Blog

 

Chuck Smith is opposed to all forms of illegal immigration. Current Federal legislation makes it a crime to enter the U.S. in any place other than designated by immigration officers, and punishment for violating that statute is imprisonment for up to 6 months, and for a second offense, up to 2 years. Two thousand people per day violate that statute. Officials estimate that there are 20 million illegal aliens in our country today.

State representatives have been begging Congress and the Federal Government for decades to just enforce the federal laws on the books, and the federal government has repeatedly refused to enforce the laws and deport the illegal aliens.

Arizona is facing a crisis as wave after wave of illegal aliens cross into their state every day. Federal agents arrested 500,000 illegal aliens entering Arizona in eight months. It is estimated that the border patrol only catches one out of five illegals. These millions of illegal aliens that cross the border bring with them crime, drugs and poverty that places a tremendous burden on the people and law enforcement officers of Arizona.

Our nation spends more than 4.7 billion dollars per year treating illegal aliens in hospitals, and over 17% of those in federal prison are illegal aliens. Officials estimate that we spend over 30 billion dollars per year to educate illegal aliens in our public schools. Arizona has the second highest number of kidnappings in the WORLD, just behind Mexico City. Can you believe that Arizona (yes, here in America) is the second kidnapping capital of the world? Al Qaeda terrorist organizations are showing in their training videos how to sneak into America exploiting vulnerabilities in our southern border.

Under normal circumstances, it would seem that Arizona would not need to enact a law protecting its own borders, because the federal government is charged with the responsibility of protecting our borders. However, given the fact that the federal government has miserably failed in it’s duties to protect the citizens of Arizona, the people must rise up and defend themselves against this onslaught of criminals violating both federal and state law. The Arizona law, is no more restrictive than the federal law, and merely acts to supplement it; so that state law enforcement officers can help the federal officers do their jobs.

The rhetoric from the left regarding this new Arizona law is just purely false. The new Arizona law is not cutting any new ground, or making new crimes. The Arizona immigration law merely mirrors current federal law. Title 8 of the U.S. Code, section 1304 requires that every alien carry with him or have in his possession certificate of alien registration or registration receipt card. Section 1306 of the US Code requires an alien to apply for registration and be fingerprinted, and failure to do so can result in criminal prosecution. There are only two sections of the Arizona law that do not mirror existing federal law, first, the new law makes it illegal to pick up a day laborer in the street; and second, the law allows citizens to sue the government for failure to enforce the law.

The Arizona law actually holds state law enforcement officer to a HIGHER standard than federal officers when approaching a suspect regarding their immigration status. The Arizona’s law requires the officer to have made a lawful stop and have reasonable suspicion. The US Supreme court has already ruled that a federal agent does not have to have a lawful stop or reasonable suspicion, but can ask any one for their papers any time.

Arizona has passed a law that is more restrictive on their law enforcement officers than the federal counterpart so that state law enforcement officers can assist federal officers in defending their border.

Chuck Smith is in favor of dramatically increasing border patrols, building a real fence that protects our border, and enforcing all current immigration laws.



Posted by Policy, Chuck Smith for Congress, 2010
July 14, 2010 5:21 pm

View/Add Comments

Team Chuck Smith,
The campaign is about to launch several big initiatives.
Click on the "Contribute" button and sign up to volunteer if you haven't already.
Return soon for updates.
 


Posted by Team Chuck Smith
November 23, 2009 10:41 pm

View/Add Comments

Eric Holder, the Attorney General is not doing the right thing.

Obama and his administration are making another historically bad mistake.

What have they done now?

The administration has elected to move the trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammed to New York Federal District Court. This is a huge mistake on so many levels that it defies logic or prudence.

Civil courts are designed to discharge justice on criminal and civil matters involving citizens and aliens that have been in the custody of civilian authority. This is not the case of K.S. Mohammad. He has been in the custody of military authority at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, since he was captured. As the admitted mastermind of the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington D.C., he committed acts of war against the United States. War is a military act and thus a military tribunal is more appropriate a venue for seeking redress against this man.

There are many issues that need to be considered, and Mr. Holder has not done so to any objective standard that can be judged reasonable. In fact, there is no known legal process in place to deal with this sort of situation.

First, as this will be a civil trial, how will the issues of military pretrial confinement (Guantanamo Bay), detention and treatment at the hands of CIA and military interrogators (the water boarding sessions) and lack of Miranda Rights (he was captured on the battlefield, not “arrested’ by cops on the street) be addressed? If he prosecuted in a civil court, aren’t the issues involving the lack of correct civilian treatment and observation of customary civil procedure and defendant rights going to be an issue? After all, any criminal is entitled to those protections and since he didn’t get them, doesn’t it logically follow that the possibility exists that there could be a mistrial or outright acquittal on the grounds that the defendant didn’t get due process protections and was denied his “civil rights”? On this, Mr. Holder is silent.

Secondly, there is the issue of his confession. He confessed his role in 9/11 and was later water boarded in order to extract additional information. It might be argued by the defense that his confession was coerced as well and that since he was “tortured”, he should be released. The “cruel and unusual punishment” issue will come up at some point too.

Thirdly, what about the defense for the accused? In a civil trial there is a discovery process. In this process, the prosecution must surrender all its information used to formulate its case and release a list of witnesses. That information will now be in the hands of people who are under no obligation to the nation to ensure that confidential elements don’t leak out. That means that potential witnesses on that list will now be known and at possible risk of retribution. National security data used in the arrest, and the content and scope of information extracted from the defendant during interrogation will most certainly make its way into the public domain, potentially destroying its value to those who are charged with the defense of the realm. This process will allow our adversaries worldwide information useful to them in countering our intelligence gathering efforts against them or allow them to gauge the knowledge of what we know from interrogations that were conducted in the past.

That begs the questions: What will be admissible? What will not?

Many of these issues make it possible that this process could go badly for the government, and in fact, could have many unforeseen consequences. There is the nightmare scenario of the defendant being found not guilty or this proceeding being declared a mistrial, or the judge could simply order him released on some technicality.

When asked what would happen if the defendant were found not guilty or the case thrown out; Attorney General Holder said “Failure is not an option”.

What is that supposed to mean? Does that mean that the fix is in on the terrorist trial?
Does that mean this is all just one, big kangaroo court...all for show, just like the old Soviet show trials that we saw in the bad old days of the Cold War?

There is also the issue of security.

Would you want to sit on a jury in this trial and risk becoming a target of jihadist cells here if you found him guilty or the target of ire and/or violent revenge from your fellow Americans if you found him innocent? Would you want to risk your families?

Would you want to be a judge in this trial for the same reasons?

What about the fact that now New York is now back in the spot light again? The terrorist element has a new reason to target New York and vicinity, as if they needed another reason to do something to that city and its people...

What about trial security? These folks love car and truck bombs and other such things. This makes a rational person wonder if anyone with intelligence and forethought considered any of these possibilities.

What about a possible escalation of terrorist activity to our nation or to our interests abroad? As Islamo-fascists worldwide see this legal evolution, it may become an impetus to act against us more than they have already.

The questions and issues abound. Attorney General Holder has no answers, just platitudes, assurances and no game plan that is discernable. He claims all is well and that the system will work as promised.
Are the people of this country ready to take the word of a man who helped get FALM terrorist released? How about trusting the motivations of a man who lets the likes of the New Black Panther Party get away with intimidating voters with clubs outside voting stations in California during the last general election? Do we trust the words and judgments of this man or his boss, Barack Obama, to make this work?

In my mind, the jury is still out on that trust.

Posted by Benjamin F. Snowden, Jr.
November 19, 2009 12:02 pm

View/Add Comments

As we come to the close of the year, we have many challenges facing the country. These challenges seem nearly insurmountable. This very morning, I learned that the dollar, the currency that has been the world's reserve currency for nearly 65 years, is facing disaster. The government has so inflated the money supply that the currency is nearly worthless on the world markets. We have so much debt that the world believes us incapable of anything resembling fiscal responsibility. There are rumblings that the world financial community might even throw the dollar "under the bus" in favor of the Euro or the Yen or a commodity like gold or a combination of all of the above. This would be a disaster for us as a country as we have relied on dollar supremacy to fund the ridiculous spending practices of our government.

 

In the seminal work, "Democracy in America", by Alexis de Tocqueville, the author stated "a democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it". Both major political parties, Republicans and Democrats have been guilty of this. He further stated, "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money". In that, Masseur de Tocqueville was a prophet. We have now reached the point where reason has been suspended in favor of more largesse for the people at public expense. The costs of which can be funded or financed via taxes or debt which can be deferred. The congress and the executive branch have seemingly lost control of themselves in an effort to see who can give away the most to the greatest number of people, thus "buying" the votes necessary to remain in power. The level of dependency on selling our debt overseas has reached critical mass. What's more, the major holders of the mortgages (Communist China, Russia, and the Persian Gulf oil monarchies) that have been written on our futures are seemingly positioning themselves to call the notes.

 

What of the responsibility of the people in this rising tide of financial and social decay?

 

They, the people, are absolutely responsible for what we suffer today and must now reassert the common sense and fiscal responsibility necessary to reverse certain disaster. True conservatives must stop being so one-dimensional in their views, so stuck strictly on a single issue like reproductive rights, gun rights, gay rights or indeed, "rights" of any group or individual. We must begin to look outside our own pet concerns and worry about the very survival and solubility of the republic. Without our fiscal, monetary, and general economic issues being addressed and made secure, those other concerns become immaterial as the nation will cease to exist. The people must stop electing politicians to office just because they bring home the cash and benefits they have become accustomed to. We must realize that we can't expect government to provide for our every need and want, to "level the playing field and ensure prosperous outcomes for all". We must insist instead on the freedom to pursue our own means and insist government stop spending beyond its means and financing all manner of government give-aways on the backs of those of us who are productive and taking care of ourselves.

 

All men (and women) may have been created equal endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, such as Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, but nowhere, anywhere does it say that all will have an equal outcome of their pursuits or that they will all attain Happiness, even at the expense of their fellow man, thus depriving them of their full and just due.

 

We have to make fundamental changes in what we can expect government to do, and indeed what it should do. If we don't, the rest of the world will force the issue, and when it happens (not "if"...) it will be very ugly indeed. Already Russia, Communist China, the Arab oil states in the Persian Gulf are beginning to make loud noises that in the near future, they won't take our dollars for oil and other goods we rely on everyday. If that happens, if they kick the dollar to the curb as a reserve currency, this nation will see financial and economic damage worse than anything that was seen in the 1930's. For those who think this can't or won't happen, I ask them to consider that the nations that hold our debt are in much better shape economically than we are and that they are developing nations who could survive any economic hit that would occur if the dollar collapses. They have the mineral and economic resources, the political will, a singularity of purpose and an intrinsic dislike of America and her institutions that would allow them to make the calculation to dump the dollar and/or call our Treasury Notes at the first opportunity, and failing to pay back what we owe, the world would and could simply let us go, and we would be powerless to stop the disaster that would follow.

 

I am reminded once again of Masseur de Tocqueville and his view of Americans. He said in his book "The greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults."

 

I think we have the time to correct what needs to be corrected if we muster the will to end the liberal penchant to create dependency. We can reverse course from certain disaster if we revive conservative practices and instill conservative principles into the next generation. We must elect conservative candidates to elective office so that they can begin to dismantle and reverse the destructive policies of their predecessors. We must completely discard the antiquated 19th century tax system and system of financial supports and ruinous bail-outs that are crippling the private sector and impoverishing the nation by removing capitol from the system to support failing businesses because they are allegedly "too big to fail". We must make it possible to utilize our natural resource base again and to revitalize our industry so we can employ Americans and make the products that Americans can buy. We must encourage businesses to start here or come here instead of outsourcing or moving off-shore, especially in the manufacturing sector. We must free the people of this country from the crushing burdens that government has placed on them by casting off old ideas of entitlement and dependency and encourage self-sufficiency and enterprise that built this nation in the beginning.

 

We have always been the nation of big ideas and even bigger accomplishments. We can still be that if we return to the roots of what made us that for over two hundred years. The time to repair the faults is at hand.



Posted by Benjamin F. Snowden, Jr.
October 14, 2009 7:19 pm

View/Add Comments

ACORN has filed suit against the 2 young film makers that exposed massive corruption within that organization.  The suit, filed on Wednesday, came in the wake of notification by the IRS that it has severed ties with said organization.  The IRS had supported efforts by ACORN to help some three million low income taxpayers prepare and submit their income tax forms.

 

This was the latest blow to hit the liberal activist group that has many deep ties to the Obama administration and the Liberal Democratic Party. The Census Bureau last week cancelled plans to employ ACORN to assist with census data collection in the wake of the incriminating videos showing ACORN workers giving advice to a couple claiming to be a pimp and prostitute seeking assistance in acquiring housing.  The housing was sought as a residence and as a place to conduct her “adult business” activities.  Those activities not being controversial enough, the stakes were raised in this sordid affair when the undercover couple indicated that many of the prostitutes that would be residing in the house would be children, trafficked into the U.S. from El Salvador, brought in specifically to service the deviant tastes of pedophiles.  The ACORN activists didn’t bat an eye at this and gave advice readily on how to hide their criminal enterprise, how to do the taxes in such a way to avoid scrutiny of their illicit activities and how to hide the kids from scrutiny as well.

 

The lawsuit that was filed in Maryland accuses James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles of violating Maryland law that requires both parties consent to electronic surveillance.  The lawsuit also named the website BREIBART.COM as co-defendant for posting the incriminating videos.  The FOX network, which aired the videos in the broadcast media on many of its signature shows like the Sean Hannity program, and the Glenn Beck show, were NOT named in the suit.

 

ACORN is seeking damages, both compensatory and punitive, as well as a court order to prohibit further distribution of the damning videos. 

 

ACORN C.E.O. Bertha Lewis said in an interview,” Although we do not condone what our former employees did, no matter how entrapped they were, we are also committed to our 500,000 members.... that we will hold the defendants civilly and criminally responsible for their violations of Maryland laws and for the damages inflicted upon ACORN’s reputation.”

 

With the termination of their federal funding by votes in the House of Representatives and the Senate last week, and with the cancellation of 2 major government partnerships, it may be too late to save ACORN’s vaunted “reputation”.  The Massachusetts Attorney General has announced that they will begin an inquiry into ACORN activities, and the Justice Department’s independent Inspector General plans to review the grants and funding received from that department of government. 

 

ACORN is clearly making an attempt to swing back on the offensive in the media and on the legal front but the damage has already been done.  The lawsuit filed against these 2 splendid young investigative reporters shows the desperation of this corrupt organization to salvage the unsalvageable and to switch the focus from their own corruption to the people who exposed that corruption.  12 states are currently investigating ACORN for voter fraud and there have been multiple convictions in 2 other states for that crime, where voter registration forms were turned into state governments bearing names like “Mickey Mouse” and “Barry Bonds”.

 

What needs to happen is an immediate R.I.C.O. investigation of this organization that clearly has an immense amount of questionable if not outright illegal activities occurring within its various chapters and activities.  No corruption this sweeping can be viewed as isolated acts by a few misguided employees. There must be a corporate culture corrupt enough to allow this sort of criminal behavior to flourish to the degree that it has.  That means that the entire organization from the Board of Directors to the operating officers, down to the rank and file personnel, need to be subjected to a detailed and all-encompassing investigation to root out the corruption.  This certainly needs to happen before any additional funds from the public purse are given to this organization.  We also need an accounting of the millions of dollars in grants given to ACORN for its many programs over the years.  That audit should begin immediately.

 



Posted by Benjamin F. Snowden, Jr.
September 25, 2009 11:55 am

View/Add Comments

Just when we thought the dialog on the Rep. Joe Wilson’s call-out on President Barack Obama, calling the President a liar, was finally beginning to simmer down, former President Jimmy Carter, arguably, the most discredited, ineffectual and naive man to occupy the office in recent history, decided to weigh in with his two cents worth. Once again defying the custom of former President’s maintaining silence on public issues, Mr. Carter has fanned the flames by suggesting that the white congressman from South Carolina had malice in his heart against a black President.

It is absurd to make this connection as there is no proof whatsoever that Rep. Wilson has any animosity against people of color.

Mr. Carter said in an interview with NBC News, “I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American”. He further said, "That racism inclination still exists, and I think it's bubbled up to the surface because of belief among many white people -- not just in the South but around the country -- that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. It's an abominable circumstance, and it grieves me and concerns me very deeply.”

Mr. Carter, once again, has stirred the pot of animosity. He has made a statement that is terrifically divisive and unfair to the congressman from South Carolina. Has Mr. Carter some special, unique and omniscient knowledge of the hearts of the American people? What gives him the right to make such an egregious, universal statement? Has Mr. Carter not found enough to do in his dotage? Isn’t hob-knobbing with terrorist groups like Hamas, and dictators like Hugo Chaves not enough for him anymore?  Must he now  slander the people of this nation, accusing us of being racists if we happen to think that Barack Obama is dead wrong, and that we question his ideology and his commitment to the improvement of the nation?

Mr. Carter could do us all a favor and go back to pounding nails for “Habitat for Humanity”, and leave politics, statecraft and race relations to those who have the acumen to understand them.

He obviously doesn’t. His record on that score is infamous; he arguable had the most failed Presidency in the last half of the 20th century. Yes, perhaps he should go back to Georgia, and keep to the old tradition that former Presidents keep to themselves and manage their own affairs, and keep out of the public discourse.

How can we as a nation make things better for all people when people like Mr. Carter ascribe a racial component to legitimate opposition? This creates a resentment that would not necessarily have been present previously, had the conversation remained in the political and ideological realm. To suggest that opposition to policy is solely due to race is a disservice to the nation. It creates a “bunker mentality” to groups that are accused of being discriminatory, stifling real and useful discourse, and creates the air of “protected class” status for those who use that gambit against their political rivals. It can become a millstone around the neck to those who use the tactic by actually creating racism where it previously didn’t exist. Logic and human nature being what they are may see some reconsider racial tolerance and acceptance. After all, what good does it do to try and set aside the entire cultural and historical baggage associated with race relations in this country if we keep getting beaten down with it, or have past behavior thrown up into our collective faces at every turn? Why try to find common ground with those who look different, act different, or believe differently if the only pay-off is to be labeled a racist if we happen to disagree on some issue? It is true that there are some who don’t like the fact that a black man occupies the White House; it would be naive to suggest otherwise, but to make the wholesale assertion that ALL opposition is race based, is absurd and creates race based animosity where none may have existed before.

I also have another major concern.

There is also a small possibility that it may even hurt future candidates of color because some of the voting public will not like to see a repeat of this racial acrimony should other minorities attempt to seek office. Some voters may just decide that it isn’t worth it to them to vote for minorities candidates if it follows that disagreement equals racism. It would be easier to simply not to back minority candidacies and avoid future problems. This would be a huge tragedy for all Americans as We, the People could be denied the best and brightest men and women for office because it’s just easier to exclude, rather than deal with the potential slander.

Then again, maybe that’s what they Liberal Democrats want….

It would be a self-fulfilling prophecy and confirmation of the liberal world-view that America is an inherently racist country, beyond hope and redemption without the blessings and programs only liberalism provide.

It is also my belief that there is an industry that exists to profit from racial inequities whether real or imagined. Men like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have enriched themselves to the tune of millions of dollars and created empires based on reverse race baiting, accusing enterprises and individuals of discrimination and racism when no absolute proof exists, and then extort money or favors from the accused.

It is a tremendously effective tool to mute and therefor quash opposition.

America has come so far in the 40+ years since the Civil Right Act was signed into law. Nobody with any intelligence would argue that we still have some work to do to ensure that progress continues toward a truly color blind society, free of base prejudices’ that have so divided us as a nation. I believe that the day will come when we will look back and wonder how all those who came before could have been so ignorant to look at people and measure intellect, competency and character by some superficial differences in color, appearance, or national origin.
 
I hope that that day comes soon.


Posted by Benjamin F. Snowden, Jr.
September 17, 2009 5:34 pm

View/Add Comments

In the wake of President Obama's speech Wednesday night, I have stopped and reflected on the words and substance of his address to the joint session of congress.  My initial reaction was that he was back on the campaign trail running for office again.  He is a good speaker, maybe even a great one when he attempts to move the crowd.  The problem was that when you strip away the platitudes and the rhetoric, what are you left with?

The essence of the speech was that we have to reform healthcare or else..

Well, for those who have been without health insurance, as I myself have been on occasion, I can certainly sympathize.  But the bottom line is that the republic will not collapse if the status quo continues.  But if this bill, HR 3200 does make it to the President's desk for approval, we may very well hasten the bankruptcy of the country, and disrupt permanently, what is arguable the best healthcare delivery system in the world.

This is not rhetoric, it is fact.

Keep in mind these 2 indisputable facts:

1.         Congress just raised the national debt ceiling to 12 TRILLION dollars this week

(that's 12,000 BILLION dollars.)  If you need a visual, it would be enough dollar bills to reach the moon and back over two and a quarter times if you laid the bills end to end.

2.         The Obama Administration and the Democratic controlled congress have spent over 1.38 Trillion dollars since January, 2009.  That is 4 times what the previous administration spent in its last year in office.

The President said on Thursday, the day after his address, at his cabinet meeting that the status quo could NOT be maintained and we had to do something because so many Americans were going bankrupt and that people were dying for lack of care.  Well Mr. President, that may happen from time to time to a few, and yes, it is tragic when it happens, but ultimately, if you destroy the economy of the country, if you set up  a system that bankrupts the entire nation trying to provide services to everyone, we are all in a great deal more trouble than those unfortunate few.

But let us not focus just on that one point.  Let us look at what is known to be in the actual bill and look at what is on the record, from the Presidents own statements. 

The first thing that I would like to make note of was the numbers of uninsured or under insures people the President said would be covered.  We have heard repeatedly from the administration and from the congressional leadership that there were 45-47 million people needing help.  Inexplicably, last night the number dropped to 30 million..  How did that happen?  Where did 15-17 million people go?  Perhaps he removed the illegal aliens from the mix?  OK, I am fine with that.  But why were illegal aliens in the computation in the first place?  Why was the higher figure bandied about as gospel?  He stated categorically that illegal aliens were not going to be covered by his program.  If that is the truth, then why were they a computed factor before?  Were they going to be covered prior to his speech last night?  Who was lying to whom about this? 

The Congressional Research Service published a report in August 25, 2009 that outlined the coverage of illegal aliens in HR 3200.  According to the report:

" H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitizens participating in the exchanges whether the noncitizens are legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently."

So in effect, the President did lied..     Big surprise there, right?

Another point that needs to be made is that on 2 occasions, attempts were made by Republicans to put in specific language that would specifically bar illegal aliens from getting taxpayer assistance in acquiring healthcare.  One well known attempt was by Rep. Dean Heller, R-Nevada, who tried to introduce an amendment that would have prevented illegal aliens from receiving government-subsidized health care under the proposed plan backed by House Democrats and President Barack Obama.  The House Ways and Means Committee defeated the Heller amendment by a 26-to-15 vote along straight party lines, and followed this action by passing the 1,018-page bill by a 23-to-18 margin, with three Democrats voting against the plan.  Incidentally, he also put in for an amendment that would require Congressional members and their staffs and other government employee to be made part of this plan, but the Democrats on the committee struck that down as well. What is good enough for us is evidentially not good enough for them.

So much for principle of bipartisanship.

So much for equal protection under the law.

Then there is the really shaky economics of this program, which will, according to the Congressional Budget Office, a non-partisan agency of Congress, cost the taxpayers an estimated 1 TRILLION dollars to help an estimated 45 million people (or is it 30 million...).  According to the President, he would not sign a bill that added "one dime to the federal deficit".  Well, I believe he believes that.  And because I believe he believes that, he is the most dangerously ignorant individual to occupy the office of President in a very long time. He seems not to have a clue as to how the real world works or any concept of business, economics or human nature.  One thing is certain, he may be a great community organizer, but he's a lousy mathematician.

He stated that that he would fund most of this program from savings from reductions in waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid;  Most of it. meaning more than 50% of it, or more than 500 billion dollars using the C.B.O. numbers.

Well, isn't that great!  I can't wait..

Wait a minute...   Why haven't they made these sorts of efficiencies before?  Why is there so much waste, fraud and abuse in those programs now?  Why hasn't Congress or the administration dealt with this already?  Is there over half a Trillion dollars in savings that can be had from cutting waste, fraud and abuse from Medicare and Medicaid; to be transferred from those programs?  If there is that much inefficiency, that much waste and fraud in those programs, why on earth would we trust Obama and his sycophants in congress to start up a whole new and ruinously expensive program to deal with less  than 10% of the population (by his new, revised numbers) and that in effect puts major controls on 16% of the national economy?  It is utterly incomprehensible how anyone could honestly look at this plan, read it and do the basic math and see anything but disaster for the nation.

I have an idea.

Why don't the powers that be prove their contention that they can do all they say they can.  Let's see if they can come up with the monies they say they can BEFORE they pass this egregious piece if legislative pap.  Let them prove to all of us on both sides of the political spectrum that economies to existing government programs can be made without cutting services to Medicare or Medicaid and  that there won't be a drop in service quality.  Let them show the fiscal and administrative chops to make these 2 programs run the way they should have been all along BEFORE they get their hands on the system the rest of us depend on?  It is truly unbelievable that Obama and his minions are pushing this when they haven't demonstrated an ability to deliver on any aspect needed to fund this program without busting the budget.  Let them prove their competency.  Lets see if there is any credence to anything they say. 

Wake up, ladies and gentlemen..

Our leadership is in cloud cuckoo land.



Posted by Benjamin F. Snowden, Jr.
September 11, 2009 9:42 am

View/Add Comments

When we read the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, it says:
 
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
 
The “general welfare” clause has been used repeatedly as justification by liberal elements and so-called “progressives” for many pieces of legislation over the last 75 years.  It began in earnest with the election of the most imperial of all presidents, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. 
 
More recently, the Clinton Administration took up the issue of so called health care reform arguing that there was  great desire in the country to nationalize the private healthcare delivery system in this country and to model it on along the lines seen in other western democracies.  The reasons on the surface seem benign enough, so that all citizens who had no existing private coverage may enjoy equal access to quality care.  This all sounds great, even noble and desirable.  The problem is that when you strip away the high sounding, warm and compassionate rhetoric, there were some real conceptual problems with the idea of universal healthcare.
 
When Bill Clinton was elected President, one of the first priorities of his administration was to begin the process of establishing a universal healthcare program.  First Lady Hillary Clinton, in league with others, were tasked by the President to come up with a viable program.  The problem was that the plan that was formulated was far too ambitious in scope.  Specifically, they attempted to provide universal coverage and private market regulation, drafted regulations that required private employer mandated coverage.  They also planned enforcement of regulations and coverage via a “national health board”, and to transform the delivery system for medical care through a “managed care” model.  Attempting any one of these objectives would have been difficult at best, but attempting all at the same time, and attempting to plan them in secret, was the only spark needed  to begin the firestorm of opposition that would see this plan laid waste, never to be revived for the entirety of the Clinton presidency.
 
With the election of Barrack Obama, the dominant liberal wing of the Democratic Party has once again taken up the gauntlet and  moved with what some see as precipitous speed to  ram though both the House and Senate a new bill, H.R. 3200, the so called “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009”.
 
This bill has been touted as a solution to the problem of insuring the 45 million people the administration claims are not covered by health insurance and who need to be covered by some sort of scheme.  This plan to provide coverage for so many people has become the signature legislative issue of Obama’s first year in the White House.  It has also become the single most contentious issue of the new President’s term.  So contentious in fact that in spite of massive majorities in both the House and Senate, there has been a massive groundswell of anger among most conservatives and many moderates who had supported Obama’s election to the Presidency.
 
One of the major points of contention is the cost, estimated to be in excess of 1 TRILLION dollars.  Another point of contention is more esoteric; that the federal government has no constitutional authority to in effect, nationalize the health delivery system of the nation.  This is a very serious point as it will mean that no longer are your health care decisions exclusively under your personal control,  but  now the  shared purview of government bureaucrats, who will have a say as to what levels of care you will receive and who as well as what will be paid for services rendered.  In deed, they may have the FINAL say.
 
One of the major justifications is the “Responsible Nation” principle; that a responsible, wealthy, modern, industrialized nation-state has an obligation, indeed a responsibility, to provide this sort of universal medical program for its citizens.  They cite the other nations of the world as example, with the same kinds of programs the Democrats wish to emulate. Their justification being that we, the United States, the leading democracy, the wealthiest, most powerful nation on the planet, should be able to provide care for all.
 
They also use the argument that healthcare is a right, granted by the Constitution as described in the preamble, specifically, the “General Welfare” clause.  They who wish this sort of program reason that the very health of the citizenry must be looked out for and that this justifies their attempt to initiate and execute the nationalization of nearly 20% of the national economy.  It all sound so reasonable, so humane, so compassionate, until you strip all the rhetoric away and see that it is: a complete fabrication that can’t be sustained. 
 
The Constitution has many parts.  The preamble is designed to state broad goals of government.  Some are quite specific. “Establish justice” implies that government should be the agent to ensure that justice be meted out fairly to all. “Provide for the common defense” states plainly that the government has the obligation to defend the realm from enemies both foreign and domestic. The line “promote the general welfare’ has been expanded and stretched far beyond what the original framers of the document intended. The intention was that government should encourage the general prosperity by preventing if possible, ill-conceived, damaging or improper acts from occurring that violated the enumerated powers, thus harming the general welfare of the state and its people.  The constitution was writen giving specific responsibilities to federal government, outlined absolute rights of the citizens (the Bill of Rights) and left the states and the individual citizenry all other powers not specifically enumerated in the document.
 

The problems we find ourselves in today are directly attributed to the damage done by the Roosevelt Administration nearly 80 years ago.

In the 1930’s, limited, constitutional government was threatened, then destroyed when Franklin Roosevelt attempted to get many of his “New Deal” policies passed through congress and into law. We were in the middle of a depression and the economy was in a shambles.  The programs that were passed were challenged by many and then eventually found their way to the Supreme Court.  After much argument and serious judicial review, the laws were found to be unconstitutional.  These challenges began in 1935 and over the next 16 months, the court reviewed 10 specific laws and struck down 8 of them as failing to meet the test of constitutionality; they violated the premises of “enumerated powers” granted to the federal government in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.  Any powers not specific to this article are reserved to the states or to the citizens.
 
Roosevelt desired powers similar in scope to those needed in time of war to accomplish his goals.  The economic emergency he felt justified his actions.  Like today, many very poorly considered, poorly drafted pieces of legislation were put through with very little if any debate.  Some were not even printed up prior to a vote so they could be read and reviewed, and were simply passed without any review.  Since the president and his party enjoyed overwhelming majorities in both the House and Senate, there was little the opposition could do to stop it.  Very similar conditions exist today as then.
 
After the Supreme Court struck down these laws, the President, in effect, declared war on the Supreme Court. In March of 1937, in a “Fireside Chat” radio broadcast, he stated;
 
 “we have therefore, reached the point as a nation where we must take action to save the Constitution from the Court and the Court from itself.”
 
In a letter to a representative from Pennsylvania, he urged passing of the National Bituminous Coal Conservation Act, in spite of the knowledge of the doubtful nature of its constitutionality.
 
The elections of 1936 further empowered and emboldened the Democrats and gave further power to Roosevelt to enact his policies.  What happened next was what historians refer to as the “The Revolution of 1937” when the President began an active , punitive campaign against the last bastion of conservative, constructionist interpretation of the Constitution, The United States Supreme Court. The president attempted to “pack the court” by adding additional justices to the bench, using the pretext that the elderly justices, many of whom were over 70 years of age, needed the additional help due to the excessive case load.  This was an obvious subterfuge, but sufficiently scared the Chief Justice, Charles Evan Hughes, that he attempted to formulate a plan to protect the courts traditional role as “guardian of the Constitution”.  His actions were based on the premise that loosing a tactical fight with Roosevelt over some issues would prevent losses on a larger scale in order to allow for ultimate judicial supremacy on more weighty and important issues later.
 
The make-up of the court was fairly even with 3 more liberal justices, 2 moderates, 4 conservatives; Hughes was one of the 2 moderates.  The other moderate, Justice Roberts, was encourage to move left of center to remove the impetus for Roosevelt’s court packing scheme.  Unfortunately, the rulings that were made then have given us many legacy issues that we have today, one specifically, Social Security, continues to be one of the biggest wealth transfers in the country.  The justification for all that Roosevelt did was the “general welfare’ section of the preamble.
 
From the moment Chief Justice Hughes caved, and the principle of “general Welfare” as justification for government larges was made legal precedent, the public had in effect, been granted access, via their elected representatives, to the public purse for private use, through entitlement programs. This was the first trip down the slippery slope that has now become economic disaster for us today nearly 80 years later.  One wonders what Mr. Chief Justice Hughes would say if he were alive today to see what he had wrought.
 
In 1951, Justice Roberts wrote:
 
“In looking back, it is difficult to see how the Court could have resisted the popular urge…an insistence by the court on holding federal power to what seemed it’s appropriate orbit when the Constitution was adopted might have resulted in even more radical changes to our duel structure than those which have gradually accomplished through the extension of limited jurisdiction conferred on the federal government.”
 
There was little erosion in the intervening years due to World War II, the Korean War, and the fairly conservative years under both Eisenhower and Kennedy.  It wasn’t until the Johnson administration that we saw the complete disintegration of the “enumerated powers” barrier. 
 
The arrival of the “Great Society” programs were the death knell to States and individual rights and the breach that allowed the federal government to provide “something for everyone”.  Congress lacked the political will or fiscal discipline to reign in spending. In the name of social justice and egalitarianism, the government, using the justification of improving the “general welfare”, once again, began routinely running massive deficits that have continued to this day in ever increasing amounts.  There has been virtually unlimited tax/borrow and spend activities without any real abatement.  The spending that can be justified using “general welfare” as a basis has allowed Congress and the President to enter into a bidding war with the public, each out-bidding the other in the attempt to buy the favor of the people.  Individuals within and outside of Congress compete for votes and power  by attempting to out promises the other to gain advantage and hence, more power via the public purse.
 
As of today, August 13, 2009, the United States is the biggest debtor nation in the history of the world.  We have this year, accumulated $1.3 TRILLION in additional debt which is nearly 4 times the debt of the previous year.  The total accumulated public debt of the United States is approximately $12 TRILLION dollars.  The amounts seem impossible, almost unfathomable.  But it is real and a fatal danger to our Republic and our traditional way of life.  This debt must be paid off someday by someone- perhaps, our grandchildren or great grand children. 
 
It may take that long….
 
Now the new Obama administration, even more liberal, even more “populist” than we have seen before, possibly even more damaging than Roosevelt’s administration was, has risen to power and has begun a process to in effect, nationalize the health delivery system of the nation.  They make many claims, promises much to assuage the fears of the masses, but it is clear that if they get their way, we will see the greatest hit against the original intent of Constitutional government since 1937.  It will definitely be the greatest reduction of personal freedom and liberty ever seen in modern times and We the People, could well see the public debt increase to the point of national insolvency. 
 
This must stop…
 
In order to save the Republic, we must stop and then begin to roll back the trend to spend public money for maintenance of individual people and the financing of private enterprise like the bail-outs and “stimulus” payments we have seen pass this year.  We need constitutional amendments that repeal the income tax, the most regressive, and debilitating tax on prosperity there is, and to limit the scope of taxing and spending power that can be done at the federal level.  We must insist in a “Balanced Budget” amendment that will force under penalty of law, the Congress and the Executive Branch to account for all monies spent and collected and report it to the people, then balancing the spending of government funds to match revenues in each budget year.  The several states need to reassert their traditional roles and insist on their sovereign rights and prerogatives by reasserting their authority under the 10th Amendment.  If the Federal government encroaches, the states and individual citizens must act either individually or collectively to put down the encroachment on their prerogatives.
 
By conducting themselves as they did, President Roosevelt and Chief Justice Hughes, set into motion much of the framework that now encumbers and entangles us today. 
 
 James Madison, when asked specifically about the “General Welfare” clause, if it was a grant of unlimited power, he replied in a letter to Henry Lee,
 
 “If not the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment (the Constitution) should be thrown into the fire at once!”

 



Posted by Benjamin F. Snowden, Jr.
August 14, 2009 1:29 pm

View/Add Comments

The senate is having problems convincing Republicans to approve further spending on the “Cash for Clunkers” program that ran out of money this week.

This should be a slam-dunk for the Democrats, but apparently it isn't. The additional $2 billion sought was to allow the program to continue so that Americans can get a subsidy to swap out less efficient, polluting gas guzzlers for more efficient, cleaner vehicles. These subsidies are from $3500-$4500 per qualifying vehicle. One of the problems with this program is the “qualifying” part. It only applies to vehicles that are manufactured after 1986. This seems strange if the goal was really about getting dirty, inefficient, gas guzzling vehicles off the road. It would make sense to want ALL vehicles who are in existence, all vehicles who get poor mileage, which may or may not have pollution control systems like catalytic converters to be eligible for the program. The program supposedly forces dealers who take these trade-ins to destroy the vehicles so they can't end up back on the road. Why are older vehicles excluded?

 The other requirements, such as having to have owned, insured and registered an operational vehicle for at least a year prior to trading in that vehicle, prevents people from just buying a junk yard vehicle and swapping out for a new vehicle. This makes some sense.

The problems with the program are great. It is reported that dealers have given these rebates, but the government has been slow to pay the dealers back. Nearly half of the monies given out by dealers have yet to be paid back to the dealers. The mountains of paperwork to wade through to qualify a buyer and his trade in are daunting. Some buyers are finding out that manufacturers rebates can't be used with the government subsidy and that any discounts on vehicles some would expect to get, are not being offered as dealers feel no pressure to negotiate.

Many trades in vehicles find there way to the secondary market to be resold. Some end up in dismantling facilities to become spare parts for other vehicles if their condition is such that they could not be resold as a running, saleable vehicle. The vehicles brought in under this program must be rendered inoperative (crushed). The regulations stipulate this therefore their value as potential spare parts for like vehicles still on the road is negated. This is having the unintended consequence of creating a potential shortage of core spares for reconditioning for the vehicles still on the road. Perhaps this is intentional. Who suffers for this except the less affluent that need to keep their vehicles on the road with those spare parts that will now become even scarier than they were, therefore more expensive and hard to find. Have a 1989 Ford Taurus wagon with a bad transaxle? Maybe you can't afford the rebuild but you might get one from the junk yard.....ooops! They are out of them and the local supply is all crushed by the government edict. Now what? Maybe you can find one on the web and get it shipped to you at a greatly inflated price.

 This is just one scenario of course......

 

Maybe this whole program is a bailout for Detroit in disguise. The Unions and their workers are getting canned right and left, and the government is THE major stockholder on G.M. What better way to get some cash flow to “Government Motors”? What better way to get cash funneled to their union buddies while looking “enlightened” and “green”. The problem is that “Clunker Coupons” don't do much except add to the deficit and do little to increase the national wealth as most of the cars sold are old inventory that is being burned off, ding little to return auto workers to their jobs. Also most of the vehicles sold are small cars that have little profit margin for the automakers. The staple of the most profitable vehicles sold in the past were SUV's and full size pick-ups which are not the sorts of vehicles most folks are buying these days.

There might be a spike in the GDP in the third and fourth quarter which should make Obama and his minions crow with delight, making claims that all is working to plan and that recovery is just around the corner.

Certain quarters in Washington seem surprised that this program has dispensed so much cash so fast. Why should they be surprised?   When you subsidize an activity, you get more of it.  The U.S. Government has now become the go-to guy for cash, giving money to car buyers at our expense just so they will buy a car which they probably would have bought anyway. The automakers are off the hook, not having to make the best deal they can, or give the customary incentives to lure buyers. They also get to sell off old inventory without having to work hard or bargain hard for the deal. It is a win/win for the government and automakers, but a loose/loose for the average Joe who get to pay more taxes to service the debt, see more deficit spending, and they get to subsidies their neighbors’ car purchase via their taxes. For the car dealers, they get to sell cars, fill out massive quantities of government paperwork via a slow and sometimes intermittent website, and then wait around for the government to pay them back for the “Clunker Coupons” they redeemed. Some dealers report that the website has crashed repeatedly making it difficult if not impossible to process the rebates.

So much for government efficiency.... And these folks want to control our healthcare.....

 



Posted by Benjamin F. Snowden, Jr.
August 14, 2009 1:18 pm

View/Add Comments

 

The cost of energy is one of the greatest challenges facing this country and our Commonwealth in the coming years.

 

As a member of Congress, one of the most important areas Chuck Smith will address, will be energy policy and how it relates to environmental regulations. I myself have serious concerns about existing policy and some of the present and future proposals I have seen from the Democrat controlled House of Representatives, backing laws that restrict the access, exploitation of energy resources at market price. Even the Democrat Governor of Virginia, Tim Kaine, has asked the Department of the Interior to not allow changes to present policies to permit access and exploitation to potential sites containing the energy resources we need so desperately. Why would he do that when it so hurts our economy and when it could be of such immeasurable value to all Virginians? What greater cause is he, or the Democratic Party he is Chairman of, serving that trumps such vital needs of Virginia and the nation?

 

Do the Democrats understand that it isn’t just an economic issue, but a national security issue that must be dealt with? I believe they do understand. I also believe they have their own agenda and that it bodes badly for us all who seek jobs, economic growth, and fiscal responsibility. But is their agenda YOUR agenda?



Let us look at some recent history and a few facts.

 

Fact: We are addicted to imported energy. That is a simple, inescapable truth. We must have domestic, secure supplies of energy. This was demonstrated plainly in the 1970’s Middle East Oil Embargo. It is hard to truly understand and appreciate how important this issue is until you have stood in line for hours, waiting for a turn to receive a short ration of gasoline, only to find out that the station has run out, and you are turned away without any until your chance to stand in line again comes in a day or two….maybe. I remember how it was as I waited with my father in line only to be turned away.

 

It is true that the Democrats have espoused the virtues of “green” technology. But they have put forth legislation to tax energy to the point of making our modern way of life very much more expensive and harder to maintain, all in the name of “helping the environment” and preventing “Global Warming”. The “Cap and Trade” legislation that was recently passed in the House of Representatives will cost average Americans hundreds if not thousands of dollars in extra taxes on the goods and services all Americans use.  This tax is on the “carbon” that is produced to generate electrical energy or created in the manufacture of products that we all buy. The trade in “carbon credits” while enriching those who trade in them, will provide a windfall to the U.S. Treasury as the government will tax the profits.  This little scheme will make everything we use more expensive. This will further result in continuing erosion of our industrial base as manufacturing job move to countries that don’t tax based on emissions of so-called greenhouse gases. Countries like China, and India who have already said they would not limit their carbon footprints at the expense of their economic prosperity.

 

Currently, we are streaming billions of dollars to countries who hate us yet feed our addiction to imported oil.  According to Warren Buffet, one of the most knowledgeable and successful energy moguls and financiers in recent history, America spends over 700 BILLION on energy imports.  We are importing between 55 to 60% of our oil.  That amount grows each and every year.  Our domestic production is falling and we are now competing with counties like China and India. Both these nations, with populations in the billions, are beginning to seriously compete with us over a rapidly shrinking pool of resources.  We are also being sold a “bill of goods” over the notion of “Global Warming”.  The lack of cohesive scientific proof doesn’t seem to bother the Democrats who are beholden to the environmentalist lobby.  Another roadblock to increasing availability is the denial of access to public lands for energy exploitation like the areas of Northern Alaska that have been put off-limits to oil and gas exploration and drilling. They want energy to become scarce, for prices to rise, and to force us to limit growth and to reduce our living standard to appease their agenda.

 

The concept of using renewable energy is a compelling one.  We need to explore every avenue available for sustainable energy for the future.  Unfortunately, the options now are not for the most part, economically viable nor are the practical due to technological limitations and environmental issues.  Most technologies are not easily deployed (would you like a 150-200 foot tower with a giant wind turbine on it in your back yard?).  Some create problems more severe than they solve, like electric cars, which have batteries constructed of toxic heavy metals with relatively short useful lives. Expensive to replace when they can no longer hold a charge, the must be recycled in plants that don’t presently exist.  Most solutions utilizing wind and solar require hugely expansive facilities and are more unsightly and less efficient than conventional plants. Nor does the electrical grid have the capacity to charge all those “green” electric cars and power our homes and businesses at the same time.  California, the most populous state in the union, and the greatest proponent of electric vehicles could not hope to cope with any real increase in electric vehicle use as they have regularly suffered from power shortages in the past, especially when the summer comes to Southern California. 

 

The lack of electrical generation capability is becoming a real concern and we need answers to resolve this growing problem.  We need domestically sourced, readily deployable, and commercially viable alternatives.  To simply say that we need to be eco-friendly, and taxing ourselves to the point where those who can least afford it can’t heat their homes or operate their vehicles due to excessively high cost, is both cruel and completely unnecessary.

 

The vast sums of money expended on foreign sources of energy should remain in America where they belong, where they can do Americans some good.  Most true conservatives like Chuck Smith, have decried the vast transfer of wealth to nations like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Mexico and others that buy little from us return, and who are politically and economically adverse to us. It is a ridiculous and potentially dangerous situation that must change if we are to remain secure and prosperous.

 

As a former military officer, Chuck Smith knows what a threat to our security this sort of dependence can become, and what a great and exploitable vulnerability this presents to those who wish us ill.  As a business owner, I know what high energy costs can mean to other business owners and to those who make and buy our products.  It is a major weakness that has been used before against us and can be used again with even greater effect now as our dependence has become greater since the 1970’s when the OPEC nations embargoed oil shipments to us.  I remember the long lines for gas and the rationing programs that hobbled us for months.  We must never be in that position again.

 

As the prospective Representative for the 3rd Congressional District, Chuck Smith has said he will do all he can to encourage development of commercially viable, sustainable and readily available sources of energy for those of us here in the Commonwealth, and for the nation as a whole. 

 

Off the shores of our Commonwealth lie massive deposits of oil and gas that can be easily exploited and used to the benefit of all Virginians and to the benefit of all Americans.  We have the largest sea port on the east coast from which to work offshore oil and gas deposits, and to ship this energy to other areas of the country.  According to the Minerals Management Service, part of the U.S. Department of the Interior, there are 130 Million Barrels of oil and 1.14 TRILLION cubic feet of Natural Gas just waiting to be tapped, and those numbers are based on a report issued in the 1970’s using old, obsolete techniques that have since been abandoned.  Areas of the world with similar geological structures have produced far in excess of original projections as new, more advanced exploration; drilling and recovery techniques have drastically increased well yields.  Actual gas field yields could be as high as 30 times greater than the old projections, based on the experience of Canadian producers who have worked fields with similar geology as exists off Virginia’s coast.

 

These resources, so vital to our economy, can and should be used here, providing vital energy and revenue to us.  It would decrease our national dependence on foreign oil and gas, and create jobs and lower the cost of energy to all of us here in the Commonwealth.  States like Alaska and Texas, and Louisiana derive great economic benefit from the energy resources that they exploit off their shores. Why can’t we enjoy the same benefits?  Why do we let those in Washington continue to pass laws that so hamper us from bringing a vitally needed  strategic asset like these gas and oil deposits to market so we can use them to our benefit?  The Democratic Party, their leader, Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia, and their supporters in Congress and elsewhere, are actively hampering us from getting to and exploiting these needed resources.  As your representative in Congress, Chuck Smith will make it a major priority to work towards getting these resources released from the grip of those who would keep them from being accessed, and support legislation to see that we in Virginia get to reap the lion’s share of benefit from the revenue and products brought to market.

 

We also have another valuable resource that has been put under fire by the same interests that support the Democrats now in power. 

 

Virginia is a major producer of coal which is the single most abundant energy source we have available to us here in the United States.  America is the “Saudi Arabia” of coal.  We literally have hundreds of years of usable coal reserves nationwide that can be used to generate electricity or used via chemical conversion, to liquid or gaseous fuels for transportation and to heat homes.  “Clean Coal” technology, like the “Clean Diesel” technologies we are seeing come to market with great success, are available and should be encouraged.



If you believe as I do that we, as a nation, should be as energy independent as possible. That secure, domestic supplies of that energy can lead to economic growth and thus create jobs and lead to business development, and that we should stop sending our energy dollars to potentially hostile and volitile nations, that those dollars should be kept here to circulate in our economy where it can do some good, I ask that you support Chuck Smith, a true conservative, who understands the economic and security issues we face, for Congress for the 3rd District of Virginia.



Posted by Benjamin F. Snowden, Jr.
July 30, 2009 1:57 pm

View/Add Comments

 

“Change we can believe in…..”

 

That’s what we were promised. 

 

We were sold a bill of goods that has lead to a massive increase in the national debt which now hovers at a bit less than 12 TRILLION dollars.  That’s 12,000 Billion dollars ladies and gentlemen.  This is spending that is unsustainable and dangerous to all of us.

 

According to Forbes Magazine, the combined wealth of the 400 richest men and women amount to about 1.57 TRILLION dollars (as of August, 2008).  If all that wealth were seized, liquidated and put into the government treasury, it would cover the budget of the U.S. government for about the last 6 months spending, or about 12-13% of the accumulated national debt of the country if it was used to pay down the debt.  That is a truly frightening statistic.  Even that incredible amount of money is a fraction of what government spends, or has spent in recent years.  Though the amounts vary slightly depending on who you talk to, that variance is minimal.  The facts are that excessive taxation, poorly drafted rules and regulations, and even more poorly spent public monies derived from taxes collected, spent not to create an environment of opportunity, but to feed the furnace of entitlement and subsidy, have contributed greatly to the situation we find ourselves as a nation  today. 

 

The Communist Chinese, the Russians, and other lender nations of the world who have spare capitol from their “Sovereign Wealth Funds”, keep buying our debt in the form of Treasury Bills and other securities, and are in effect, giving us the rope in which to hang ourselves.  Some would say they are giving us a cash “fix” much as a heroine addict gets his fix of that addictive substance to go on day in and day out, strung out and willing to do anything to get more.  The junkies in the Congress and in the White House keep us on this high of deficit spending, entitlement programs and bloated bailouts with no end in sight.   No one seems to have the will or the courage to stop this madness that has gripped the people who appropriating the cash to the literally thousands of government based programs and “earmarks” designed to do everything from send young people to college, to feeding the homeless to figuring out lifecycle of mold spores on wood products, and tracking the mating habits of a little-known fish species called the “Snail Darter”. 

 

The madness must stop and we need men and women who are unafraid of the choices that must be made.  We can’t keep giving money to every allegedly “deserving” person, group or organization, just to get votes.  The country will suffer. Our children and grandchildren will curse us for the legacy of debt and ruin we will leave them.   Our adversaries are funding our demise and will destroy us without ever firing a shot if we can’t return to a much more limited government role and a much more frugal way of doing the peoples business.  All that we have built in recent times is built on debt.  That debt will have to be paid for eventually.  The question is, will the rest of the world say enough is enough and call the note before we can get our fiscal house in order.

 

What can be done?  How can we reverse the trend?

 

We must have sane, hard-nosed, unemotional people to decide what we need to bring us back from the brink of financial and national ruin. 

 

There is plenty of blame to go around.  Whether Democrat, Republican or Independent, we have spent our futures away on all matter of programs and earmarks for decades.  We as a nation simply can’t do that anymore.  We need a truly conservative approach to creating jobs, growth and industry here at home.  Those things that bring prosperity can’t be accomplished trough the confiscation of private wealth for public works.  Japan tried that in the 1990’s and it failed. The U.S. tried it in the 1930’s and ended up lengthening and deepening the depression that was only broken by a World War.  We must learn from the examples history has given us.

 

We need to make a serious effort to spur job creation by making it attractive to do business here in America.  We must stem the tide of job loss overseas by making our laws and tax policies attractive to those who make things and develop technologies to come here or to keep what business activities they have here, in the U.S. employing our people.  The American worker is arguably the most productive and innovative worker in the world.  We need to get them back to work generating products and services that the world needs.

 

One very important way we can spur development of business is to make it profitable for work to be done here rather than overseas. As a business owner, I know first hand that one of the biggest obstacle to that is our extremely high corporate tax rate.  We have the second highest tax rate for businesses in the world.  It is a travesty and is stifling American business activity and competitiveness in the global marketplace.

 

As candidate for Congress for the 3rd District, Chuck Smith has very specific ideas to begin the process of revitalizing our economy.  And he will need your help to get done what needs to be done, to make the changes necessary to begin the work to heal the nation, and begin a process of fiscal responsibility and accountability.

 

Chuck Smith has recommended cuts in tax rates of 10% or more, not only for businesses, but for individuals.  There would be a flood of new business star ups and relocations, much as we saw in the economic expansions that took place in the 80’s and 90’s. Ireland, one of the poorest nations in Europe, is a great success story that implemented many of these same policies. It had a business renaissance in the 1980’s and 90’s by  subscribing to free trade in part as a way to increase domestic competitiveness. It also recognized how protectionist policies, like high tariffs, can distort the path of economic development and investment. It implemented policies focused on facilitating foreign investment and created incentives to aggressively attract it; now Ireland accounts for one-quarter of all U.S. foreign direct investment in Europe. Tax rates were cut drastically, both for businesses and individuals, and the country's fiscal and monetary house was brought into order. In the 1980s, industry and trade unions came together to pave the way for positive and constructive partnership to help restrain wage growth to realistic market driven levels that would keep Irish workers competitive with their European, North American and Asian counterparts.   The money invested by Americans in places like Ireland is money lost to us here.  Monies invested elsewhere will not create jobs and to employ our people.  The trend to invest elsewhere and to outsource jobs and industry to places like Ireland, Mexico, or to the Far East needs to be reversed.

 

America needs to do this and more to encourage business and economic development.  We need a greatly simplified tax system that does not hamper business or the individual.  We also need to reduce or even eliminate the tax on business capital gains to encourage them to start, employ and produce goods and services that Americans and the world need.  The more money in the pockets of individuals and in the possession of business, the broader based and the more sustainable any economic recovery will be.  This model has been proven time and again. 

 

Please help begin the process of bringing our nation back to prosperity by giving Chuck Smith your support in 2010.  There is much to do and we can achieve great things by unleashing the innate greatness of American enterprise and the American spirit.

 



Posted by Benjamin F. Snowden, Jr.
July 30, 2009 11:28 am

View/Add Comments

Dear fellow American:

If you're like a majority of Americans, you don't much like what's going on in Washington, D.C., these days:
  • Unchecked government borrowing from China and other countries determined for many years to unseat America as the world's leading bastion of democracy, individual freedom, and free-market economics.
  • Out-of-control government spending of trillions of our hard-earned tax dollars on questionable schemes to bail out corporate incompetence and fraud.
  • Legislation crafted in secret and riddled with hidden programs to socialize our medical system, the best in the world, and other schemes and strategies to further political domination, greed, corruption and graft.
  • Public speeches and television statements wrapped in high-sounding rhetoric to cloak political agendas and camouflage partisan aims.
For several months, the respected Rasmussen Poll has found that a clear majority of Americans are becoming more and more outraged by these and other insidious machinations in our nation's capital.

And after only a little more than three short months of it, I've already had enough.

If you have, too, let's join forces.

Starting right now, let's begin working together to change the misguided course on which the Obama Administration and Capitol Hill Democrats are directing America.

Let's work together - while there's still time - to put America back on the right track again.

That's why I'm running for the U.S. House of Representatives in Virginia's 3rd Congressional District - and I need your help.

Won't you please contribute to my campaign - $25, $50, $100 or more - today? Click here to donate!

Help me win the 3rd District in 2010.

Help me bring back the conservative representation that the citizens of Hampton Roads and the Eastern Shore demand and expect in Congress.

Am I a conservative?

You bet I am!

Right after high school, I enlisted in the United States Marine Corps and served 6 years, most of it overseas in Okinawa.

After earning my college and law degrees, I began a career in the United States Navy as a member of the Judge Advocate General's Corps, retiring at the rank of Commander.

Since then, continuing my 31 years experience as an attorney, I have practiced law in my own Virginia Beach firm.

Politically, I have served as chairman of the Virginia Beach Republican Party, and currently I am a member of the Virginia Republican State Central Committee and chairman of the Republican Party of Virginia's Ethnic Coalitions Committee.

On issues, I am adamantly pro-life; back a strong national defense second to none; defend the Second Amendment's gun rights; support fiscal restraint in government with reduced spending, a balanced federal budget and no new taxes or increases; advocate the elimination of wasteful government spending; strongly favor the right to work; oppose same-gender marriage and illegal immigration; and favor lifelong health and medical care for military veterans wounded or seriously injured in the line of duty; as well as guaranteed voting rights for active duty military personnel and their families.

If you agree with me on the issues, please support my candidacy with your contribution to my campaign. Click here to donate.

It takes money to win elections - often lots of it - well beyond the financial means of most of us.

Your generous contribution to my campaign - as much as you can afford - will be greatly appreciated and will help make it possible for your views to be well represented in the U.S. House of Representatives.

I promise you truly that I will be your dedicated, responsible and responsive Congressman, representing you honestly and fully.

And I will not let you down.

Yours most sincerely,

Chuck Smith

P.S. A head start is always needed in politics. That's why I've begun campaigning so early. And an early start means the need for early money. Your campaign contribution now will be appreciated. Please help. Thank you. Click here to donate.


Posted by Chuck Smith
May 12, 2009 3:05 pm

View/Add Comments

Friends and Supporters,
 
Welcome to Chuck Smith's blog! This will be one of the many places to connect with Chuck and learn more about his historic campaign.
 
As we move toward the Elections in 2010, I will be speaking with Chuck Smith and others about the concerns of the people in the 3rd Congressional district and posting my views, questions and those of the people of our district and getting his views and ideas to those views and questions.  This is a give and take between Chuck and us, the people of the 3rd District, and we need your feed back and ideas.
 
Also, we encourage you to debate and discuss recent issues affecting the 3rd Congressional District here in Virginia.


Posted by Ben Snowden
March 14, 2009 7:20 pm

View/Add Comments