Islam—Facts or Dreams?

Typically, we have proffered our opinions on the rapid descent of America into the pit of shredded ideals and the tilt toward socialism. Today however, we invite our readers to evaluate the following speech that will awaken the consciousness of those that still have an inkling of where this great nation once stood, and where it is heading right now.

Islam—Facts or Dreams?

Andrew C. McCarthy – National Review Institute

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on February 24, 2016, at Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C., as part of the AWC Family Foundation Lecture Series.

 “Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.”

“In 1993 I was a seasoned federal prosecutor, but I only knew as much about Is­lam as the average American with a reasonably good education—which is to say, not much. Consequently, when I was assigned to lead the prosecution of a terrorist cell that had bombed the World Trade Center and was plotting an even more devastating strike—simultaneous attacks on the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels, the United Na­tions complex on the East River, and the FBI’s lower Manhattan headquarters—I had no trouble believing what our government was saying: that we should read nothing into the fact that all the men in this terrorist cell were Muslims; that their actions were not representative of any religion or belief system; and that to the extent they were explaining their atrocities by citing Islamic scripture, they were twisting and perverting one of the world’s great religions, a religion that encourages peace.

Unlike commentators and government press secretaries, I had to examine these claims. Prosecutors don’t get to base their cases on assertions. They have to prove things to commonsense Americans who must be satisfied about not only what happened but why it happened before they will convict people of serious crimes. And in examining the claims, I found them false.

One of the first things I learned concerned the leader of the terror cell, Omar Abdel Rahman, infamously known as the Blind Sheikh. Our government was portraying him as a wanton killer who was lying about Islam by preaching that it summoned Muslims to jihad or holy war. Far from a lunatic, however, he turned out to be a globally renowned scholar— a doctor of Islamic jurisprudence who graduated from al-Azhar University in Cairo, the seat of Sunni Islamic learning for over a millennium. His area of academic expertise was sharia—Islamic law.

I immediately began to wonder why American officials from President Bill Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno on down, officials who had no background in Muslim doctrine and culture, believed they knew more about Islam than the Blind Sheikh. Then something else dawned on me: the Blind Sheikh was not only blind; he was beset by several other medical handicaps. That seemed relevant. After all, terrorism is hard work. Here was a man incapable of doing anything that would be useful to a terrorist organization—he couldn’t build a bomb, hijack a plane, or carry out an assassination. Yet he was the unquestioned leader of the terror cell. Was this because there was more to his interpretation of Islamic doctrine than our government was conceding? Defendants do not have to testify at criminal trials, but they have a right to testify if they choose to—so I had to prepare for the possibility. Raised an Irish Catholic in the Bronx, I was not foolish enough to believe I could win an argument over Muslim theology with a doctor of Islamic jurisprudence. But I did think that if what we were saying as a government was true—that he was perverting Islam—then there must be two or three places where I could nail him by saying, “You told your followers X, but the doctrine clearly says Y.” So my colleagues and I pored over the Blind Sheikh’s many writings. And what we found was alarming: whenever he quoted the Koran or other sources of Islamic scripture, he quoted them accurately.

Now, you might be able to argue that he took scripture out of context or gave an incomplete account of it. In my subsequent years of studying Islam, I’ve learned that this is not a particularly persuasive argument. But even if one concedes for the purposes of discussion that it’s a color­able claim, the inconvenient fact remains: Abdel Rahman was not lying about Islam.

When he said the scriptures command that Muslims strike terror into the hearts of Islam’s enemies, the scriptures backed him up.

When he said Allah enjoined all Muslims to wage jihad until Islamic law was established throughout the world, the scriptures backed him up.

When he said Islam directed Muslims not to take Jews and Christians as their friends, the scriptures backed him up.

You could counter that there are other ways of construing the scriptures. You could contend that these exhortations to violence and hatred should be “contextualized”—i.e., that they were only meant for their time and place in the seventh century. Again, I would caution that there are compelling arguments against this manner of interpreting Islamic scripture. The point, however, is that what you’d be arguing is an interpretation.

The fact that there are multiple ways of construing Islam hardly makes the Blind Sheikh’s literal construction wrong. The blunt fact of the matter is that, in this contest of competing interpretations, it is the jihadists who seem to be making sense because they have the words of scripture on their side—it is the others who seem to be dancing on the head of a pin. For our present purposes, however, the fact is that the Blind Sheikh’s summons to jihad was rooted in a coherent interpretation of Islamic doctrine. He was not perverting Islam— he was, if anything, shining a light on the need to reform it.

Another point, obvious but inconvenient, is that Islam is not a religion of peace. There are ways of interpreting Islam that could make it something other than a call to war. But even these benign constructions do not make it a call to peace. Verses such as “Fight those who believe not in Allah,” and “Fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war,” are not peaceful injunctions, no matter how one contextualizes.

Another disturbing aspect of the trial against the Blind Sheikh and his fellow jihadists was the character witnesses who testified for the defense. Most of these people were moderate, peaceful Muslim Americans who would no more commit terrorist acts than the rest of us. But when questions about Islamic doctrine would come up—”What does jihad mean?” “What is sharia?” “How might sharia apply to a certain situation?”— these moderate, peaceful Muslims explained that they were not competent to say. In other words, for the answers, you’d have to turn to Islamic scholars like the Blind Sheikh.

Now, understand: there was no doubt what the Blind Sheikh was on trial for. And there was no doubt that he was a terrorist—after all, he bragged about it. But that did not disqualify him, in the minds of these moderate, peaceful Muslims, from rendering authoritative opinions on the meaning of the core tenets of their religion. No one was saying that they would follow the Blind Sheikh into terrorism—but no one was discrediting his status either.

Although this came as a revelation to me, it should not have. After all, it is not as if Western civilization had no experience dealing with Islamic supremacy—what today we call “Islamist” ideology, the belief that sharia must govern society. Winston Churchill, for one, had encountered it as a young man serving in the British army, both in the border region between modern-day Afghanistan and Pakistan and in the Sudan—places that are still cauldrons of Islamist terror. Ever the perceptive observer, Churchill wrote:”

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy…. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property—either as a child, a wife, or a concubine—must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.”

Habitually, I distinguish between Islam and Muslims. It is objectively important to do so, but I also have a personal reason: when I began working on national security cases, the Muslims I first encountered were not terrorists. To the contrary, they were pro-American patriots who helped us infiltrate terror cells, disrupt mass-murder plots, and gather the evidence needed to convict jihadists. We have an obligation to our national security to understand our enemies; but we also have an obligation to our principles not to convict by association—not to confound our Islamist enemies with our Muslim allies and fellow citizens. Churchill appreciated this distinction. “Individual Moslems,” he stressed, “may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen.” The problem was not the people, he concluded. It was the doctrine.

What about Islamic law? On this topic, it is useful to turn to Robert Jackson, a giant figure in American law and politics—FDR’s attorney general, justice of the Supreme Court, and chief prosecutor of the war crimes trials at Nuremberg. In 1955, Justice Jackson penned the foreword to a book called Law in the Middle East. Unlike today’s government officials, Justice Jackson thought sharia was a subject worthy of close study. And here is what he concluded:

“In any broad sense, Islamic law offers the American lawyer a study in dramatic contrasts. Even casual acquaintance and superficial knowledge—all that most of us at bench or bar will be able to acquire—reveal that its striking features relative to our law are not likenesses but inconsistencies, not similarities but contrarieties. In its source, its scope and its sanctions, the law of the Middle East is the antithesis of Western law.”

Contrast this with the constitution that the U.S. government helped write for post-Taliban Afghanistan, which showed no awareness of the opposition of Islamic and Western law. That constitution contains soaring tropes about human rights, yet it makes Islam the state religion and sharia a principal source of law—and under it, Muslim converts to Christianity have been subjected to capital trials for apostasy.

Sharia rejects freedom of speech as much as freedom of religion. It rejects the idea of equal rights between men and women as much as between Muslim and non-Muslim. It brooks no separation between spiritual life and civil society. It is a comprehensive framework for human life, dictating matters of government, economy, and combat, along with per­sonal behavior such as contact between the sexes and personal hygiene. Sharia aims to rule both believers and non-believers, and it affirmatively sanctions jihad in order to do so.

Even if this is not the only construc­tion of Islam, it is absurd to claim—as President Obama did during his recent visit to a mosque in Baltimore—that it is not a mainstream interpretation.

Fact, it is the mainstream interpretation in many parts of the world. Last year, Americans were horrified by the beheadings of three Western journalists ISIS. American and European politicians could not get to microphones fast enough to insist that these decapitations have  nothing to do with Islam. Yet within the  same time frame, the government of Saudi Arabia beheaded eight people for various violations of sharia—the law that governs Saudi Arabia. Three weeks before Christmas, a jihadist couple—an American citizen, a son of Pakistani immigrants, and Pakistani wife who had been welcomed into our country on a fiancee visa—carried out a jihadist attack in San Bernardino, California, killing 14 people. Our government, as with the case in Fort Hood—where a jihadist who had infiltrated the Army killed 13 innocents, mostly fellow soldiers—resisted calling the atrocity a “terrorist attack.” Why? Our investigators are good at what they do, and our top officials may be ideological, but they are not stupid. Why is it that they can’t say two plus two equals four when Islam is involved?

The reason is simple: stubbornly unwilling to deal with the reality of Islam, our leaders have constructed an Islam of their very own. This triumph of willful blindness and political correctness over common sense was best illustrated a former British Home Secretary Jacquie Smith when she described terrorism as “anti-Islamic activity.” In other words, the savagery is not merely unrelated to Islam; : becomes, by dint of its being inconsistant with a “religion of peace,” contrary to Islam. This explains our government’s handwringing over “radicalization”: we re supposed to wonder why young Muslims spontaneously become violent radicals—as if there is no belief system involved. This is political correctness on steroids, and it has dangerous policy implications. Consider the inability of government officials to call a mass-murder attack by Muslims a terrorist attack unless and until the police uncover evidence proving that the mass murderers have some tie to a designated terrorist group, such as ISIS or al Qaeda. It is rare for such evidence to be uncovered early in an investigation—and as a matter of fact, such evidence often does not exist. Terrorist recruits already share the same ideology as these groups: the goal of imposing sharia. All they need in order to execute terrorist attacks is paramilitary training, which is readily available in more places than just Syria.

The dangerous flip side to our government’s insistence on making up its own version of Islam is that anyone who is publicly associated with Islam must be deemed peaceful. This is how we fall into the trap of allowing the Muslim Brotherhood, the world’s most influential Islamic supremacist organization, to infiltrate policy-making organs of the U.S. government, not to mention our schools, our prisons, and other institutions. The federal government, particularly under the Obama administration, acknowledges the Brotherhood as an Islamic organization—notwithstanding the ham-handed attempt by the intelligence community a few years back to rebrand it as “largely secular”—thereby giving it a clean bill of health. This despite the fact that Hamas is the Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch, that the Brotherhood has a long history of terrorist violence, and that major Brotherhood figures have gone on to play leading roles in terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda.

To quote Churchill again: “Facts are better than dreams.” In the real world, we must deal with the facts of Islamic supremacism, because its jihadist legions have every intention of dealing with us. But we can only defeat them if we resolve to see them for what they are. ”


Soccos invites its readers to submit their comments

Social Media: Follow us on Twitter!

Posted in BIG & BIGGER GOVERNMENT! | 1 Comment

Charitable Giving and the Fabric of America

To support some of the tenets of, first and foremost, the governance of the people by the people, we would like our readers to take in the following talk by Karl Zinmeister delivered on January 29, 2016 at Hillsdale College. It is reprinted here by permission from IMPRIMIS, a publication of Hillsdale College with over 3 million subscribers.

“Private philanthropy is crucial in making America the unusual country that it is. Let’s start with some numbers. Our nonprofit sector now comprises eleven percent of the total United States workforce. It will contribute around six percent of gross domestic product this year. To put this in perspective, the charitable sector passed the national defense sector in size in 1993, and it continues to grow. And these numbers don’t take volunteering into account: charitable volunteers make up the equivalent—depending on how you count—of between four and ten million full-time employees. So philanthropy is clearly a huge force in our society.

To begin to understand this crucial part of America, it is useful—and also inspiring—to consider some of America’s great philanthropists.

Ned Mcllhenny, born and raised in a Louisiana bayou, had a day job in addition to being a philanthropist: manufacturing and selling the hot pep­per condiment invented by his family, Mcllhenny Tabasco. There is big money in helping people burn their tongues, and Mcllhenny used his resulting for­tune for an array of good works. I’ll give you just one example. When he was young, hats with egret plumes were all the rage for ladies—like Coach handbags today—with the effect that the snowy egret, a magnificent creature native to Louisiana’s bayous, had become nearly extinct. In response, Mcllhenny beat the bushes to find eight baby egrets on a pri­vate island his family owned. By 1911, he built up a population of 100,000 egrets on the island. At the same time, he con­vinced John D. Rockefeller and other philanthropists to help him purchase some swampy land to use as a winter refuge for egrets and other birds.

Another American philanthropist was Alfred Loomis. Passionate about science from early boyhood, he entered law school when his father died in order to be able to support the family. Hating the study of law and wishing to return to science, he went to work on Wall Street, and by the early 1930s he had become one of the richest men in America. Retiring from finance, he set up one of the world’s great experimental labs in a mansion across the street from his home north of New York City.

In 1938, Loomis visited Berlin and was struck by two things: Hitler’s popularity and the brilliance of German scientists. He returned home convinced that war was brewing and that science would have a lot to do with who won. He poured himself and his fortune into a promising new field that had defense applications—a way to use radio waves to detect moving objects— and his lab very quickly became the national leader in what we now call radar. Thousands of radar sets created under Loomis’s supervision did much to turn the tide of World War II.

Even more than his money, Loomis’s methods account for his remarkable success. Appalled by the bureaucracy and sluggishness of government research programs, he took a radically different approach in his lab. When it became apparent how successful his approach had been in producing radar, the Department of Defense copied it directly for the Manhattan Project, even hiring many of the scientists from Loomis’s radar lab. President Roosevelt later said that there was no civil­ian who did more to win World War II than Alfred Loomis.

Another philan­thropist was Kodak founder George Eastman, who popu­larized photography in the early 1900s. When he began his business, photography was all art and guesswork, and very little sci­ence. He hired chem­ists from an obscure school called Boston Tech, and out of grati­tude for what they did for his company he later provided most of the money that trans­formed Boston Tech into the powerhouse MIT. And he did so anonymously—for years and years, the donor behind MIT was referred to as “Mr. Smith.” Eastman also had a passion for music, so he methodically created and built to world prominence the Eastman School of Music at the University of Rochester. The Eastman School played an impor­tant role in popularizing classical music in America, and it remains today one of our top cultural institutions. Another great American donor was Milton Hershey, who transformed chocolate from an expensive indul­gence of the wealthy into an afford­able treat for all. More importantly, he was responsible, with his wife, for the creation of a school for orphans. Hershey’s father had been a drinker and a neglectful family man, and he had known great hardship during his childhood. To relieve other children of hardship, he built a ring of houses encircling his home in Pennsylvania, installing in each a married couple to live with a group of orphans. He also built a school to provide the chil­dren a sound education and training in industrial crafts. Eventually he announced plans “to make the orphan boys of the United States my heirs,” and he endowed the Milton Hershey School with the equivalent of $11 bil­lion in today’s dollars.

* * *

But philanthropy in the United States is not just a story—or even primarily a story—about wealthy people or big foundations. Only 14 percent of charitable giving in our country comes from foundations, and only five percent from corporations. The rest comes from individuals, and the bulk of it comes from small givers at an average rate of about $2,500 per household per year.

Anne Scheiber was a shy auditor who retired in 1944 with $5,000 in the bank. Through frugal living and inspired stock investment, she man­aged to turn this into $22 million by the time she died in 1995 at the age of 101. She left it to Yeshiva University so that bright but needy girls could attend college and medical school.

Elinor Sauerwein painted her own home, mowed her own lawn, and kept a vegetable garden in Modesto, California, until she was in her 90s. She avoided cable TV and almost never ate out. Her financial advisor reported that her goal was to amass as much wealth as she could for the Salvation Army—to which, when she died in 2011, she left $1.7 million.

Albert Lexie has shined shoes in Pittsburgh for over 40 years. He decided years ago to donate his tips to the Free Care Fund of the Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh. Since 1981, Lexie has donated over $200,000 to the fund, about a third of his total earnings.

Oseola McCarty of Hattiesburg, Mississippi, dropped out of school in sixth grade to support the woman who raised her, going to work as a washerwoman. She preferred using boiling pots, a scrub board, and 100 feet of open-air clothesline to an automatic washer and dryer, which she said didn’t meet her standards. When she retired in 1995, she had $280,000 in the bank. She set aside what she needed to live on and donated $150,000 to the University of Southern Mississippi, about two miles from where she lived, to fund schol­arships for needy students to receive the education she never had. When news of her gift got out, citizens of Hattiesburg made donations that more than tripled her initial endowment. Today, several full tuition McCarty scholarships are awarded each year.

Many remarkable things have come about in America through the aggregation of dispersed giving. Historian Daniel Boorstin has noted that in 1880, the state of Ohio had only three million inhabitants but 37 colleges. That same year, England had 23 million inhabitants but only four colleges. The difference was small-scale philanthropy directed towards education. Western Reserve College, launched in 1826, was made possible by the giving of thousands of Ohioans, mostly frontier farmers. One supporter spent a whole winter haul­ing building supplies to the school from a quarry about ten miles away. Another family pledged a fraction of its egg and milk sales over a number of years. Of course you at Hillsdale College know this story well, sharing exactly the same sort of beginning.

There are activists today who argue that only money given to the poor should be counted as charitable. Is that a humane argument? It strikes me as astoundingly short-sighted. Most of the philanthropy that has resulted in a reduction of poverty over the years has nothing to do with alms. Consider donors who give to charter schools today. These charter schools are doing more to break the cycles of poverty and human failure than welfare transfers ever could.

Knowledge of our history is an essential element of American citi­zenship. Did you know that George Washington’s Mount Vernon was saved from ruin by thousands of small donors from the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association, under whose protec­tion it continues to operate today? Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello has been protected for more than a century by a private foundation that receives no public funding. The same is true for Montpelier, the home of James Madison, and for the summer cottage where Abraham Lincoln spent a quarter of his presidency and made some of his most momentous decisions—the latter was just restored by private donors and opened to the public in 2008.

America’s great cathedrals are also products of private giving. The build­ing of Saint John the Divine was begun in New York City with a gift from J.P. Morgan, and was completed over a period of decades with the help of thou­sands of small donations. The National Cathedral in Washington, probably the last pure Gothic cathedral that will ever be constructed, was built with small donations over a period of 97 years.

Public libraries too. John Jacob Astor, James Lennox, and Samuel Tilden gave millions of dollars to cre­ate the New York Public Library. In Baltimore, Enoch Pratt provided both money and planning for a multi-branch public library. Andrew Carnegie cre­ated more than 2,500 libraries in towns and cities across the country.

Science in America is deeply entwined with philanthropy. Take the high-end telescopes that allow astronomers to make important discoveries about the universe. The Lick, Yerkes, Mount Wilson, Mount Palomar, and Keck telescopes were filled with light by private money, and the two massive telescopes being built today—the Magellan and Thirty-Meter telescopes—are rely­ing on private donations as well. The Guggenheim family, which we asso­ciate with museums, created nearly all of the aeronautical engineering departments that initially propelled us into space, and was the sole funder of the career of Robert Goddard, the genius most responsible for American leadership in space flight.

John D. Rockefeller’s funding for medical research started around 1901. Forty-seven Nobel Prize winners in science received significant financial support from Rockefeller before they earned their awards, and another 14 were supported at some point by Rockefeller money. The breakthroughs by these men and women include advances in blood typing and genetic research, penicillin, the yellow fever vaccine, and kidney transplants. The John Hartford Foundation funded some of the earliest kidney trans­plants, created the professional societ­ies where kidney experts share infor­mation, and made kidney dialysis practical for the first time.

* * *

The topic of medical research brings to mind the question of how private philanthropy compares to government funding. The former is superior in its ability to be individualized and pluralistic. What do I mean by this? Many of the most success­ful causes in the charitable world— causes like micro lending, Alcoholics Anonymous, mentoring programs, and college dropout programs—rely heavily on one-to-one accountability, taking advantage of the information available when you know who you’re working with. By creating personal transactions, they use the power of relationships to change behavior. As Mother Teresa used to say, “I never think in terms of a crowd, but of individual persons.”

Government programs, by neces­sity, focus on the crowd. Far from having different approaches and rules for different kinds of people, they are about being strictly the same for all participants. They are praised for being consistent, but one-size-fits-all standardization is not really how humans thrive. Individualized ser­vices, hard to come by in government programs, are a hallmark of philan­thropic work.

Which leads us to a fancy word that every American ought to know: polyarchy—referring to a society in which there are many independent sources of power (the opposite of mon­archy). The United States has a notably polyarchic culture, and independent philanthropy is a big part of this. As Yale Law Professor Stephen Carter points out, different people measure community needs with “different calipers,” and millions of individual philanthropic decisions lead to more variety in giving, and more protection for non-mainstream points of view, than government programs.

Still, partly because so much of private charity takes place out of the public eye—on the local level, private, often anonymous—many grossly underestimate its power and insist that major concerns can only be addressed through government action. They seem to have three major criticisms of private philanthropy: one, it’s a drop in the bucket; two, it’s amateurish, chaotic, and lacks expert coordination; and three, private donors act from impure motives.

Drop in the bucket? The Gates Foundation alone distributes more overseas assistance than the entire Italian government. Over its first two decades, its overseas vaccine pro­gram is projected to save the lives of almost eight million children. And the Gates Foundation represents only a tiny sliver of American philan­thropy directed overseas. Members of American churches and synagogues send four-and-a-half times as much to foreigners in need each year as Gates does, and total private American philanthropic aid sent overseas sub­stantially exceeds the foreign aid bud­get of the U.S. government. The latest totals are about $39 billion and $31 billion, respectively.

What about the charge that private philanthropy is amateurish and lacks expert coordination?

Consider Lizzie Kander, who ran a settlement house in the early 1900s that assimilated Russian Jewish immi­grants. She used funds donated by Milwaukee businessmen to teach the immigrants nutrition, sanitation, child development, and employable skills. Needing additional money, she com­piled a cookbook and housekeeping guide to sell as a fundraiser, covering the cost of production by selling ads. It was titled The Settlement Cook Book— with the politically incorrect subtitle, The Way to a Man’s Heart—and even­tually sold two million copies. The revenue stream from this effort ben­efited Jewish immigrants in the Upper Midwest for 75 years, in addition to other charitable projects.

I worked for three years in the West Wing of the White House, and I can tell you that so-called expert coordination isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. The health­iest forms of societal improvement result from lots of little experiments. Some will fail, but others will succeed and be copied. This is the method by which private philanthropy proceeds.

Think about what happens every autumn weekend at hundreds of sta­diums around our country. What is involved when you move a crowd of 50,000 from the stadium to their cars to their homes? If you tried to plan or direct that from a central perch, it would be a mess. There are too many variables. The average fan may not real­ize that he’s exhibiting what scientists call large-scale adaptive intelligence in the absence of central direction, but that’s what he’s doing. There are lots of less trivial examples of this. Essential human tasks like food distribution are managed without any central organi­zation. There’s no agency in charge of making sure that Fort Worth doesn’t run out of milk, but it never does. That’s what happens in a free society. Lack of uniformity and coordination is more often than not a blessing.

What of the third alleged weak­ness of private charity—the idea that private donors have impure motives? Although typical donors are not more interested in getting a tax break or their name on a building than in altru­ism, it’s true that philanthropists are not always angels. But is this a persua­sive argument against private chari­table giving?

J.Paul Getty was a cheapskate who made visitors to his estate use a pay phone, even though he was one of the richest men in the world. When his grandson was kidnapped in Italy and held for a $17 million ransom, he dick­ered over the amount until the kidnap­pers mailed him his grandson’s ear. Even then, Getty was only willing to lend the ransom to his son at a rate of four percent interest. Yet J. Paul Getty also bequeathed to us one of the most sublime collections of Greek and Roman art, a gift that will elevate souls for centuries to come.

Russell Sage, a notorious miser and a convicted usurer, cheated his wife’s father when they were in business together. When a mad extortionist blew up his Wall Street office with dynamite, Sage used one of his clerks as a human shield and then refused to pay compen­sation for the man’s injuries. Yet Sage’s fortunes eventually created one of the most influential early charitable foun­dations in the country.

There are foolish givers and dumb projects. But charitable programs that don’t produce results soon die or are remade into something different.

The genius of the philanthropic mechanism is that it is able to take people just as they are, imperfections and all, and help them do wondrously useful things. Adam Smith noted that freely conducted commerce can turn normal human behaviors, including mercenary ones, into something valu­able. This is as true in the world of phi­lanthropy as it is in business.

Part of the magic of America’s charitable structure is that it is able to convert commonplace private impulses into tremendous uplift for all of society.

We humans are social animals, and we naturally become disturbed and want to help when we see fellow crea­tures in trouble. Early on, Americans discovered that voluntary action to lift others up is not only possible, it is superior to the kind of state paternal­ism that diminishes freedom. Private charitable giving and the spirit of volun-teerism have been essential bulwarks of the American character, and they remain indispensable to our national success. ?


Social Media: Follow us on Twitter!

Posted in BIG & BIGGER GOVERNMENT! | Leave a comment

A Democratic Socialist is a Socialist – Period!

Bernie Sanders calls himself a democratic socialist. There is no such entity, A socialist cannot be deemed democratic any more than there can be a democratic communist or a democratic fascist.  When Sanders touts the Nordic countries as the utopia he is striving for, he should remember that their very existence and survival  has depended upon the power of the United States to shield & protect them from dominating and threatening tyrannies.

Sanders and his followers should consider what fed the engine to allow the USA to become the world power it has? It was Capitalism and the free enterprise system that drove the locomotive toward freedom from tyranny. Indeed,  how could Europe today enjoy its failed experiment in Socialism if it had not been protected by the United States.

My article dated May 2013 fell on deaf ears but hopefully it will be resurrected to fill an information gap that the millennials will analyze carefully before falling into the pit of entitlement mediocrity.

The Slippery Slope from Liberalism to Socialism to Totalitarianism

Here is an extract of an article I wrote in a previous blog;

“To accept socialism is to desire for self-flagellation, to accept punishment by accepting government control in many facets of life is to cede one’s freedom to authoritarian rule. One of the most ridiculous statements I ever heard came from a liberal leaning US tourist I was talking to on a visit to Mexico. I happened to mention that I felt sorry for the plight of the poor people in the market place. My friend said, “Oh, they are very happy!”  I thought to myself, put yourself in their shoes. You might be happy, but would you be content? Therein lies the difference between those who keep the poor in their place, and those of us who want to raise them up with capitalistic opportunity. If you are poor you want freedom to rise above your station. Only capitalism can provide this opportunity. Ask any Cuban!”

This blog frequently warns against the excesses that this President and his fiefdom would and have imposed on this country. Regrettably,  we find that much of the populace has succumbed to the disingenuous rhetoric of His Majesty and minions, and has now been taken up by potential successors.

If common sense and a reading of history was a measurable finite quantity, then those who voted for POTUS and are now following Sanders and Clinton, the number would surely rank at a negative value.

This author believes in economic freedom, which if practiced fairly, provides universal freedom from socialist or totalitarian govt.


Social Media: Follow us on Twitter!

Posted in BIG & BIGGER GOVERNMENT! | Leave a comment

Come on in, everything is for the taking!

SOCCOS has been dormant for a while but a nagging issue requires some comment. The disturbing problem of illegal immigration is without doubt a metastasizing tumor on the body and soul of the United States.   To summarize the quandary the nation finds itself in, we will quote a section of a recent brilliant article in “Imprimis” a monthly publication of Hillsdale College in Michigan. In it, a transcript of a speech by Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute lays out a case of blatant misuse of power by the President of the United States.

Quote; “Article 2, Section 3, of the Constitution mandates that the president”shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This provision assumes that there is a law for the president to execute. But in this case, the “problem” that Obama is purporting to fix is the absence of a law granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. Rather than executing a law, Obama is making one up-abrogating to himself a function that the Constitution explicitly allocates to Congress. Should this unconstitutional power grab stand, we will have moved very far in the direction of rule by dictator. Pace Obama, the absence of a congressional law granting amnesty is not evidence of political failure that must somehow be corrected by executive action; it is evidence of the lack of popular consensus regarding amnesty. There has been no amnesty statute to date because the political will for such an amnesty is lacking.

On February 16, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hansen halted President Obama’s illegal amnesty with a temporary injunction. The proposed amnesty program, Judge Hansen found, went far beyond mere prosecutorial discretion not to enforce the law against individuals. Instead, the Department of Homeland Security proposed  to confer on illegal aliens a new legal status known as “legal presence.” But Congress has not granted DHS the power to create and bestow status. The amnesty program represented a “complete abdication” of DHS’s responsibility to enforce the law, Judge Hansen declared. Indeed, DHS was actively thwarting the express will of Congress.” Unquote.

To place all this in context and to determine just where we as a nation, have come from over a specific period of time, let us look at the immigration requirements in the year 1978 as an example.  Let’s assume a John Doe who is married with a wife and three children is eligible to receive a Green Card if he and his family meet all of the legal requirements. In 1978 this required the following steps;

  • Complete a detailed form of information and provide proof of financial worth to a certain value, or, provide a financial guarantee from a relative who was a US citizen.
  • Provide a Police Certificate from every country lived in for each member of the family aged 18 or over.  The Police Certificate had to show no arrests or crimes had been committed during the period of residency in each particular country.
  • Undergo a blood test to determine that no one in the family over the age of 18 has a communicable disease including venereal disease.
  • Each member of the family to have an X-Ray of the chest to ensure that no one has TB.
  • Undergo an interview at the local US Consulate Offices with a US Consular official to receive authorization to proceed to the United States.
  • On arrival in the United States the X-Ray had to be presented to the Immigration Officer for each member of the family together with the Green Card authorization document.

Swimming the Rio Grande as an alternative means of entering the USA was not an option at that time!  Deportation of illegal immigrants was strictly carried out. There were numerous reports in the ’70’s and ’80’s where people who had started thriving businesses and were employing US citizens were deported because they had over stayed their visas.

We have gone from a zealous strict adherence to the laws of immigration to a free for all of lawless border crossings that is purposely aimed at ultimately diluting the conservative voting block in the USA.  The upholding of the United States Constitution depends upon the separation of powers, but, that in itself requires self acknowledgement by individuals within each Branch of government that they are limited in their influence without the consensus from the other branches.  However, if artificial loop holes or improvised laws are devised by a President and if legitimized by a sympathetic Supreme Court, Democracy as envisaged by the Founding Fathers will have been destroyed.




Social Media: Follow us on Twitter!

Posted in BIG & BIGGER GOVERNMENT! | Leave a comment

The Slippery Slope from Liberalism to Socialism to Totalitarianism

The heading of this article by itself, is sufficient to entice left leaning pundits to rush immediately to defend the ramparts of their ideology.  “What about Capitalists?” they will say. “Can they too develop overwhelming power that can evolve into totalitarianism?”  The answer is of course, no it cannot! There is no evidence in history of any Capitalist who amassed sufficient control over a country’s total industry or infrastructure to a point where the population was subjected to that Capitalist’s totalitarian rule.

On the other hand, history is littered with the debris of shattered economies and lives suffered under the rule of totalitarian governments. One only has to look at Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Cuba, as well the Eastern European countries that were under the Soviet hammer. Many were founded on the principle of Liberal Socialistic ideology, but, inevitably slid to ever increasing levels of totalitarian rule that snuffed out the flame of man’s individual raison d’etre, freedom!

The slope on the Liberal level is steeper and thus more slippery than its counterpart on the Capitalist level. The Capitalist is intent on developing and nurturing an economic model that when practiced fairly or judiciously, spreads wealth on many levels and over a broad range of the populace. The Liberal Capitalist while maintaining the principles of fiscal activity of the standard Capitalist, will provide sustenance and support to more Left leaning entities that ultimately help proliferate the ideologies of Socialism.

As the ideology of wealth sharing permeates further and further into the Liberal agenda, the bureaucracy required to administer it becomes increasingly cumbersome and difficult to manage. Laws are passed and regulations issued which requires ever increasing numbers of government personnel to implement. A self perpetuating level of hiring for the public sector is needed to service the increased numbers of entitlements and benefits.

To facilitate the maintenance of its power base, i.e. the voting majority, the governing body must continue to provide and enhance the entitlement and benefit programs.  To pay for the excesses brought about by such policies, additional taxes are enacted to extract more and more revenue from commerce and industry in the private sector.  As the slope becomes steeper so the government becomes bolder by funding projects of commercial enterprise that may or may not be viable in the traditional private sector.

  • At this point Ideology begins to trump free enterprise and Capitalism.
  • Gradually, Manipulation of rules, regulations, media, and any or all aspects of fairness toward the main goal, the maintenance of power, becomes the driving force.
  • Avoidance is the next phase, where the governing body Manipulates, to avoid being brought to task over suspected malfeasance by bringing down a fog or cloud of undefined responses that cannot be penetrated to a conclusive objective.
  • Paranoia may emerge if Avoidance is seen to be vulnerable to penetration. Retaliation   against opponents may be then be taken by increased levels of Manipulation as previously described.
  • By emerging from Avoidance without damage in the eyes of its power base, the governing body is then able to consolidate its Manipulation strategy further, to the point where Control  is established in many vital sectors of the economy and of public governance.
  • Finally, with the population under the Control of a Paranoid and Manipulative government, Tyranny may easily follow.

Thus, if the ideology of the Liberal is to ensure the Capitalist works within the moral confines of fairness and justice while maintaining a free society, a more Utopian environment is hard to imagine. Unfortunately, what we are seeing here in the USA and in many other areas of the world is the slippery slope toward totalitarianism.

The great man Sir Winston Churchill told the House of Commons in a complaint about the ruling Socialists; “A mighty army of 450,000 additional civil servants has been taken from the production and added, at a prodigious cost and waste, to the oppressive machinery of government and control.  Instead of helping national recovery this is a positive hindrance.”

On another occasion he said; “The interference of Government Departments with daily life is more severe and more galling. More forms have to be filled up, more officials have to be consulted. Whole spheres of potential activity are frozen, rigid and numb, because this Government has to prove its Socialistic sincerity instead of showing how they can get the country alive and on the move again.”

Does anyone see a corollary here?

Are we lingering on the precipice of totalitarianism under the guise of sharing the wealth?









Social Media: Follow us on Twitter!

Posted in BIG & BIGGER GOVERNMENT! | 2 Comments

Lies, Damn Lies, & Stat….We Don’t Have A Spending Problem!

The biggest problem with all this politicking, is that a vast majority of the population have become so distracted, they are unable to use common sense. Upon hearing  comments from so called, “undecided voters” in Ohio during the last election, we just wonder what planet they are from? Does Obama have some kind of hypnotic effect on many people and are they living in a trance like state? Is he the kind of person that can get up on a stage, invite audience members to participate in his performance, by having them act in stupid and ridiculous ways while under his influence?  While they are under his spell, they act contrary to common sense. This is the same method that certain (not all) evangelicals use to influence their congregations. It’s mind boggling! (No, it’s mind control).

The increased arrogance displayed by this President is the result of winning re-election by the use of  disingenuous statements, outright lies and a mass media bathing in the same glow of worship as his hordes of supplicants.

The long term process of bringing this country down to the level of mediocrity found in other nations, and thus making us equal in our miseries, is well under way. The same process used by “unenlightened progressives”, who reduce educational standards to suit the broader current intellect of the masses, is being used by this President to “level the playing field”.  In other words, we are being dumbed down economically to facilitate his greater vision that we all become vassals of the Federal government.

The communists tried this in various parts of the world only to fail miserably while making their populations miserable and resentful. This, notwithstanding the idiotic utterances of one of Obama’s most voluble sycophants,  Obama’s jobs council head (Czar!), and the CEO of GE Jeff Immelt, recently stated while appearing on CBS December 10,  “that one thing that “actually works” is “state-run Communism” in China.”

The disingenuous statements supported by the Administrations’ propaganda press, continues unabated with Harry Reid caught lying on two separate occasions about the same subject. said Senator Harry Reid was wrong in his claim that Congress had already cut $2.6 trillion from projected future deficits by reducing non-defense programs.  They further explained he was wrong on two counts;  not only did the cuts apply to security and non-security spending, but TAX increases were a considerable part of the reduction.  Furthermore, he also went on a TV show to say there should be more TAX increases and military spending cuts.

We should also mention the case of former ICE agents being unable to act according to the law. The Obama administration through Homeland Security with the method of writing it’s own rules, instructing agents they cannot  not arrest illegal aliens unless they had committed an offence. The fact they are  here illegally of course in the eyes of this Administration, is not unlawful.

We have a President who has now given himself the authority to “drone” or kill Americans  anytime he deems it necessary.  In addition, it is quite possible we could see as many as 30,000 drones over the USA according to the Washington Times .  What does this mean? Is this president afraid that his own disdain for the Constitution might spark an internal revolution (God forbid) where certain hard core right wing groups rise up to put a stop to his abuse of his office. Having drones at his disposal would certainly help to put down any insurrection.

Yesterday, we heard for the first time the startling news that after President Obama was notified by Mr Panetta of the initial ‘terrorist’ attack on the Embassy in Benghazi, he never heard from the President again. The attack lasted 8 hours.  We won’t bring up for dissection the propaganda about the cause of the event fed to the public by Ms Rice via the Television stations carefully selected.

Finally, we have also learned for the first time at yesterday’s hearing that three, yes THREE branches of government had recommended to President Obama that the Syrian rebels be helped.  Pentagon, CIA and state department favored plan to help rebels, but president ruled it out, a congressional hearing was told yesterday.  The experience of a community organizer overrules all three!

He’s absolutely right in a certain way, we don’t have a spending problem, we have a Presidential problem of historic proportions.



Social Media: Follow us on Twitter!

Posted in BIG & BIGGER GOVERNMENT! | Leave a comment

End of the Year, End of an Era

We have clearly pointed out in our most recent articles,  the path this country has taken is to the Left fork of destiny. In a rare acknowledgement of others with similar views this editor has taken an exception by publishing here an extract of a recent blog by Rabbi Pruzansky who is the spiritual leader of Congregation Bnai Yeshurun  in Teaneck, New Jersey.

“The most charitable way of explaining the election results of 2012 is that Americans voted for the status-quo: – for the incumbent President and for a divided Congress. They must enjoy gridlock, partisanship, incompetence, economic stagnation and avoidance of  responsibility. And fewer people voted.

But as we awake from the nightmare, it is important to eschew the facile explanations for the Romney defeat that will prevail among the chattering classes. Romney did not lose because of the effects of Hurricane Sandy that devastated this area, nor did he lose because he ran a poor campaign, nor did he lose because the Republicans could have chosen better candidates, nor did he lose because Obama benefited from a slight uptick in the economy due to the business cycle.

Romney lost because he didn’t get enough votes to win.

That might seem obvious, but not for the obvious reasons. Romney lost
because the conservative virtues – the traditional American virtues of liberty, hard work, free enterprise, private initiative and aspirations to moral greatness – no longer inspire or animate a majority of the electorate.

The simplest reason why Romney lost was because it is impossible to compete against free stuff.

Every businessman knows this; that is why the ‘loss leader’ or the giveaway is such a powerful marketing tool. Obama’s America is one in which free stuff is given away: the adults among the 47,000,000 on food stamps clearly recognized for whom they should vote, and so they did, by the tens of millions; those who – courtesy of Obama – receive
two full years of unemployment benefits (which, of course, both disincentivizes looking for work and also motivates people to work off the books while collecting their windfall) surely know for whom to vote. (Soccos’ Editor’s Note: December 31, 2012 It appears an extra year of benefits will be part of the ‘Fiscal Cliff’ deal) The lure of free stuff is irresistible.

It is impossible to imagine a conservative candidate winning against such overwhelming odds. People do vote their pocketbooks. In essence, the people vote for a Congress who will not raise their taxes, and for a President who will give them free stuff, never mind who has to pay for it.

That is why Obama did not have to produce a second term agenda or even defend his
first-term record. He needed only to portray Mitt Romney as a rapacious capitalist who throws elderly women over a cliff, when he is not just snatching away their cancer medication, while starving the poor and cutting taxes for the rich.

During his 1956 presidential campaign, a woman called out to Adlai Stevenson: Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person! Stevenson called back: That’s not enough, madam, we need a majority! Truer words were never spoken.

Obama could get away with saying that Romney wants the rich to play by a different set of rules – without ever defining what those different rules were; with saying that the rich should pay their fair share – without ever defining what a fair share is; with saying
that Romney wants the poor, elderly and sick to fend for themselves – without even acknowledging that all these government programs are going bankrupt, their current insolvency only papered over by deficit spending.

Obama also proved again that negative advertising works, invective sells, and harsh personal attacks succeed. That Romney never engaged in such diatribes points to his essential goodness as a person; his negative ads were simple facts, never personal abuse – facts about high unemployment, lower take-home pay, a loss of American power and prestige abroad, a lack of leadership, etc. As a politician, though, Romney failed because he did not embrace the devil’s bargain of making unsustainable promises.

(Soccos’ Editor’s Note: Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Churchill )

It turned out that it was not possible for Romney and Ryan – people of substance, depth and ideas – to compete with the shallow populism and platitudes of their opponents. Obama mastered the politics of envy – of class warfare – never reaching out to Americans  as such but to individual groups, and cobbling together a winning majority from these minority groups. If an Obama could not be defeated – with his record and his vision of America, in which free stuff seduces voters – it is hard to envision any change in the future. The road to Hillary Clinton in 2016 and to a European-socialist economy – those very economies that are collapsing today in Europe – is paved.

The American empire began to decline in 2007, and the deterioration has been exacerbated in the last five years. This election only hastens that decline. Society is permeated with sloth, greed, envy and materialistic excess. It has lost its moorings and its moral foundations. The takers outnumber the givers, and that will only increase in years to come. The Occupy riots across this country in the last two years were mere dress rehearsals for what lies ahead –years of unrest sparked by the increasing discontent of the unsuccessful who want to seize the fruits and the bounty of the successful, and do not appreciate the slow pace of redistribution.

If this election proves one thing, it is that the Old America is gone.
And, sad for the world, it is not coming back.”

( Soccos’ Editor’s Note: Is this what the Mayan Calendar meant, the World of America is ended and the new count has just begun with another Power rising?)



Social Media: Follow us on Twitter!

Posted in BIG & BIGGER GOVERNMENT! | 5 Comments

The Smoke & Haze After The Shock & Awe

Like the smoke and haze that hangs over a battlefield, so the residual mist of uncertainty hangs over all of us after the shock and awe of the last election. The electorate chose the Left fork in the road which seemed so smooth and had Photoshop images of juicy low hanging fruit, just ripe for the taking. The Right fork seemed that much harder because the fruit , though real, lay further down the road and required some toil to get there.

With the reports of an avalanche of new OBAMA regulations coming down the pike, and the fact that a number had been put in place already but had yet to take effect, we can expect a monumental cost to our economy and a further reluctance to invest on the part of the private sector. Notwithstanding the totalitarian nature of the imposition of regulations by Agencies controlled by one man, how then can a democracy continue to be viable?

An election that was won by false propaganda, innuendo, disingenuous statements, pandering to ethnic groups could be considered by most fair minded people as, nothing more than robbery.  In fact in some countries it would be considered a ‘bloodless coup’. Especially, when the office of the President is used as a bludgeon to rule by decree.

Other than a baying mantra of demonizing Romney, did anyone hear a single specific plan of how the President would run the country. Was there any mention of a single directive or new regulation that he would apply to any Agency? For what purpose and more importantly at what cost?  Did he mention to the adoring crowds and his lap happy media crew, how some of these regulations were going to cost them more of their jobs? Of course not! Only a fool would break the spell of a hypnotized fan base with real truths or perhaps an enumeration of his past achievements. LOL

In Britain after WWII the working class people felt a need to try and equalize the playing  field in their favor. We all know what happens when you artificially try to equalize anything. It doesn’t work! Equilibrium is something that occurs through the natural order of things and with an economy it has to balance itself through supply and demand This  requires the participation of everyone within the economy. Any favoritism toward one side or the other results in collapse.

And so when the Leftist Labor Party won the elections in 1945 after the war and threw out Winston Churchill, they promptly nationalized the health care system, the railways, the power systems, even the trucks on the road became the British Road Services.

When the populace realized the panacea of government ownership or control of business meant inefficiency, bureaucracy, and downright autocracy, they voted Winston Churchill back into office in 1951.  However, although great efforts were made to undo the damage it took many years and Margaret Thatcher much much later to get half the job done and put Britain back in the black.

We in the USA have not emulated the British model of 1945 but we are close to it and the impending control that one man can and will wield is of great significance. We should also be wary see ‘Who’s On Third?’

It will be years and years before the smoke and haze clears from this battlefield and we can breathe free again.


Social Media: Follow us on Twitter!

Posted in BIG & BIGGER GOVERNMENT! | 32 Comments

Bad Is Good Or So It Seems!

Well the election is over and this country is no more.  We will now be a socialist government nanny state and a supporting member of the United Nations riff raff.
Supporting their Treaties at the expense of our own Constitution as a means of by-passing Congress.
And 15 unelected bureaucrats will decide if us old folks will live or die.
With a so called leader who cannot even protect his own Ambassador even when asked to do so, how can we expect him to protect Israel?
Fast & Furious, Benghazi, plus much much more….
I came to this country because it was the last place on earth with minimal government interference in personal freedom of endeavor.
Now the demographics have changed to the point where entitlements & government benefits are the desired attainments of the majority.
Other than the “equal sharing of miseries”, to quote Churchill,  no other redeeming feature can be seen in a socialist system that looms over this once great country.

For me personally, the result of this election is an extremely bitter pill to swallow as it represents everything I ever strived to avoid in order to provide my family with an opportunistic future. Instead they & their offspring will be offered a government controlled society that cannot even run a Post Office. It will look more and more like Europe where it’s own chickens of debt and entitlements are coming home to roost.
As the dollar begins to fall as it surely will, our own chickens will be looking to roost.

Sad sad sad.

Social Media: Follow us on Twitter!

Posted in BIG & BIGGER GOVERNMENT! | Leave a comment

It’s Here & Are You There Yet?


 Today the SOCCOS articles since 2010 will have specific meaning to them. We either suffer self-flagellation or the exultation of freedom!

Social Media: Follow us on Twitter!

Posted in BIG & BIGGER GOVERNMENT! | 1 Comment

The Chavezing of America – Part II

Last year we warned about the “Chavezing of America” and the increasing encroachment of government in the lives of every American.  Mr Chavez himself was re-elected last night for another six year term.

How did he do it? He gave away massive quantities of televisions which ensured the recipients would be watching the endless hours of news each day about Mr Chavez on the government controlled television station. The viewers obviously oblivious to the disastrous government controlled agriculture sector with its declining output and higher prices.

Does this remind you of anything?  How about the millions of Americans on food stamps, the modification of unemployment benefits, the favoritism toward unions, the pandering to Hispanics over immigration issues, the sidestepping of Congress and our Constitution. All of this and more, done with the help of an adoring deluded media and a celebrity crazed Hollywood who feel entitled to influence their audiences with their utterances of self-importance.

O’Reilly of the Factor put it very succinctly during an interview on ABC the other day. In essence he said, “We are faced with two distinct paths in the next election, there are those who want more “stuff’ given to them from those who have “stuff”, or the other path of self fulfillment and individual endeavor upon which America grew to be a great nation.”

We put this very clearly in our blog “The Fork In The Road & The Forked Tongue” onJune 15, 2012.

If we take the left fork, it will indeed be a very sad day for America.



Social Media: Follow us on Twitter!

Posted in BIG & BIGGER GOVERNMENT! | 11 Comments

We Can’t Believe Our Lying Eyes!

We have been warning about the,  “Fork In The Road & The Forked Tongue”, “The Adulation Quotient”,  “To Desire Socialism Is To Desire Self-Flagellation” and other portents of disaster fast approaching us with the strong possibility of Barack Obama being re-elected.

When the president speaks at his campaign stops, one begins to wonder about the people who are applauding his words and whether any of them have taken the time to clearly understand or analyze the so called facts he is quoting.  Additionally, are they taking note of the duplicity and spin by the President’s Administration of events such as Fast & Furious , or of the disaster in the Middle East, the continuing drumbeat of the blame game, and never taking responsibility for anything.  Just what are these people applauding for?

It’s simply frightening to realize that the country is almost at the cliff edge and this President wants to lead us like lemmings over that cliff to the path of virtual central planning, government rules, regulations, edicts, and socialized medicine.

In order to achieve that goal this President is intent on re-election at the cost of misstatements, half truths, and outright lies, which his flock are lapping up like starving kittens.   Karl Rove wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal this week that was entitled, “Obama’s Biggest Opponent Is The Truth”, and went on to enumerate the falsehoods & fabrications this President has fed his doting flock.

Just one example from Mr Rove’s piece, “when Mr Obama said at a Univision Town Hall on September 20th, that his biggest failure “is we haven’t gotten comprehensive immigration reform done.” He pinned the blame on the Republicans. The problem with this excuse is that the Democrats controlled Congress by huge margins in the first two years of his presidency-and Mr Obama never introduced an immigration bill or even provided the framework for one.”

Mr Rove went on to write that in the same interview, “Mr Obama claimed that his Justice Department’s botched “Fast & Furious” gunrunning program was
begun under the previous administration”. This time it was ABC’s Jake Tapper correcting the record pointing out, “it was started in October 2009, nine months into the Obama presidency.”

We could list many many more of these disingenuous statements from Mr Obama as he meets his constituents and adoring flock, and we can only be hopeful that  Mr Romney will aggressively address Mr Obama’s outrageous assertions and falsehoods that will lay bare the true agenda of this man and where wants to take us.

Don’t let your ears  or eyes be fooled.


Social Media: Follow us on Twitter!

Posted in BIG & BIGGER GOVERNMENT! | Leave a comment


We have given you historical examples of unions destroying whole industries re: the screwy strike in the early fifties in Great Britain which was the nail in the coffin for the shipbuilding industry in that country. We have also seen how the over reaching power of unions have brought industries in the USA to their knees. We are now seeing the bankruptcy of whole State governments because those same forces of unrelenting demands,  created rewards  of such beneficence they have become unsustainable.

However, at SOCCOS we have never advocated the disbandment of unions. We only seek the regulation of their management who traditionally have used their singular powers to utilize member’s dues to for political gain without recourse. We firmly believe that there is a place for unions to ensure that mutual interests of both workers and their employers are attained.

Thus, we come to the Presidential election and what is at stake here. It is in fact the very soul of America, or should we say the very soul that was America. The very country whose populace rose together and assaulted the beaches of Normandy bringing the world back from the brink of planetary catastrophe, and is now led today,  by acquiescent politicians who would cast us simply as another unequal member of the United nations.

The weakening of our resolve is reinforced by a President who panders to the unions, who increases the size of government wherever possible, who employs more people in government than ever before, who panders to the Hispanic vote by allowing illegal aliens to remain in the country, who provides government benefits and money to more people than at any time in our history, who rules as much by edicts and executive orders rather than through the legislative process, all in an effort to gain re-election.

Thus it is that 50% of the population believes his rhetoric that he needs more time for his (socialist) policies to work. If with that kind of popular thinking,  Mr Obama succeeds in gaining a second term the pace of change he will implement will know no bounds and he will ensure that his voting base will receive even greater rewards and benefits that will rival those of the idealists in Europe.

If that happens we at SOCCOS.COM want to be on record as being the first to predict that Mr Obama will attempt to convince the electorate that he should change the Constitution and elect him for a THIRD or more term in office. To do this he would have to overcome or remove the Twenty Second Amendment. However, with a massive power base of the popular vote on his side and in State Legislatures it might be feasible, and he has the audacious character to pull it off.  (His memoirs of Audacity of Hope)

We must at all costs beware of the Adulation Quotient and be prepared to rescue the country from policies of a social agenda that will put us into the dark pit of dependency.

The riddle of “Who’s On Third” will have been solved.


Social Media: Follow us on Twitter!

Posted in BIG & BIGGER GOVERNMENT! | 5 Comments

The Fork In The Road & The Forked Tongue

In the coming months Americans must decide which fork in the road it must take, the left fork toward a more government controlled society, or the right fork that will return the country to its fundamental principles upon which it was founded.

The glaring examples of the Euro-zone crisis and the socialist ideology that has just about brought the region to its knees, and still could at any time, is not the foundation upon which  America should be planning for the future.  However, a fork tongue of distorted facts, misinformation,  and a fully supportive liberal media with its unknown agenda could send America down a path with a dead end.

Devious (by conservative  and expert constitutional opinion) rulings that by-pass laws, government agency directives, edicts and executive orders,  in what we call “the Chavezing of America“, continues to undermine the essence of America as a free society.

Today, President Obama has authorized the Office of Homeland Security to cease deportation procedures against certain illegal immigrant children even though this is the law of the land.  While all of us have sympathy toward these unfortunate children, who through no fault of their own are in a very difficult situation, we cannot lose sight of the fact that this President himself said last year, he was unable to help them because it would take an act of Congress to change the law.  And yet, because it is politically advantageous to his re-election campaign, an imperial decision on his part, once again rips asunder the Constitution,  and by-passes Congress. A forked tongue from a so called Constitutional scholar that will direct this country down the left fork in the road toward an autocracy.

We cannot fault an ideology of compassion for children caught in the cross fire of indecision and political maneuvering, but we MUST absolutely MUST ensure that our leaders rule within the bounds of our Constitution and laws. To win at all costs is to ensure that we all lose in the end. (Not forgetting that those children will also lose in the end as they end up in a totalitarian society)

The duplicity of this Administration knows no bounds in its efforts to ensure re-election. In the matter of the Florida voter ID purge of illegally registered voters,  is a strong case against the government. The law is on the side of the Florida legislators but the Federal Justice Department is relying on a 90 day rule that prevents purging of voter rolls before an election. However, the fact the Federal government refused, delayed, or denied Florida access to the database that would verify voter ID’s, and thus prevented Florida from complying with the 90 day rule, is of course duplicitous at best.

Ironically, the Massachusetts  2012 Democratic Convention in Springfield REQUIRES attendees to produce a Photo ID!

Again, the forked tongue of “Democratic” autocracy will decide what is best for you just as they did with the Obamacare health bill. The adulation still accorded to this President is a continuing cause for amazement and puzzlement to clear thinking people.

Make sure in November,  your GPS is set to make the “right” turn!

Your comments are welcome.



Social Media: Follow us on Twitter!

Posted in BIG & BIGGER GOVERNMENT! | 3 Comments

The Adulation Quotient – The Good & The Bad

Some leaders of nations stand out in history in certain instances because of the adulation bestowed on them by their supporters. We call this the “Adulation Quotient” or AQ.  The AQ can be a positive factor when referenced to Presidents Kennedy, Reagan, Roosevelt, Lincoln, de Gaul of France, or Winston Churchill as examples. Alternatively, a negative AQ would be attached to Chavez of Venezuela, Castro of Cuba, Hitler, Mussolini, all of whom certainly had their share of mesmerized masses while ruling by edict or dictatorial command.

Our own leader today has a very high AQ that creates an impression of invincibility and wisdom of purpose that may be leading the nation down a path of socialist programs from which we may never be able to return. Why should he be bent on this misguided path in the face of enormous historical evidence of failure from Russia  and Cuba at the worst level, to the catastrophe in waiting, the European Union at the more moderate  level?

The answer lies in two aspects of this current leadership. On the one hand, and probably the most relevant, is Mr Obama’s own deep ideology of pandering to the largest mass of voters who could maintain his power base, and his Adulation Quotient that is fed by those masses. Therefore,  his political ideology must move along lines that are of the most importance to powerful factions of the population. These are unions and especially government unions, both Federal and State,  minorities of all types, (thus his recent Darwinian evolutionary vision of gay marriage acceptance),  and soft approach to illegal immigration.

The change the President is trying to implement by ruling through executive orders, and government agency directives, is to modify the very foundation of American society to facilitate the re-making of the country to become a nation of equals. (Albeit, some will be more equal than others)  This then, in place of the greatest country the planet has ever seen.  It is as if we are suffering a bloodless coup as this administration goes about its business of promoting class warfare, and left wing liberals cheerleading their own descent into the abyss of government indolence in all spheres of public life. Freedom Adios!

We have pointed out in previous blogs some of the population in America is preparing for self flagellation, to punish itself by voting for policies that are completely opposite to what we have stood for for 250 years.  The adulation being showered on this President is of a quotient we may all regret in the future.


Your comments are welcome.


Social Media: Follow us on Twitter!

Posted in BIG & BIGGER GOVERNMENT! | Tagged , , , | 6 Comments

To Desire Socialism is to Desire Self-Flagellation

When a population moves, metaphorically, in a certain direction it is usually guided or influenced by current national circumstances, by political leaders who feed the masses with what they believe are policies that will ensure their re-election.

In times of self induced debt and economic decline, a nostalgic belief in a socialized system for the equalization of wealth becomes a mantra for those who support government bred entitlements. As we have often stated in these columns, entitlements become part of the DNA or genetic make-up of the recipients. Thus,  politicians whose main goal is the perpetuation of their incumbency, will feed these wants and desires at the expense of the national State.

As the State runs out of money and attempts proper fiscal management, the disruption to the flow of entitlements leaves it open to protests and even riots as in the case of Greece.  The Greeks are unhappy with the fact they are unable to continue to enjoy the fruits of European membership without cutting some of the overly generous benefits their politicians have been able  to bestow. The Germans on the other hand who have the power to rescue them, feel why should they have to work until they are 67 and receive 47% of their last salary, and the Greeks work until they are 54 and get 94% of their last salary?

It is certainly incredible that the old adage, “those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it”,  is perfectly apt when looking at socialism, its various forms, and its multiple failures. It does appear that government in the USA is headed toward a form of socialism that the population could easily accept, given the proper spin by its advocates.  The spin, as with all socialist ideology,  is aimed at the working class, the less fortunate in society, and the well intentioned but easily spun liberal.  Finally, independent thinkers who are unable to disentangle the disingenuous, the misalignment of statistics, or the outright distortions of the presenter, become susceptible to amnesia  of  the history of socialism. Thus, we ignore history and embrace what has gone before even though the result will be a foregone conclusion.

To accept socialism is to desire self-flagellation, to accept punishment by accepting government control in many facets of life is to cede one’s freedom to authoritarian rule. One of the most ridiculous statements I ever heard came from a liberal leaning US tourist I was talking to on a visit to Mexico. I happened to mention that I felt sorry for the plight of the poor people in the market place. My friend said, “Oh, they are very happy!”  I thought to myself, put yourself in their shoes. You might be happy, but would you be content? Therein lies the difference between those who keep the poor in their place, and those of us who want to raise them up with capitalistic opportunity. If you are poor you want freedom to rise above your station. Only capitalism can provide this opportunity. Ask any Cuban!

Your opinion is welcomed.






Social Media: Follow us on Twitter!

Posted in BIG & BIGGER GOVERNMENT! | Leave a comment

The Government Commands- The Economy Disobeys

We have in our previous articles described classical British and European socialist experiments in governing that have restricted economic advancement and in many cases destroyed industries and entrepreneurial spirit.

The spending and entitlements generated by the U.K.  Labour government from 1945 and the strengthened power of the union movement made it almost impossible to balance budgets.

Simon Jenkins in his book, ‘A Short History of England’ quotes, Labour Minister James Callaghan warned his 1976 party conference against the nostrums of the 1940’s, of a world, ‘where full employment would be guaranteed at the stroke of a chancellor’s pen.. I tell you in all candour that that option no longer exists.’ The government could command welfare, but it could not command the economy to pay for it.

Are we in the USA somewhere along this parallel today with President Obama’s stubborn resistance to learn from history, and heading toward a spending and debt stifling economy?

In England at the time of fiscal disaster entered an Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher, who said of the outgoing government, ‘No theory of government was ever given a fairer test or a more prolonged experiment. It was a remarkable failure.’ She went on to quote Kipling, ‘we have had no end of a lesson; it will do us no end of good’

In America today the first 3 years of this Administrations’ tenure has also been given a fair test, and it too has been a remarkable failure.

At this point SOCCOS would like to give credit to an article by a blogger by the name of Tim Rogers who wrote the following for the publication on Sunday December 18, 2011 9:33 a.m.


Tim’s article so closely matches our philosophy that we felt compelled to share it with our readers.

Obama admits he wants socialism for America

By Tim Rogers, Community blogger | Posted: Sunday, December 18, 2011 9:33 am

President Obama recently told America what he really meant by supporting “fundamentally transforming America” during the 2008 campaign. Obama stated that free-market Capitalism and individual entrepreneurship does not, and never has, worked successfully for America and its people.

He went on to say that the only way that America can truly prosper is to embrace his ideology, his BIG IDEA activist, centralized control, Socialist government.

Like most of Obama’s dogmatic ideological speeches this one is also blatantly incorrect, or dare I say “bends the truth like a pretzel”.

When our leader only sees failure in past successes and only sees success in past failures…it’s time for a new leader!

I am not going to quote the obvious history of overwhelming successes of capitalism in making America the greatest, most prosperous, freest country on Earth. Where today the so-called poor and disenfranchised live in opulence versus poor in other countries around the world. President Obama denies the facts that he could not even function for a second without all the obvious millions of inventions that have improved life for him, his family and countless American citizens that resulted from free market, risk taking entrepreneurship capitalism for over 200 years of American prosperity and freedom.

And another fact is that Obama chooses to totally discount the billions of jobs created in the capitalist-engined American economy over that same period. I leave that to the reader. I just want to mention some of my personal experience. What I witnessed in growing up in capitalist America. Because I think that, personal experience, is what is missing from this insulated, narrow minded, ideologically blinkered President. You may want in begin each of thoughts below also with the phrase “unlike the President…”

I am a post war baby boomer. My family, parents, aunts and uncles, bore the life sacrifices of the greatest test to humanity so far, World War II, and conquered Hitler’s National Socialism (NAZI). They brought me into a world of freedom and endless opportunity to work and to succeed. Over time I realized I owed them for what they had given me and that success wasn’t guaranteed but opportunity was. That is the essence of free market capitalist America from 1945 forward.

Work hard, take some risk, work some more and if you fail then learn from it and try again until you succeed. From post war to recently Americans under the free market capitalist system have always believed in themselves. Americans believe that SUCCESS is always possible! Why? Because that is the way we used to be taught and led in America! It was not a pipedream because there were results from those efforts. American free-market capitalist SUCCESS built the strongest, richest nation by far than any other in the 20th century. I was given a country where individual rights and freedoms were protected by strong founding documents, The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution. I look today in great awe at what Americans have created under that system of opportunity capitalism and individual freedom.

What Obama, the preaching socialist ideologue, never bothers to mention is that while free entrepreneurial capitalist Americans prospered tremendously post World War II the BIG IDEA of big, centralized control government socialism, was also being tested in countries like the Soviet Union, China or Cuba. During my young adulthood I had a ring-side seat at watching the failures of these experiments.

Perhaps before he preaches his transformation theories again President Obama should pull his head out of his ideological butt and actually read some true 20th century world history. Big controlling centralized government planning ran the Soviet Union, China and Cuba and their economies, not free markets and individual risk taking entrepreneurs. These inefficient central activist government monstrosities were the champions of endless “5-year plans”, to control outcomes on farms and in factories. Everybody had a job. A meaningless job turning out government planned produce or widgets! They told the farmers and businesses what to plant or what to manufacture. It did not matter if the produce was not appropriate for the citizens or climate or soil or if the manufactured products were not what the citizen consumers actually needed. Government bureaucrats, not the free marketplace controlled the means of production and who did what job.

And what was the result Mr. President of this BIG IDEA called centralized control government socialism? FAILURE! FAILURE so bad they could not even feed their people. FAILURE so bad because people treated like robots with lives planned from cradle to grave by big government bureaucrats soon realized they were not free people. And FAILURE is what you offer America today, Mr. President with your BIG IDEA Socialism!

Based on my experience you need to ask yourself this question, Mr. President, while you are trumpeting a transformation to big government socialism to replace free-market capitalism in America. “Why in God’s name were people willing to risk death to escape these BIG IDEA socialist countries and find a better life in America?” Why President Obama? Because as I grew up that is exactly what I saw and read. The people of the BIG IDEA socialist Soviet Union, China and Cuba were kept behind barbed wire and machine guns by their own government. They were kept from escaping to a land of individual freedom. FAILURE, Mr. President that is what you preach to us today.

And please do not use today’s Chinese economy as the example of the exciting future of your BIG IDEA socialism. The BIG IDEA centralized control government of China post-World War II murdered millions of its own citizens and starved tens of millions more. Finally, after decades of activist big government socialism central planning China recently is adopting ever so slowly free-market capitalism into their economic system. And now, finally, the Chinese people have a bit more entrepreneurial freedom. Frankly Mr. President what China is now showing the world is what capitalism…not BIG IDEA socialism can do to improve the life of a long oppressed people. However, China is still a government controlled despotic country and every American has to look deeper into China than Obama ever will. Look beyond China’s economic boom. Look at the Chinese BIG IDEA socialist government that controls still so tightly the liberties of its people right down to regulating all births of children!

Maybe Obama does not even know the answer as to why people would risk death to come to America. That could easily be because he has no experience from childhood to young adult life to allow him to see the miracles of free-market capitalism and individual freedom. I feel sorry for him. He does not even recognize that he has been given the honor of leading a nation built on the SUCCESS of its free people. But his inability to see the role that free-market capitalism has played in America’s greatness…is HIS FAILURE…not America’s!

I am happy that President Obama finally clearly stated to America what he, his Democratic Party socialist liberals and the American socialist liberal mainstream media hid so well in 2008 campaign. Obama’s planned transformation of America is to move America to European-style BIG IDEA centralized control government socialism – a system and ideology that has a long history of devastating failures for peoples around the world; a system that is rapidly crumbling into riots and chaos right now in Europe.

BIG IDEA socialism succeeds only in bringing inevitable absolute government control, economic destruction, loss of freedom and finally chaos and death to the people it claims to be saving. It is an ideology of FAILURE. And, FAILURE is precisely where President Obama has proclaimed America must go!

Well OK, we all now clearly know what President Obama wants for the future of America. Luckily, for now, we still have elections in this country. And, I hope Americans take the election in November 2012 very, very seriously. America will be asked to decide if we will return to our prosperous past of a limited government free-market entrepreneurship capitalism society or the proven failure of transforming America to a BIG IDEA centralized control government socialism society.

A member of the West Jersey Tea Party, Tom Rogers, has written this article. If you would like to contribute to our country and take part in assisting our organization to turn around the Socialism bus, please go to

Article 1

Article 2


We also recommend you watch this video by Lt. Gen. (Ret) W.G. Boykin Video

We would like your opinion:




Social Media: Follow us on Twitter!

Posted in BIG & BIGGER GOVERNMENT! | 6 Comments

An Additional Menace on the Horizon

Posted December 7, 2011

In the previous chapters we have commented on the encroaching powers of the Federal government to the detriment of individual freedom.  We have shown that bureaucracy leans to socialism and socialism leans toward totalitarianism. As we attempt to push back against this trend and revert to the true American way of life, liberty and happiness, we must be aware of geopolitical forces beginning to move toward the USA that will change our way of thinking about the defense of our country, both literally and philosophically.

When I refer to defense I mean in every aspect of physical and philosophical concerns. In South and Central America changes are taking place that could be the tipping point between emerging powers and the United States.

We see an increasing presence from Chinese in Central and South America challenging America’s sphere of influence.  The Chinese Embassy in Venezuela is reported to be the largest in any South American country.  This author foresees further Chinese influence penetrating the geographic region. Close ties are being made with Chile with significant investments in the mining industry. With Brazil part of the so called emerging BRIC’s (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) it would be important for the United States to strengthen its ties to that country and others in the region.

To do that it is imperative the USA retains a strong capitalistic philosophy in its relationships with South & Central America. We need to develop strategic financial and manufacturing partnerships with these countries to help them grow while enhancing our businesses at home. We cannot possibly do this as a state driven by government edicts or socialistic spending that removes our ability to innovate or produce.

Earlier this year this author watched a soccer match between a national Chinese team and the Costa Rica national team. Interestingly, the match was played at the official opening of a brand new $100 million stadium in San Jose, the capital. The stadium was paid for by China as a gift to the people of Costa Rica. This author predicted to the hotel staff where he was staying before the match, it would be a diplomatic draw and probably 2-2.   The result was 2-2!

Enquiries as to how Costa Rica would pay for this “gift”, or what reciprocity would be offered to the Chinese have been met with shrugs and raised eyebrows. The average person or middle class have no idea what their government have promised the Chinese in the future. This author makes an educated guess that with the proximity of Panama nearby, it will only be a matter of time before China’s navy tests the waters in the region. When that happens, a friendly Costa Rica would be a handy port of call indeed.

For those of us who came through WWII and remember the society that sacrificed their youth on the beaches of Normandy and in the Pacific, cannot forget it was a capitalist nation that bred such heroism.  It was a unity of purpose that drove America to defeat the worst socialist system the world has ever seen, The National Socialist Party (Nazi). This political system began as a social reform party intent on helping the nation recover from the deprivations that resulted from the Treaty of Versailles. However, with the guile and manic genius of Hitler, the system of democratic government was undermined for the sole purpose of imposing a socialist dictatorship.

America has not come that far, but, complacency is a powerful virus. Looking at an extreme case of complacency we can take for example, those people who live in a violent neighborhood in South Africa where there are very high crime rates.  The houses will be surrounded by high fences, razor wire, guard dogs, private guards etc. The residents will think nothing of this as they go about their daily lives, shopping, working or playing golf. Visitors from Europe or America however are shocked that anyone would want to live like that.

Unfortunately, the residents have no choice, they have nowhere to go, and this lifestyle is now the norm and they know no different.

The point being made here is one of a warning that complacency and acceptance of big government control in our daily lives is the THIN RED LINE that we may cross over to a socialist state without noticing. Once this happens, returning to a laissez faire capitalistic state will be almost impossible. The controls, regulations and laws imposed by such a form of government would be virtually insurmountable without a revolution.

Hopefully the author has shown where that thin red line is defined and together we can all oppose socialism in its all encompassing form.

Social Media: Follow us on Twitter!

Posted in BIG & BIGGER GOVERNMENT! | 1 Comment

Are We There Yet? The Slide Toward Socialism. Or How A Constitutional Scholar Is Able to By-Pass The Constitution

We have witnessed President Obama’s deft means of appointing heads of Agencies through the action of “Recess Appointments”, thereby by-passing any Congressional hearings or oversight. Not that this by itself is unconstitutional, but certainly undercuts the checks and balances the Founding Fathers intended.

The critical aspect of this method of governing is that a president who practices it to excess, begins to act as a monarch. Thus we have seen recess appointments of such controversial impact that even a King would have hesitated to overrule his ministers in so flagrant a manner.

And so we come to the recess appointment of a controversial figure that represents such a distortion of fairness and objectivity between two opposing parties, that it is impossible to see how American business in general can survive in a traditional laissez-faire manner. We speak of course of the Boeing Aircraft Co., wishing to relocate a portion of its manufacturing to another State against the wishes of the company’s union members.

Enter Craig Becker, a long time advocate for labor and a powerful lawyer with a long background of supporting unions. A full description of his “accomplishments” and record can be found in an excellent article at NLPC

After President Obama submitted him for nomination to head up the National Labor Relations Board, Becker failed to win Senate confirmation when Republicans — joined by some Democrats from less union-friendly states — blocked his nomination. The Wall Street Journal called him “labor’s secret weapon.” Becker subsequently received a recess appointment from President Obama. So instead of a neutral arbiter of fairness and objectivity we get a judge and executioner in favor of one side of an issue. Becker’s blatant favoritism toward the unions in the Boeing case is akin to Soviet style totalitarianism.

The Boeing case has been well documented elsewhere and we have no need to expand on it here. Our target today is the audacity of a president who flaunts his ability to skillfully sidestep the Constitution, while piling criticisms upon those who oppose him.

In December 2010 Obama boldly made six recess appointments knowing full well they were controversial and would be unlikely to pass Senate hearing committee.

Either way, a President who has to make recess appointments while holding an 18-seat majority is either an incompetent or selecting radical nominees so far out of the mainstream as to lose members of his own party — or perhaps both. Hot air

As of March 2010 President Obama currently had a total of 217 nominees pending before the Senate. Those nominees had been pending for an average of 101 days, including 34 nominees pending for more than 6 months.
• The 15 nominees President Obama intended to recess appoint had been pending for an average of 214 days or 7 months for a total of 3204 days or almost 9 years.
• President Bush had made 15 recess appointments by this point in his presidency, but he was not facing the same level of obstruction. At this time in 2002, President Bush had only 5 nominees pending on the floor. By contrast, President Obama had 77 nominees currently pending on the floor, 58 of whom had been waiting for over two weeks and 44 of those had been waiting more than a month.

It is fairly obvious based on current trends, that the delays in confirming Mr Obama’s nominees is simply because of their far left positions, or past track records. If this hard line attitude of skirting the confirmation process recess appointments is maintained, we could see a further erosion of the separation of powers, and an increase in the Chavezing of America. A gamed Constitution through scholarly evasion is no different than a bloodless coup!

Your comments are welcomed.

Social Media: Follow us on Twitter!

Posted in UNIONS | 1 Comment


This then seems to be the philosophy behind the recent protests on Wall Street, and elsewhere. In previous articles we predicted that protests would erupt when a particular portion of the population whose ingrained DNA contains an entitlement mantra, and is deprived of benefits that can no longer be sustained, become agitated.

When we look deeper into the perceived injustices that the protestors are complaining about, it is no less than a frustration of inadequacy. They would prefer to act like the proverbial “dog in a manger” and destroy the capitalistic structure around them because they do not have the education or the skills to participate.

The protestors themselves cannot be blamed entirely for their feelings of frustration, the blame lays in the system that bred them & failed to educate them. Oh yes, some may have graduated with degrees, but, how many have degrees in physics, math, chemistry, or engineering? There are thousands of jobs that go begging for such personnel.

Many high school graduates today leave school without being able to read or write coherently, but their “self-esteem’ has been reinforced by a system that ensures it remains intact, irrespective of their competency or literacy. Many of those that make it to college spend time on remedial courses intended to help them attain a level of competence for future study. This is probably the reason why a student may take 6 years to complete a 4 year degree.
( About 54 percent of male and 60 percent of female first-time students who sought a bachelor’s degree and enrolled at a 4-year institution full time in fall 2002 completed a bachelor’s degree at that institution within 6 years). Source:

With the majority of students opting for majors other than the sciences or engineering, it’s leaving our country barren of skills we so desperately need to keep up with the world at large.

Of course, the effort to educate our children doesn’t just lie with the schools, but, must include the parent’s role as well. There can be no substitute for a parent when it comes to discipline, teaching humility, providing love, comfort and encouragement to do one’s best, even under difficult times.

If the current numbers of protestors were to prevail by destroying capitalism, what then? Do we throw away our iPhones, and other capitalistic tools and revert to the quill pen? Throughout history there have been the have’s and the have not’s. Even with socialism and communism where everyone supposed to be equal, there were always those that were more equal than others. The aim therefore, and this is what has made America so great for all the people, is to strive to mold oneself to fit into the system by hard work, or educational adjustment.

Most of the older population today remember and are proud of when they started at the bottom for little pay and worked their way up to the top. Ask the youth of today to start at the bottom and you get laughed at. We have dumbed down our education system to suit the lowest denominator, please don’t dumb down or destroy our capitalist way of life by redistribution policies.

David Huntley a Dallas business man who was a guest panelist on the PBS TV McCuistion Show in June, 2004 entitled, “Outsourcing: Lost Jobs or Positive Free Trade?”, predicted that in 10 years we would have many millions of jobs without the skilled people to fill them. Fellow guest panelists included a Senior Economist from the Federal Reserve Bank, an Executive Council Member of the AFL-CIO from Washington D.C., as well an out of work software engineer. Mr Huntley’s predictions are well ahead of schedule! Source:

Many people feel we should provide many more trade schools to help fill the need for the skilled trades such as electricians, plumbers etc. This author is fully supportive of this approach. However, it should be borne in mind that a number of trade jobs today, such as machining, lathe & mill work are CNC machines. (Computer Numerically Controlled) Therefore a higher level of high school graduate is needed to cope with the level of technology that is prevalent today.

Remember! Capitalism works for all and socialism fails everyone.

We welcome your comments.

Social Media: Follow us on Twitter!

Posted in BIG & BIGGER GOVERNMENT! | 25 Comments

Capitalistic Principles To Remember

• The government cannot give you anything without taking it from someone else first.
• The government cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
• The government cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
• When a large enough portion of the population believes the rest of the population will take care of them, the rest of the population loses all incentive to work hard and the nation begins to stagnate and fail.
• Socialism will always ultimately fail, except in primitive society where advancement is neither sought nor accepted. The status quot of ancient tradition in a primitive society is paramount to survival. The equal sharing of misery and hardship is the reward for all, and the illusion of contentment (or complacency) is therefore infinite in that society. Progress, as civilized society knows it, is non-existent by individual initiative in such an environment.
• Capitalism on the other hand allows mankind to fulfill its destiny of evolution and development to its complete potential. If it is allowed to happen with self-conscience and temperament, the benefits spill over, or permeate all of mankind to a degree that is impossible in a socialist society.
• It is capitalism that lures people from poverty or hunger to a higher plane of personal initiative whose success ultimately spills over to the benefit of his fellow man. The peripheral effect of generous aid without capitalist encouragement or assistance, results in dependency, and self–perpetuating poverty. Good for politicians but bad for the populations involved. Micro loans for poor nations has proven the capitalistic concept time and time again.
• SOCCOS believes America MUST return to it’s capitalistic roots in order re-gain its prominence in the world of commerce and industry. Regulations, excessive taxes, bureaucracy, and excessive government intrusion is killing the initiative that capitalists need to succeed.
• On Thursday next week we will hear one more speech by a President whose ideology is fixated on a country run by a government, and not by capitalistic initiatives. The stock market has already spoken!
• We certainly don’t need government run “shovel ready” jobs. As Milton Friedman is reportedly to have said when he went to Asia in the 1960s, and was proudly taken by the government to see a public works project. They were building a canal. He was struck by the fact that everyone was digging the canal with shovels. Friedman says, “Why no heavy earth-moving equipment?” They replied, “Oh, this is a jobs program.” So Friedman says, “Why don’t you give them spoons instead of shovels?” I think we understand now, the sterility of government trying to create jobs.

“A government big enough to give you what you want is big enough to take away everything you have.” ~Thomas Jefferson

SOCCOS welcomes your opinion.

Social Media: Follow us on Twitter!

Posted in BIG & BIGGER GOVERNMENT! | 4 Comments

You Read It Here First!

Our blog in December 2010, forewarned about the DNA of entitlement, and how recipients of government largesse and favoritism could easily backfire when those entitlements are taken away. We told you that entitlements over time become part of a recipient’s DNA and is embedded in the “genes”. We gave examples at the time referencing the riots in France and Greece. Now we have London, Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham where the deprivation or reduction of the social programs that were fed to a large proportion of the population, have found an excuse to vent their anger and frustration.

The expectations of the people who have been transfused with the genetic material of social benefit, are disillusioned. They have been shattered by the enforced realization that other peoples money has run out. The me generation have hit the wall of reality, and money really does not grow on trees, and neither does it grow in government coffers when the private sector is stifled by taxes and over burdensome regulation. For a little perspective on the troubles in the U.K. see Pat Condell’s commentary on UTube

In the United States we are seeing the beginning of this era with the public sector unions desperately trying to cling to their exorbitant benefits and pensions at the expense of the population they are supposed to serve. The problems in Wisconsin is just the beginning of the type of unrest that we could see in the rest of the USA as each State tries to reconcile their budgets with reality. We have said before, that unions have a place in society to help ensure an even playing field for workers, but they should not become a tool or act as surrogates for politicians of any party. They certainly should not be used through their union dues in overthrowing governments. The recall elections in Wisconsin have basically fizzled, but it was not for the lack of large sums of money from outside sources.

The failed policies of our own Administration in their efforts to redistribute wealth, is wreaking havoc on our economy. It is only a matter of time before their efforts in governing by regulation, forcing acceptance of authority through recess appointments, ineptness and lack of experience in the concepts of good business, will ultimately tip the populace into an angry mode of frustration. The potential for a violent backlash in the streets is no less here in the USA than it is overseas.

We must move this country back to an entrepreneurial capitalistic model with a fair tax base to take care of essential elements of governance and society.

For a review of the origin to UK’s troubles see the article in Britain’s City Journal


What is your opinion? Your email address is never used.

Social Media: Follow us on Twitter!

Posted in BIG & BIGGER GOVERNMENT! | 1 Comment

Losing States Rights & The Enforcement Of Federal Power

Texas the leading job creator in the nation, has suffered a setback in its ability to regulate its own industries when 136 chemical, refineries, and manufacturing plants agreed to Federal EPA permitting regulations, instead of maintaining their current positions using Texas flexible permits.

Interestingly, one of the firms that surrendered their position on this matter was Koch Industries, a leading supporter and contributor to Governor Rick Perry. This company had previously maintained its position under the Texas flexible permitting regulations.

In simple terms, Texas allowed plants to meet a general limit on pollutants that a complete facility can emit. Whereas, the Federal mandate requires the State to set limits on each of the individual production lines within each facility. This could mean virtually dozens of different units inside each plant. In fact, there are numerous large plants such as refineries that may have thousands of emission points within its facility. Each such emission point would under the EPA ruling, require a permit. The EPA considers the Texas program for controlling emissions a violation of the Clean Air Act.

While this issue has some complex technical environmental specifications involved, it comes down to an argument over methods of measurement. For example, let’s assume a manufacturing plant has a dozen different products in one facility, and let’s assume under the Texas program it emits a permitted level of pollutants of 24 units over all 12 production lines. Under the EPA rules it is possible that one or more of the individual production lines exceeds the EPA limit, while other lines are well below the specified limits, but leaving the facility within the overall limits allowed. Under the mandate the company would have to comply or shut down the offending production unit or risk a fine. Either way there is a cost factor, and a job jeopardizing factor involved.

An example of this was illustrated by a commentator to a Wall St Journal article on July 13, 2011 who wrote;

• “EPA held “hostage” the permit approval for a federally required benzene reduction in gasoline project at one of my firm’s facilities until the facility agreed to switch away from the Texas flexible permit. No jobs were lost, but the cost to operate has gone up with use of the Federal permit vs. the Texas flexible permit. We wanted to support the state of Texas position against the EPA but could not afford to not have a permit to operate equipment which produces federally required low benzene gasoline.

• When will Congress reign in the EPA’s unnecessary and burdensome “regulate in perpetuity” mantra?
A Directive by President Obama to various Agencies when he took office included the EPA and its regulation of the Clean Air Act. As soon as the Obama Administration came into power the EPA told Texas that their permitting system was not in compliance with the Clean Air Act.”

Again, as we have pointed out in past blogs, ( ), the office of the President is being used to wield power and control to the maximum possible, either through legislated policies, or through Administrative Directives in line with the President’s goals and agenda.

Obviously, there is some debate over whether the President has the authority to issue some Directives and the following thoughtful article on this subject can be reviewed by our readers. (The paper can be found at the Social Science Research Network)

Robert V. Percival

University of Maryland – School of Law

Fordham Law Review, Vol. 79, pp. 2487-2540, 2011
U of Maryland Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2011-29

After describing three principal views on whether the President has directive authority, this Article discusses the constitutional foundations of this debate. It then reviews the history of presidential oversight of agencies and its implications for the debate over directive authority. The Article concludes by explaining why, even if the President has unfettered removal authority over the heads of non-independent agencies, it matters that this removal power does not imply the power to control decision making entrusted by law to agency heads.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 55

Keywords: directive authority, unitary executive theory, disunitary executive approach

Our question remains – Is there an underlying agenda by President Obama to implement policies toward a greener society at such an accelerated pace as to damage the current energy industry and ancillary industries, before such advanced greener technologies have become commercially feasible?

What do you think? Your input is vital to this debate as you will be paying for it.

Social Media: Follow us on Twitter!

Posted in BIG & BIGGER GOVERNMENT! | 3 Comments


SOCCOSc Ministrator
Flag Day. Survived the London Blitz & grateful for GI’s bravery otherwise this author and children would be speaking German today. Long live democracy & capitalism.

Social Media: Follow us on Twitter!

Posted in BIG & BIGGER GOVERNMENT! | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Is The USA Being Gradually “Chavezed”?

With the current flood waters finding their way through the Mississippi Delta, it brings to mind another encroaching burden on the lives of Americans. We speak of course, of the seeping percolation of government control through executive orders, government agency directives, recess appointments etc., in such a manner as to bypass congressional oversight. White House policy enforcement through means other than a Constitutional process smacks of creeping totalitarianism. While not in the same degree as Venezuela’s Chavez, a thin edge of the wedge is slipping into the cracks of our bureaucratic system and like flood waters, it is testing the resistance of every opening. Thus, policy becomes regulation, and regulation becomes a yoke on the freedom of the people.

Who determines the level of freedom from government? Obviously, if it is a democracy, it is the people and not government agencies and departments. Propaganda in the form of slanted speeches and inaccurate statements from leaders on either side of the political spectrum, creates a fog of confusion and poor understanding of a nations’ position. However, the the density of the fog from the left has begun to increase to the level of a toxic smog that even the Environmental Protection Agency could not help us if they were tasked with the job.

Quoting from a recent blog April 20, 2011, by Maggie’s Notebook where it reported, “Bid for a Govt Contracting Job, Obama Wants to Know Your Political Contributions – Unions Exempt”

The article went on to describe a draft Executive Order;
“If you are a non-union contractor, and you want to bid for a Government job, Barack Obama wants to force you to disclose your political contributions, and he plans to do it by through an Executive Order. He has tried this through legislation: “…they lost in the Supreme Court, they lost in Congress, they lost at the FEC, so now the president is just going to do it by edict.”

Now, Venezuela’s Chavez has managed to rule by decree in slow, but deadly effective ways as he socializes the State. President Obama with his Mussolini like jutting jaw, is arrogantly emulating this same stance, but within the forced moderation of our Constitution that is being bumped and probed for cracks and weaknesses. If policy cannot be forced through the legislative process, but can be implemented through minions occupying positions of authority in government agencies and bureaucracies, we will gradually be “Chavezed” into an ever increasingly socialist State. As Maggie’s article so adroitly put it, he “will just do it by edict”.

In the weeks and months ahead we will be keeping an eye on the “Chavezing” of our capitalist society and will report accordingly.

Send us your examples of “rule by fiat” or where you believe an Agency is acting from a “directive” and not from a legislative position.

Social Media: Follow us on Twitter!

Posted in BUREAUCRACY | 6 Comments

Collective Bargaining And Who Collects?

Volume 5 March 2011

From previous SOCCOS blogs we have seen the inherent nature of how unions can move beyond a basis of worker protection, to a level of power that can and has destroyed industries in the past. (Obviously, to the detriment of the workers they represented!)

What is collective bargaining? The very word “Collective” brings to mind the Soviet era of collective farms, state run industries et al. In the West, collective bargaining particularly in State or Federal institutions has come to mean the collection of benefits and rights of workers beyond the scope of an equivalent private enterprise.

In the United States, the National Labor Relations Act (1935) covers most collective agreements in the private sector. This act makes it illegal for employers to discriminate, spy on, harass, or terminate the employment of workers because of their union membership or to retaliate against them for engaging in organizing campaigns or other “concerted activities” to form “company unions”, or to refuse to engage in collective bargaining with the union that represents their employees. Unions are also exempt from antitrust law in the hope that members may collectively fix a higher price for their labor. (Wikipedia)

In 1930, the Supreme Court, in the case of Texas & N.O.R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Railway Clerks, upheld the act’s prohibition of employer interference in the selection of bargaining representatives.[7] In 1962, President Kennedy signed an executive order giving public-employee unions the right to collectively bargain with federal government agencies.[7] (Wikipedia)

Today we are seeing the results of that executive order wherein the States for example, are fiscally unable to meet the demands of their respective bargaining agreements with the government workers. For years the governments have grown in size, have employed more workers, and have negotiated agreements with unions in the knowledge that they can enjoy increasing revenues to pay for it.

These revenues of property taxes, sales taxes, income taxes etc, have reached their apex and unlike the Federal government, the States find the people have had enough of unlimited growth of bureaucracy and taxes. The Federal government on the other hand simply continues to borrow money. The States find themselves in a position that they can no longer afford the luxury of some of the collective benefits the unions have enjoyed over the decades when State revenues were flush.

The recent events in Wisconsin brings into focus again, what we have been saying here at SOCCOS. The unreasonable expectations of certain entitlements in times of severe economic hardship, causes the recipients to become enraged. See the SOCCOS blog of December 2010 The DNA of Socialism or the expression of “Socialised Genes”

SOCCOS believes we need a “Collective Consensus” among governments and their workers so that agreements can remain flexible in both good times and bad times. A relationship between increased and reduced benefits that should be based on calculated factors at specific points in time.
It is absolutely necessary to modify the DNA of “Socialized Genes” in the worker population to facilitate a more moderate level of dialog or “Collective Consensus”.


Social Media: Follow us on Twitter!

Posted in BIG & BIGGER GOVERNMENT! | Tagged , | 5 Comments

Does Socialism Fit In The Evolution of Mankind? (Or does it hinder its advancement)

This author has previously described the power of unions ( in a socialist environment and the potential for the misuse of that power that can, and as history has shown, cause the destruction or ruin of the industry it purports to serve. Nevertheless, a balanced and democratic union can in many cases, counter the overreaching greed of some uncontrolled corporations who disregard the well being or fair treatment of their workers.

However, it is capitalism that brings the most justice and benefits to a country’s population. History has shown this over and over again. Socialism and more intensely communism, destroys human incentive and desire to achieve individual advancement of the human condition.
(This author gave a speech to an audience of the American Enterprise Institute at The University of Texas at Arlington August 1989, as well as to Phi Chi Theta at The University of North Texas November 1990), stating:-

“The stability of any nation is directly proportional to its economic prosperity. The political emancipation of man has, throughout history been inexplicably tied to his economic well-being. I am of the opinion that, a hungry man believes in the politics of those who allow him to feed himself, and maintain him in economic dignity by providing an environment where his efforts are proportionally rewarded. This kind of political environment is usually only found in democratic societies.”

Churchill once said,


(The subsequent events in Eastern Europe in the late ‘80’s & early ‘90’s brought Churchill’s uncannily accurate statement sharply into focus, when communist regimes collapsed under the burden of shared miseries).

Mankind has risen from the evolutionary matrix to a level above that of the animal kingdom in as much that he is not guided by ant like automation or hive like activity to survive. He has developed over the centuries an innate ability to produce sustenance and value for himself and his family when given the opportunity to do so. He does so in full commercial capitalistic cooperation with his fellow man, without the necessity to share his wealth just because he has been proportionally rewarded for his efforts. Nevertheless, his recognition of the less fortunate, either through self conscience or faith, is the cornerstone of mankind’s rise above the evolutionary matrix.

Socialism lowers the human condition to the level of the ant, but, unlike the ant nest or bee in the hive, who are ALL striving toward a mutual goal, mankind or individuals in it will take advantage of others in the system by avoiding their responsibility or will be slothful in the common cause.

Can mankind move to a higher plane through socialism, or, will capitalism provide the vehicle to a better life? Your opinion is welcomed and you can remain anonymous.

Social Media: Follow us on Twitter!

Posted in BIG & BIGGER GOVERNMENT! | Tagged , , , | 5 Comments

The DNA of Socialism or the expression of “Socialised Genes”

Progressive European governments have curried favor with their populations by implementing social programs that become part of the DNA of of the progeny of those populations.  That is to say, entitlement is part the culture or psyche of the people who reap the benefits.  Thus, when the burdens of taxation and excessive regulation on companies and firms create undue pressure on the bottom line, the cycle of economic decline begins.

The reduced tax revenues force governments to adjust the social benefits paid to the populace and/or adjusting other cost centers such as the retirement age and associated regulations.  Because the people now have the DNA of “socialized genes” in their system, outrage and violent demonstrations seem to them, the only way they are able to express their frustration over the deprivation of their “entitlements”.  The riots in Greece are a perfect example of “socialized genes” expressing a rejection of an attempt to change their DNA.

The modification of the DNA of extreme socialism in the case of most of Europe, is both inevitable and patently necessary. The productivity of nations cannot remain competitive in today’s global economy, if a large proportion of its population is paid to stay at home. The DNA within the “socialized genes” of the current generation of Europeans are not able to recognize that benefits flow from the circulation of healthy profits. These profits can only be generated by reducing the restrictions (taxes & regulations) on the entities who make those profits.  The tourniquet of taxes on companies and wealthy individuals, and the transfusion of benefits to the wider population, simply closes down the circulation.

America is heading in the same direction and much damage has already been done.

What do you think?

Social Media: Follow us on Twitter!

Posted in BIG & BIGGER GOVERNMENT! | 5 Comments

The Power of Unions – The French Strikes

October 12, 2010

The power of unions is certainly being demonstrated in France today with street demonstrations and strikes throughout the country. Striking workers are calling for the government to call off the legislation that will increase the retirement age of 60 to 62  and for full benefits from 65 to 67.  Additionally, it is proposed to increase the working hours from 35 to 40.

Europe today is now coming face to face with the reality that socialism really does not work, and in the same manner that communism didn’t work!  Central government control of so many aspects of life stifles creativity and removes incentive by the individual to be productive.

Here in America, we see an Obama Administration wanting to follow this failed European principle of social change by creating a labor class favored by and supported by big government.  The so-called Employee Free Choice Act, aka “Card Check”, would take away numerous rights and protections currently afforded to workers employed at companies where unions are actively seeking to organize. The bill would remove workers’ rights to a federally supervised private ballot election. Instead, workers would be asked to sign cards and probably in front of organizers and fellow workers, potentially subjecting them to harassment or intimidation. Once a majority of employees have signed cards, the union is immediately recognized.

So far this has not passed through Congress, but, the latest moves by the Obama Administration might just by-pass this effort.

See; Back Door Card Check

If  a majority of workers in a company vote in a SECRET ballot to form a union, then by all means, there should be a union. Let’s not coerce or intimidate people into joining a union simply for the sake of  gaining future potential unlimited power.

What do you think?  Leave your comment below.

Social Media: Follow us on Twitter!

Posted in BIG & BIGGER GOVERNMENT! | 9 Comments

Introducing SOCCOS

(Society Of Concerned Citizens Opposing Socialism)
September 7, 2010
We aim to bring to your attention, the creeping power of big government over the lives of ordinary people. This concern should not just be about the divisive politics of the right or left, but,  about the shrinking freedom and incentive of the average citizen. If the United States of America wants to emulate Europe in terms of providing for its citizens through government intervention, it cannot expect to a) retain its role as leader of the free world or, b) maintain its historic levels of standard of living or, c) retain the level of individual freedom we take for granted. Regrettably, it is the policies and views of the extreme left that pushes us toward those ends.

Government intrusion into America’s society is not new, its bureaucracy and control of everyday life is not new. It has been creeping up on us over many years, but, today we have reached the crossroads. The present administration elected by a mesmerized electorate, has set in motion an unprecedented acceleration that will surely leave us chained to a set of ideas and ideology that would have been unimaginable 30 to 40 years ago.

The problems of socialism, and there are many, include the creeping power of trade unions that are allowed to increase their influence over the commercial aspects of business to the detriment of that business. While unions can provide an element of comfort and security for a company’s workforce particularly when owners might use exploitative work practices, they can and often do exceed their mandate. When union power reaches a level in excess of their original desire for fair treatment and representation, it becomes an all consuming grab for control of the commercial enterprise. Typically, union power becomes a spigot of immense support to liberal and left wing ideology for which politicians nurture toward their election or re-election efforts.

Eventually, unchecked union power can destroy a commercial enterprise. Sometimes this requires a synergistic effort on the part of both management and unions as we have seen with General Motors. The most classic case of unions actually destroying an entire industry can be found in the early fifties. In Britain it was called the “screwy strike” in which workers from the Metal Workers Union could not agree with the Carpenters Union on who should drill the required holes in metal that was bonded to wood in a shipyard.

At that time in the early 50’s Britain was having difficulty in maintaining its place as one of the world’s leading shipbuilders because its unions were ever more demanding and continually striking. The screwy strike went on for so long that Britain’s shipbuilding industry never fully recovered. It wasn’t until Margaret Thatcher in later years challenged the unions in the mining and other industries that some semblance of fiscal sanity became possible. She began the challenge to socialized government bureaucracy that was costing the country enormous amounts of money and indebtedness. However, shipbuilding left the yards in England, forever!
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually, run out of other people’s money.” – Margaret Thatcher

With the advent of General (Government) Motors and Chrysler having their management controlled by DC, Ford must be very worried about their own independent position. After all, no one is allowed to compete against Amtrak, or against the Post Office. How will they compete against GM and Chrysler? If Ford remains nimble and innovative they will beat the pants off the other two, but, will DC allow that to happen? We shall see!

In a recent article, Congressman John Boehner (R-West Chester) and U.S. Senator Roger Wicker (R-Miss.)  requested the Government Accountability Office (GAO) conduct a non-partisan, independent analysis of the federal financial assistance provided to the General Motors (GM) Corporation and its treatment of certain Delphi retirees.
“Neither GM nor the Automotive Task Force has provided a full explanation about why some Delphi pension obligations will be met by GM while the salaried retirees are not made whole,” Boehner said. “Was this yet another decision by the Obama administration to reward union bosses and liberal special interests? Tens of thousands of affected families, and all American taxpayers, deserve answers.”
See the full article at

In one fell swoop the government (using your money, not theirs), takes 60 percent of GM, while the unions received another 17%. What better way to socialize industry and to re-distribute wealth?


Read Newt Gingrich’s book,

Social Media: Follow us on Twitter!

Posted in BIG & BIGGER GOVERNMENT! | 7 Comments

Who are we?

Society Of Concerned Citizens Opposing Socialism (SOCCOS).
A forum for citizens to oppose creeping bureaucratic autocracy. Coming soon.

Social Media: Follow us on Twitter!

Posted in BIG & BIGGER GOVERNMENT! | 2 Comments