go through life. In every plan presented to date each person has the option to remain in the current system.

However, someone with a personal account will have real assets in an actual account with their name on it for retirement & also will have the ability to leave these assets to their heirs - both unlike in the current system. Personal responsibility is the virtue - not looking for government guarantees in a system that is just a Ponzi scheme waiting to tumble as described before.

Finally, Mr. Stark is correct when he states “If it (personal accounts) runs out, its your problem” – and that is exactly as it should be. When people realize that they are responsible for themselves & will not be taken care of by some government program, they will work, save, & invest to make sure that they do not run out & they & the country will be much better off for their efforts. Social Security should be there only for the needy as FDR intended.

The incentive should be to not want to be one of the needy but rather one of the self-sufficient. I believe that this is where President Bush is trying to lead us on the Social Security issue.

Saturday, August 7, 2010

ACTA Website Can Save You From An Expensive Lesson

Thanks to Anne Neal of the American Council Of Trustees & Alumni (ACTA) for passing along this link to Jay Leno's latest video where Jay asked several people including a college professor questions about the Fourth of July.  I am afraid these people are representative of most you meet on the street today.  I use to wonder if the people in these types of videos were the ones who cancelled out my vote but after the 2008 presidential election I believe that they are the ones who were organized & added to the ones who had already cancelled out my vote & yours in the past. 
For those of you who have children or grandchildren close to college age I suggest that you check out ACTA's website - WhatWill TheyLearn.com  - A Guide To What College Rankings Won't Tell You.
A review of the ACTA website with the above Leno video in mind could be just the wakeup call or heads up you need before spending six figures for one let alone two or more children each who wind up graduating from college knowing little or nothing more than the people in the video.
Worse yet who would hire the people in the Leno video? - they certainly cannot contribute to increasing our standard of living & really are destined to become government dependents if they are not already.
It is not that they are stupid - they just don't know anything & probably never will.  They are the result of one of the main reasons for America's diminished & diminishing role & influence in an ever increasing competitive world.

Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Candidates' Night Report

The first ever "Candidates' Night" event took place last night - the purpose was to honor & thank a group of FairTax & tax reform grassroots people who ran for elective office in NJ during the past year.  By all measures the event exceeded everyone's expectations & each of the speakers deserve all of the credit for their inspiring accounts of running for office.  I am only so sorry for everyone who missed it.
Carol thinks that every state should try to put on such an event - but first you have to spend the time & effort like we have in NJ developing a program to find such candidates.  But it is a goal that each of you can try to make happen  for your state & America.
Below is a report that we are submitting to several newspapers along with the above photos.  I also sent this information to Steve Moore of the WSJ who has asked me to keep him informed of our progress.
---Candidates' Night Report---
An event billed as "Candidates' Night" was held on Tuesday night August 3, 2010 at the Bridgewater Library to honor and thank ten candidates for elective office in NJ who ran on the FairTax or tax reform within the last year.  Three such candidates for U.S. Congress - Mike Agosta (District 9), Anna Little (District 6), & Tod Theise (District 5) all won their primaries and are on the ballot in November.
Stan Serafin, former NJ Assembly candidate, was the keynote speaker to the standing room crowd which eventually spilled over to an adjoining room.  Serafin's theme of having the courage to get involved was demonstrated by each of the ten candidates when they spoke individually to the group.  They each explained why they ran and what they encountered as candidates.  Each candidate was pure grassroots with little money and a desire to represent their constituents as someone who was of the people and not entrenched in the political party machines.
All of the candidates spoke of the need for tax reform and were supportive of the FairTax.  When elected Mike Agosta and Anna Little will become co-sponsors of HR 25, The FairTax Act.  All current congressmen in NJ have not supported the FairTax.  Specifically discussed were Frelinghuysen, Garrett, Lance, & Smith's opposition to the FairTax.
Doug Hartlove, Volunteer State Director of FairTax NJ, asked everyone in the room to work one afternoon between now and the November election helping to spread the word of the FairTax support that each of the active candidates has shown.  Such synergy could make the difference in propelling winning FairTax candidates.

Monday, August 2, 2010

Continuous Chest Compression CPR Technique

Thanks to a subscriber to ReturnToExcellence.net for sending this link to a video that explains the Continuous Chest Compression CPR technique The link points out that "every three days, more Americans die from sudden cardiac arrest than the number who died in the 9-11 attacks. You can lessen this recurring loss by learning Continuous Chest Compression CPR, a hands-only CPR method that doubles a person's chance of surviving cardiac arrest.  It's easy and does not require mouth-to-mouth contact, making it more likely bystanders will try to help, and it was developed at the University of Arizona College of Medicine."
Before posting this information I presented it for approval to the doctors in our network whose opinion is - "This is worthwhile to pass on - most people would not do mouth to mouth and this makes cpr more acceptable."