MEXICO’S DRUG PROBLEM IS OURS, TOO
By Bob Confer, www.BobConfer.net

As a general rule of thumb, Americans are an extremely ethnocentric lot and care very little about other nations. Sure, every year our government provides untold billions of dollars in financial aid and military might to other countries, but, overall, our citizens are completely disconnected from the realities of the world we live in. Compared to the news media of other developed nations our news agencies provide very limited – and sometimes non-existent – coverage of global happenings unless they might have a significant short-term impact on America. 

That way of thinking is not only unfortunate from a philosophical standpoint (why do we so devalue others?) but it can also cause some problems down the road when we finally do find out about the problem, which is typically after we’ve stepped right into the mess. Our shortsightedness has proven time and time again to be our undoing, our reactions being too little too late.

A current international issue with long-term implications that we’ve chosen to ignore is that of Mexico’s drug problem. To most Americans it’s a given that some of Mexico’s drug problem is our problem, too.  The statistics do not belie this: According to the CIA, 90% of all cocaine used in the United States is trafficked through Mexico and Mexicans produce 10,000 tons of weed and 25 tons of heroin imported into the US. They might give us our drugs, but that’s where the shared problem ends as does our understanding of the issue. The drug culture that we obsess about here in the States pales in comparison to what’s going on in Mexico.

What sets their drug problem apart from ours is the frightening drug-related violence so pervasive in their urban areas. It’s nothing like the violence on our streets. What the gangs do in Mexico makes their American counterparts – the much-feared Latin Kings – look like choir boys. So far this year nearly 3,000 Mexicans are known to have had their lives taken by drug violence. The numbers are frightening, but it’s the sheer brutality of the violence that’s most unsettling. Perhaps as a means to send a message to their enemies, the drug traffickers typically beat their victims mercilessly for minutes or hours on end and then execute them in an extremely-exaggerated gangland style, most bodies ending up riddled with dozens of bullet holes. That’s almost pedestrian compared to recent acts of violence. Two weeks ago a pile of 12 bodies was found in Meridia, a city thought to have been spared by drug violence. Every one of those bodies was decapitated.  

What these gangs are doing is not run-of-the-mill impersonalized violence. It’s personalized, direct-contact butchering, a sign that the traffickers are overcome with unparalleled amounts of evil and are as completely indifferent to humanity as Middle Eastern terrorists are. And, that is when you know that you’ve truly lost control of a situation; No police force or government agency has a chance of easily stopping gangs that far gone. As a matter of fact, the government is in their sights, too. These gangs routinely assassinate police officers and two weeks ago took the lives of two police chiefs in neighboring cities, only hours into their new jobs. 

Americans need to keep a close eye on this breed of violence, not only because it’s occurring in a neighboring nation, but more so for the reason that the chances are very good this bloodshed will soon be happening on American soil. The drugs at the center of the killings are mostly going to the USA, brought by deliverymen bringing with them their new ultra-aggressive culture. Add to that the millions of Mexicans who have – and continue to – illegally emigrate into the states and you wonder when our Southwestern cities will be taken over by the blood-thirsty pigs.

It can even happen here in the North. Think back to 2005, when numerous Hispanics posing as migrant workers used a town of Lockport home as the regional hub for distribution of Mexican cocaine. They were armed to the teeth. You don’t think they would have done harm to anyone who crossed them or might have stumbled onto their drug ring? They probably did and we just don’t know about it.

We need to do something before it’s too late. What can we do? Sending troops to Mexico is not an answer. Strengthening our border security is. Getting illegals out of the US is. Ramping up inner-city police coverage is. Wiping the drug traders off our streets is. For now, though, it’s extremely important that we just pay attention to what’s happening in Mexico, understand the beast and ready ourselves for it. Frankly, if we don’t, all of Mexico’s drug problems will one day be ours, too.  

LEGALIZE STUN GUNS IN NY
By Bob Confer, www.BobConfer.net

We men will never understand what it means to be a woman. None of us can imagine what it feels like to be the object of animal-like sexual desire. None of us will ever know the fear of becoming the unwitting prey of much-stronger deviants who will satisfy their urges through rape or sexual assault.

Many women live with those fears, some consciously, others subconsciously. In today’s world, those feelings are justified. Every 2 minutes a woman is sexually assaulted somewhere in the United States. In a typical year over 275,000 women have their bodies and souls pillaged and that is only the known cases. Due to fear of the assailant and the unfortunate feelings of lessened self-worth following the assault or rape, more than 60% of all incidents go unreported. Therefore, it is not a stretch to say that nearly three-quarters of a million women are victims each and every year. It’s no wonder the numbers show that 1 out of every 6 women is sexually assaulted in her lifetime.

This happens because our government allows it to. Even though the general assumption is that women always win in civil and criminal cases this is not the case. Only 6% of rapists ever spend a day in jail. The others are left to wander the streets to commit such indiscretions again, be it against their past victims or against new ones. And, because of our laws - enforced by those same courts -  women are left powerless against those free-roaming offenders. They have to go through hurdles to get a handgun, they can’t own stun guns and they can possess only a limited amount of pepper spray. The lawmakers are oblivious to the fact that even with the most advanced self-defense techniques there is very little that a 120 pound woman can do against a 225 pound man, naturally more powerful than she and made even more so by his hunger for her flesh. Our officials have done everything in their power to give the predator the advantage by taking all means of protection from the prey.

Thus, it makes perfect sense that we turn the tables by arming the prey and allow women to keep rapists at bay. This won’t be accomplished through handguns, at least not in New York State. The NYC-based liberal contingent - which controls Albany - is so against our natural rights and the Second Amendment that we will never see our gun laws lessened. They will only be strengthened. That leaves but one option, something of a middle ground for the pro-gun and anti-gun crowds:  the legalization of stun guns.

New York is one of only 8 states in which stun guns are strictly prohibited. Considering how safe yet effective these weapons are there’s no reason that we shouldn’t legalize them. Undoubtedly the biggest reason for the strict gun laws in NY is that critics consider them to be lethal weapons. Stun guns, on the other hand, have become an extremely popular law-enforcement tool because they are decidedly non-lethal. They are very effective tools for stopping criminals and, by using brief 100,000-volt surges, they spare aggressors from the physical injury or death associated with guns and batons. In comparison to how often stun guns are used, death is extremely rare (although highly-publicized) and when it does occur, the “victim” (really the wrong word to use for a criminal) had a pre-existing health condition or was strung out on drugs. I’m sure a woman fighting for her life or health wouldn’t mind that very slim chance of taking the life of her attacker, a person who would like to ruin or take hers.

The safety of stun guns extends beyond that non-lethal status. The weapon’s electrical force is engaged only when the attacker comes into contact with the gun’s prongs. So, the other perceived consequences of handguns – stray bullets and innocent bystanders – never materialize because it’s a close-quarters weapon, one called into play when the situation has escalated to the point that the thug is in his victim’s personal space.

Overall, it’s the perfect weapon for women – and lawmakers - uncomfortable with the thought of someone carrying a gun. It’s portable, innocuous, and safe. Best of all, it works. A stun gun is a veritable pocket-sized health and life insurance policy for any and all women. It can give them – and their loved ones - the peace of mind they need when they’re running the bike paths or walking the streets at night. We need to empower women – not their predators - and legalizing stun guns may be the best way to do it. 

Although party politics looked like the ultimate cause of the controversial property tax cap never making it in the Democrat-led Assembly while it did in the Republican-led Senate, it is, at its core, a bipartisan issue. Republican John Faso introduced the concept during the 2006 gubernatorial debates and within a year’s time Democratic Governor Eliot Spitzer warmed up to the idea and created a Democrat-led task force whose findings tickled the fancy of Democratic David Paterson and Republicans in the Senate and Assembly. With a fan base as two-sided as that it’s obvious that even though it failed last week, the tax cap bill will see lengthy debate in the future. It might pass one day, maybe even next year if the Dems gain control of the Senate and can then take full credit for its institution.

If this does happen, which a majority of the beleaguered property owners in New York are hoping for, the concept needs a lot of help because it only answers one half of the equation. It might address spending at the local level but does absolutely nothing to address the spending habits of State Government. This is in itself brazenly hypocritical because the elected officials who want to hold the lower levels of government accountable choose not to live by the same rigid standards. If anything, it’s Albany that needs a tax cap because our state spends at rates the growth of which far exceed those of our schools and municipalities.

As mentioned in last week’s column, I saw my property taxes rise by a total of 17% over a three year period. It takes the state about two years to achieve such an increase in spending. When you look at what happened to the state budget over the past 3 fiscal years (the last two under liberal governors and the other ruled by a GOP head) this year’s is 5.5% higher than last year’s which was 7.3% higher than the previous which was 7.9% higher than the one before that. That amounts to a three-year rise in spending in excess of 22%. It’s no wonder that the state budget nearly doubled in the last thirteen years, going from $61.9 billion to $121 billion.

In comparison, federal spending, which is always believed to be more malignant than state spending, grew by “only” 6.7% in the last 3 years. Now, when gluttonous Uncle Sam is evidently more fiscally prudent than New York, there’s obviously something wrong. Hence Governor Paterson employing last week’s emergency session at the State Capitol which, by the way, wound up being more of a dog and pony show than anything of substance. It was a means by which to lull the taxpayers into believing that the political class was looking out for them. Only a pittance was carved from the budget and most of the wasteful social welfare and corporate welfare programs were left completely untouched. The legislators patted themselves on the back for carving out .08% of the bloated budget. Eight-tenths of one percent! They’ve been making it sound like their efforts were as awesome and dangerous as Man walking on the moon.

And that sort of fiscal lunacy is exactly why Albany needs a cap. Without any reins these wild horses have run roughshod over the Empire State. They need to be reined in. They need to know that their spending is - just like that of the local spending they decry - out of control and that it, too, needs a cap. But, a cap on taxation is difficult to implement at the State level because they flood us with so many often-hidden income taxes, sales taxes, user fees, license fees, and more. That’s why at the higher levels of government a “spending cap” is the way to go. If the expansion of the State budget was limited to the same standards that might be applied to locals’ taxes (the lesser of 4% or 120% the rate of inflation) we’d be so much better off. Applying that mathematical concept, the $62 billion budget of 13 years ago would have grown to $90 billion this year, a third less than what it truly is. 

A simple spending cap is really that effective. And, it’s obviously necessary, too. New York State’s public sector doesn’t understand the value of a dollar, so they need to be guided by the hand because, unfortunately, the cap they’re using now – the dunce cap – just isn’t helping New Yorkers. 

TEACHERS UNITED AGAINST REALITY
By Bob Confer, www.BobConfer.net  

Property taxes are out of control in New York State. I live in an old farmhouse on 5 acres of land in rural Niagara County. Last year, I paid $2,712 in county and local taxes and another $2,910 in school taxes. That’s 17% more than I had paid for the same only 3 years earlier.

That’s why I - like most others employed in the private sector - am delighted with the State’s proposal to cap these taxes. Were Governor Paterson and the State Senate to have their way the year-to-year growth of these taxes would never exceed the lesser of 4% overall or 120% of the rate of inflation (which from 1997 to 2007 averaged only 2.57%). It’s nowhere near a perfect solution (downsizing is), but, it’s a start. Capping tax expansion would cause elected officials and school boards to do something quite foreign to many of them; that is, operate reasonably within their (our) means. It might even force their hand in abandoning wasteful programs, assets and personnel. In the end, that just might bring businesses and people back to New York. And, those who do live here now might live better lives.   

Despite the chance for a better tomorrow, there are some very powerful people who hate the concept and want nothing to do with it, obviously reliant on escalating public revenues: Our teachers.    

Most teachers are good people, mind you, and singularly, they, too, want reasonable government expenditures. After all, they live in the same land of high taxes. But, beyond that, a majority of teachers really do care greatly for the well-being of the children they teach, that well-being including the financial health of the children’s families.  

Even so, taken collectively, teachers can be associated with a mob mentality that is strongly –and wrongfully - skewed against the families of this state. 600,000 of them, working or retired, are part of the 1,200 local unions that comprise the New York State United Teachers, the most powerful and influential lobbying union in the State.

The teachers union is supposed to represent the best interests of each and every one of its teachers and professors and, if it really does, you can’t help but wonder whose side the teachers are really on (solely theirs or all of ours?), especially since the union has come out guns-a-blazing against the tax cap. Inordinate amounts of ads, press releases, and lobbying have become the norm for the NYSUT, with president Dick Iannuzzi constantly saying that the children of New York will suffer because of the cuts to education associated with the cap. It’s obvious he wants your money.

What the teachers union fails to see is that money does not a good education make. If anything, New York’s kids are the poster children for that statement. We pay far and away the most in the USA at almost $15,000 per pupil per year and we get very pitiful results: We rank forty-third in graduation rates and those who do graduate have SAT scores well below the national average. Considering that, globally, the US ranks twentieth in science and twenty-fifth in math, one can’t help but shudder when realizing how far behind the rest of the world New Yorkers are. As indicated earlier, a tax cap might be the remedy for this, causing the education system to look within and reinvent itself while leaving more money at home, bettering the social and fiscal health of its students.         

But, this difficult yet meaningful path is not what the NYSUT wants. It even went as far as to pull its coveted endorsements from the 38 senators who voted for the tax cap. That sent a shocking message throughout Albany, the Union basically telling the elected officials who’s the boss. Without the campaign cash and campaigners from a pool of 600,000 influential people, a lot of the incumbents – many of whom are “status quo” officials who long supported the NYSUT - will face unexpectedly-difficult races, perhaps being replaced with someone even more sympathetic to the Union’s needs. If that happens, look out! You think you’re paying a lot now to put every kid in the neighborhood through school? Just wait. 

So, now, as the State and its residents weather the current financial crises at the same time the teachers enjoy the last few days of their lengthy NYSUT-maintained Summer vacations, I’m left wondering: How can any teacher who’s true to his or her higher calling maintain allegiance to an organization as vile as NYSUT, one that would just as soon steal food from the mouths of the very children that teacher is supposed to protect?

I know most of them are better than that. And, it’s time they showed it.      

SELF IMPORTANCE IS MURDER
By Bob Confer, www.BobConfer.net

Tim McLean was a happy-go-lucky 22-year old who was leading a normal life until it was taken away from him two weeks ago. His assailant, Vince Li, committed a completely random and despicable act of violence on McLean. The schizophrenic Li stabbed him multiple times, beheaded the young man and devoured some of his flesh.

Scary, eh?

What’s even more frightening than that: 35 people allowed it to happen.

Li perpetrated his deviance on a packed Edmonton-bound Greyhound bus. When Li first plunged his survival knife into his victim, the passengers and bus driver all ran off of the bus rather than pulling Li from his victim. Nobody pondered laying a hand on him until five minutes later when enough men worked up the courage to figure out they had better save McLean. When they finally went to the bus, it was much too late, as Li began taunting them with McLean’s head.

A true story as haunting as this begs the question, “why?” Why did so many people stand by as Li snuffed out McLean’s life and mutilated him? Why did no one dare attempt to save him when there was a very good chance that he could have been?

The answer may be that this event horribly exemplifies how damaging modern society’s ubiquitous “me first” attitude has become. In the years since the Baby Boomer generation’s graduation from college it seems that Modern Western culture has placed a heightened and misguided emphasis on the individual and his or her self-importance. This is not the ever-worthwhile path of rugged individualism, mind you, but rather a gluttonous self-centeredness that devalues the worth of others and places them a distant second in relation to one’s own comfort, enjoyment, and well-being. McLean was left for dead from Moment One because not one person out of 35 – a very slice of today’s society - felt enough compassion to override these thoughts of self, making them, arguably, as guilty as Vince Li. 

There was a time when all this wasn’t the case, when people cared for one another and willingly made sacrifices. The Baby Boomer’s parents were those sorts of people. During the Depression they voluntarily gave up food so that their friends and neighbors might eat. A few years later, in the Second World War, many men did not wait for the draft. Instead, they willingly joined the ranks knowing they had a higher calling to protect others at home and around the world. Those who remained on the home front gave of time and money to make sure families that were separated from their husbands and sons by war could make do.

But, here we are one, two, and even three generations removed from “the Greatest Generation” and the world is a completely different place. Popular culture has led the Boomers, my Generation X, Generation Y, and the teens of today down a path of “self-full-ness” rather than selflessness. Despite modern education emphasizing the importance of teamwork, which it was hoped would instill respect for and interaction with others, people prefer to live only for themselves.

The signs are everywhere, out and about and at home. Basics like etiquette, once the norm, have become a lost art, with the little things that are done for others - like holding a door open or helping another when they’ve dropped something – becoming rare. Service organizations have seen their ranks diminish significantly over the years because of this indifference to helping others. Parents, intent on their own interests, have become increasingly-disconnected from their own children. They take them to their sports teams, clubs, and the like, but that’s it, they rarely take the time to help those organizations (and therefore their kids) as a coach, leader, or assistant. And, that’s if they even become parents: Most Western nations are producing offspring at a rate much lower than the replacement rate because adults are selfishly finding greater value in their professional and personal goings-on than they assume they ever would in sharing the wonderful gift of life that was given to them.

It was that same gift of life that was viciously taken from McLean at an early age because no one could look beyond his or her own little world to help him.

In a grand scale, that’s why our society shows signs of distress. Although they don’t meet ends even remotely similar to Tim McLean’s, there are millions more like him, millions who are left for dead - literally and figuratively – every day because our population as a whole doesn’t give the personal sacrifices necessary to make their lives, and all of our lives, better. Our self-importance is, in many ways, murder.

From the 04 August 2008 Greater Niagara Newspapers

INFLATION REVISITED

By Bob Confer

Back in November of 2007 I wrote a column about the fallacies of the government’s inflation statistics. In it, I clearly detailed how Uncle Sam underreports inflation and why indicators like the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and the Personal Consumption Expenditures Index (PCE) can only be perceived as lies. That column, one that didn’t seem the least bit controversial, got me an inordinate amount of feedback. I received numerous e-mails, mostly from professors and economists from across the US who were insulted by the column and defended the federal government’s analytical skills.

Well, here it is nine months later, and my analysis is as correct as ever. One cannot help but wonder how academia and the government have evaded the Real World in their studies, for the reality is, inflation exists and it’s at levels that have not been seen in nearly 30 years. I’ll even go as far to say the actual numbers are horrifying.  

The most recent statistics have the CPI pegged at 5% since June of 2007 and the PCE at 3.1% for the 12-month period ending in May. If you’ve bought anything recently – food, gas, appliances - you know that those numbers are unrealistic. You’re paying an arm and a leg for things that were once affordable, even a year ago. Certain analysts agree with you. Some financial columnists believe that the annual inflation rate is over 9%. Shadowstats.com estimates real inflation to be even higher, in excess of 12%.

I tend to agree with the latter. The costs of the inputs to everything we buy have exploded recently and, accordingly, so have the prices for our needs and wants. Corn is not only found in anything and everything in our kitchens, but it is also the primary food for many of our meats and dairy. This necessary grain went from $2.25 a bushel in 2006 to $7 last month. Oil, the lifeblood of our mobile America, was around $65 per barrel in January of 2007. It was at $122 last week. Natural gas is over 50% more expensive than it was last year. Electricity across New York will be 21% more expensive this year. And, lastly, ubiquitous plastic has gone from 57 cents a pound to over 80 cents a pound in under one year. With prices that out of control, it has become impossible for all Americans to enjoy the quality of life that we once had.  

The government has plenty to gain from misrepresenting this inflation. Above all, it gives the politicians and bureaucrats the ability to mask their failures. Inflation is caused by a decrease in the purchasing power of a dollar, which means that there’s too much of the green stuff in circulation. By recklessly creating money out of thin air, which it has done since dropping the gold standard, the feds have made our money increasingly worthless. It has only added more fuel to the fire this year with the economic stimulus package and housing bailout (both of them being “free” money). By underreporting the oversupply, the government can justify to an agreeable if not brainwashed populace all of its intrusive market and monetary policies which always do more harm than good.        

Regardless of the reason for the federal government’s lies, inflation is real and nothing good can come from it. The very same economists who create and defend the CPI like to tell everyone that we’re not in a recession. Ask around and you’ll find otherwise. See if your family and friends are buying as many items or spending as many discretionary dollars as they used to. They’re not. Ask any business if they’re having a good year. They’re not. Our national economy is a mess. Behind all the bloated revenues on Wall Street (a direct result of higher inputs, not higher sales volumes), corporate profits – as a percentage - are down and the stock market is weakening. Even the once-indestructible automotive and housing markets are in major trouble.

THE FIGHT TO SAVE ENGLISH
By Bob Confer, www.BobConfer.net  

My company sells its products all over the world. The literature that goes with the goods sent overseas or to Canada are in multiple languages as they should be. But, we’ve made it a point that all items sold in the United States have their manuals and fliers printed in only one language: English. We do so out of respect for our national identity and our unique American culture. English has always been America’s presumptive official language and it always should be if not designated as such legally.

Other companies don’t take such a hard stand. Instead, they lick their chops over the revenue stream that comes with a very sizable population of individuals who don’t know and might never know English. There are nearly 20 million illegal aliens in the United States who, along with their many children born on American soil, chose to speak and read Spanish only. To reap rewards from such a consumer base, one which is almost 7% of the US population (and growing), businesses alter their marketing and packaging to include, and often times emphasize, the Spanish language.

Those companies – large corporations and small businesses alike – and the equally-guilty federal government are contributing to the decay of our national identity and are only adding to our illegal immigration nightmare. Our people have made it easy for the aliens to assimilate into our population, but not into our traditional society. After all, why would they want to, why would they have to, when their society is being spoonfed to them? By offering anything and everything in Spanish – consumer goods, private sector services, and public services – the United States has quickly become an extension of the aliens’ original home and not truly a new home. This continued invasion cannot be tempered when the invaders are being welcomed with open arms and their lives made quite comfortable. Basically, bilingual marketing and government offerings have aided Mexico’s northward expansion.

Nothing good can come from this. The indifference to English creates chaos in the ways that even the most basic of things are done and, ultimately and ironically, some of the people who will suffer the most are the invaders and their families. By choosing to speak only Spanish, they excuse themselves from ever moving up from the lowest of the low wages. They left Mexico to find a better quality of life, they got, but it is and will continue to be the lowest quality of life in America. They can go only so far when lacking the ability to appropriately communicate. With them stuck in such a rut, businesses will continue to supply them with sub-standard careers and earnings, taking advantage of this labor pool. This growing lower class will then stifle the upper-lower and middle class families who are real, legal and honest Americans. By cheapening the American standard of living they will steal jobs from our citizens, decrease wages across multiple industries, and the government will require that we provide for their ill-begotten entitlements and services. 

In an attempt to weaken this cultural and economic collapse, many state governments have taken a stand and chosen to do business in manner that I have, pushing English when the federal government and businesses won’t. So far, 30 states in the Union have legally designated English as their official language, making it the only language of government. Many of those rulings were instituted a few decades ago, but eight were passed in the past 10 years, a time when promoting the English language has been looked at as politically-incorrect, if not racist, by some of the softest of our society. So, despite the inescapable ramblings of the vocal few, it has been shown that as a general rule our citizens want to maintain a sense of dignity and national pride and recognize the importance of English. As a matter of fact, this patriotic movement has not lost any steam: 10 states introduced pro-English bills in this year’s legislative sessions and in two of them (Ohio and Oklahoma) it passed one of the houses.

The fight to save English can’t end there. It needs to be ongoing. There are 20 states in which we need to affect change and recognize the sanctity of American traditions. The federal government will probably never proceed in such a manner, even though legislation has made it to the Congress floor in the past, but with a Republic such as ours, the onus is truly and legally on the States to keep our nation strong. 20 more of them to go and we can ensure some semblance of reason – if even just a little bit - in this seemingly-endless invasion.

SALUTING A CHINESE FLAG
By Bob Confer, www.BobConfer.net

For about a half year following the acts of terrorism perpetrated on September 11, 2001, Americans were a patriotic lot. As the nation and its people healed themselves, Americanism became the “in” thing to do. People bled red, white, and blue and adorned their homes and offices with American flags. Those feelings have long since waned with most American having returned to their old ways, showing their colors only when the occasion demands it, such as on the Fourth of July.

Even though the emotional impact of Americana has gone, the economic impact of this part-time patriotism remains. Due to the incredible spike in demand for American flags that occurred in late-2001 the flag industry found itself unable to keep up. This opened the door for offshore manufacturers and the marketplace was flooded with American flags that were far from being American. They were – and are – like most things seem to be nowadays: cheap imports. In the six months following the attacks tens of millions of dollars worth of foreign-made flags were shipped to the US. In the years since, over $5 million of Asian-manufactured Old Glories have entered our ports each and every year. They are sold throughout the States, chipping away at the market shares once completely dominated by domestic manufacturers.

This is disconcerting. Of all things, one would hope that our flag was American-made. It is the symbol of everything that our country is, representing all of the wonderful gifts that America has given its citizens (and those of other nations) over the past 232 years. When you properly pledge allegiance to this banner you know that the USA is the greatest society that Man has ever known. It’s only fitting that our flags should be made by American hands on American soil and not tainted by “Made in China” labels.

That said, foreign flags are a slap in the face to all past and present servicemen. Millions of men have fought for, and even died, for what our flag stands for. Understanding the sanctity of Stars and Stripes as well as the immeasurable importance of our soldiers and their quest to save Everything America, the US Department of Veterans Affairs uses only American-made flags for burials.

Using that as practice as his guiding light, Bob Filner, Chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee, was hoping to bring that same attention to domestic detail to the government at large. The Congressman from California introduced a bill back in May that would have required that all flags purchased and flown by the federal government be made in America.

Filner’s well-intentioned bill was shot down last week. It couldn’t get anywhere because of China.

Due to the pervasiveness of supposed free-and-fair trade deals, the federal government cannot dictate where certain products are made or put caps and restrictions on those imports. Flags fall under this category. So, rather than upset the apple cart Congress instead passed something called a “sense of Congress”, which is a meaningless resolution, nothing more and nothing less. It is not a law, but rather a statement. Our government could only go as far to suggest that all government-used flags be American-made. It can enforce nothing in its ranks.

Their lack of backbone is extremely unfortunate. Congress has sold us out and has shown that truthful patriotism is, to it, something not worthy of acting upon in meaningful manner. Pessimistically, maybe it really is fitting that most of our flags do say “Made In China”. With leaders like ours, there’s a good chance that someday everything in the United States – maybe even our own Congress – will have 100% foreign content.

So, it’s up to us to succeed where they fail. If you are one of the few remaining Americans who’s patriotic all the time and not only when it’s what all the popular people are doing, buy American with your next flag. It will be a symbolic act but one quite welcomed by our nation’s symbol and everyone who has fought for it. We need to be saluting American flags and not those manufactured by a nation that one day hopes to take our spot as the most powerful in the world. We don’t want to be saluting their flags then and we don’t need to be doing it now.               

AMERICA’S RAIL CRISIS
By Bob Confer, www.BobConfer.net

The Golden Spike is one of the most iconic items in American history. When this spike was driven into the Transcontinental Railroad in 1869 it marked the union of the West Coast and East Coast, fulfilling our young nation’s Manifest Destiny. The spike proved to be just as golden in a figurative sense as it was in a literal sense as the rail’s ability to move freight and people across the continent in days and not months instantly brought on a Golden Age of economic growth.

The rail system is just as important now as it was back then. Many people may perceive it to be an archaic form of transportation, but it is key to our past, present, and future. There are 140,000 miles of track in the US, over which 2 billion tons of freight are moved annually. This accounts for approximately 15% of all freight tonnage transported across the States and its contribution been growing at a 5% annual rate. This tame growth in rail freight is expected to explode in the next few years as high gasoline prices remain the norm, stifling development in truck transportation. Because of that $4 gas as well as roadway congestion brought on by our rapidly-growing population (there will be a third more Americans by 2040) and the shortage of truck drivers, too, the expectations for rail freight are expected to double by 2030.

Unfortunately, as good as that may sound for the rail companies, it’s nearly impossible. The rails are already congested as it is. Due to outdated single track systems in heavy trade corridors and severely-undersized hubs in major metro areas, goods often times can’t move at rates that logistics managers would hope. Case in point, Chicago handles over 70,000 trains per year which is over a third of US train traffic. Because of limitations in the antiquated 150-year old hub it is not uncommon for trains to be stranded in the Windy City for two or three days at a time because of gridlock.

This boom in train traffic, at once welcoming and frustrating, was facilitated by the Staggers Act of 1980. After some very dark days in the 1970’s when the rails suffered greatly because of the accumulation of decades of burdensome government regulation, the act cut off the government’s invisible hand, deregulating the market and allowing private investment to take hold. Capitalists were able to streamline services and markedly improve the efficiency, profitability, and affordability of rail freight. In 2006, these same investors pumped in an astounding $8 billion in infrastructure improvements, double what they did five years earlier. But, that’s not enough and the government may have to get involved again for the benefit of the common good.

It is estimated that upgrading the network will cost $195 billion to achieve what is required is capacity by 2030. All things being equal, the private sector will be able to support 75% of that need. That leaves nearly $50 billion that needs to be addressed somehow, maybe by the public sector. This can be accomplished in one of two ways, direct investment or incentives.

Being that the rails benefit all by moving goods to and fro and driving our consumer economy, a case could be made for public funds. $50 billion over 10 years is chump change by federal standards, considering that the federal budget for 2009 is pegged at $3.1 trillion. But, these are public funds nonetheless and should not be used to provide life support to a private enterprise. Yes, the consumers will benefit from the expenditure but more so than they will the owners of the rail lines. The point of the Staggers Act was to eliminate such bonding.

That’s why the only feasible option for improving our nation’s infrastructure is tax incentives that will induce the firms to further their expenditures. Analysts believe that a 25% tax credit for new rails will cause the railroad companies to increase their annual spending by 75% which should fully fund their needs. What the federal government forgoes in tax receipts it will more than make up for in the form of taxes from the economic development allowed to occur by the ability of the railroads to meet what is expected by our nation’s consumers. This tax credit is manifested in the Freight Rail Infrastructure Capacity Expansion Act of 2007, something that has been in Washington’s limbo since the Spring of 2007.

Hopefully the next Congress picks up this cause and can move the bill through the House and Senate. If they don’t, our economy (once it gets back on track) could be limited in how far it goes by how far our products and resources cannot go.           

HILLARY CLINTON USED NEW YORKERS
By Bob Confer, www.BobConfer.net  

If you watched any of the Tim Russert tributes of the past few weeks, no doubt you saw a montage of his back-and-forths with politicians regarding his favorite question: “will you run for president?” One of these classic moments involved Hillary Clinton back in 2002. When asked that question she became incredibly uncomfortable, even while knowing it would be asked. Her mannerisms and body language told us an answer that was quite different from her repeated “no.” 

Despite her statements to the contrary, both before and after that interview, people of any political mettle knew better. When Hillary Clinton first ran for the US Senate in the 2000 election it was obvious to them that she was using New York State for her own political and personal gain, not as an outlet for public service that one would hope from a Senator. She was a carpetbagger extraordinaire having never lived in New York, and knowing absolutely nothing of its economy, its history, and, most importantly, its people. Her only attachment to the Empire State was a Chappaqua home that she and Bill purchased in 1999 to make a claim for residency. Unfortunately, for as many people who saw through her ruse, there were many more people who were sandbagged by the carpetbagger. She claimed a 55% victory in 2000 and won again in 2006 with over two-thirds of the votes.

That misplaced trust has come back to haunt all New Yorkers. This presidential election cycle has been longer than any other, beginning before January of 2007. Not 2008, but 2007. For the year and a half prior to her finally conceding to Barack Obama last month, Hillary Clinton had been a senator in name only, using the illustrious title only as a means to propel herself into the Oval Office. For the most part she has been absent from her senatorial duties.

To be fair, Senators John McCain and Barack Obama have been guilty of the same lack of active participation. But, neither of those men came to office with expectations of immediately acquiring the presidency. McCain has been toiling in Congress since 1983 and Obama was a virtual nobody up until his stirring speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004.

Hillary came on to the scene in 2000 with the ultimate goal of winning the 2008 presidential election and that quest has dominated her attention. In just this year alone Clinton managed to take herself away from her tireless campaign of self-promotion to vote on only a scant 63 of the 162 items that came to the Senate floor. By choosing to do her job just 39% of the time she ignored the Farm Bill. She did not vote on the 2009 federal budget. She didn’t offer her opinion on improved educational assistance for our armed forces. She didn’t give her “yea” or “nay” to the Foreclosure Protection Act. She didn’t vote on extension of tax credits for renewable energy development. She never gave the time to recognize the men and women killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. And, she didn’t want to help define our strategy for battling al-Qaeda. Basically, by failing to act on these and other bills she let down her constituents.

Clinton’s part-time efforts come with full-time pay. She’ll earn the base $169,300 plus all the perks. In the real world she never would have earned that wage. As a matter of fact, she would have been fired for dereliction of duties. The office of US Senator comes with great expectations. It is supposed to be a means to make everyone’s lives better, not a means to make that Senator’s life better. Hillary doesn’t understand that. She let us down by abusing her power and she let herself down by never reaping the presidential rewards hoped by her selfish master plan.

What makes this so horrible is the simple fact that we have only two senators. With such power it’s vitally important that we get the most out of our “investment”. Because of her desire to achieve greatness on the backs of others while turning her back to them, Hillary Clinton has failed all New Yorkers, those who voted for her and those who did not. We deserve an apology….or someone who truly wants to be our senator.   

BRUNO’S LEGACY NOT A GOOD ONE

By Bob Confer, www.BobConfer.net

Eliot Spitzer was stupid enough to get involved with a prostitute and dumb enough to get caught. But, even so, one cannot deny that he is still a man possessed of great intellect. As our Attorney General he accomplished a great deal in his efforts to squash corruption. Before the tables turned he attempted the same in Albany, using all resources at his disposal (such as the New York State police) to bring down Senator Joe Bruno, a man he knew wasn’t on the up-and-up.

It didn’t work. The only man capable of taking Joe Bruno out of office was….Joe Bruno.

Last week, supposedly on his own terms (sans FBI pressure?), Bruno, one of the Three Men in a Room, finally left the room. The man who spent 32 years in the State Capitol announced that he would not seek re-election in November and was stepping down from his leadership post.

As it tends to happen with any retirement, accolades have been pouring in from friends and foes alike. Are their memories really that short? For the past 13 years as leader of the Senate he has been one of the three primary caretakers of the State and under his watch it – and, as matter of fact, he – has suffered.  

Since everything that happens in Albany must go through Joe Bruno’s office, it can be said that he had direct control over state spending and even local spending (unfunded mandates) and, therefore, the health of our economy. Every state budget of the last 13 years was significantly larger than that of the previous year. When this is looked at in total, it’s almost unbelievable. Back In 1995 when Bruno took the throne, state spending was “only” $61.9 billion. In the current fiscal year state spending will exceed $121 billion. So, state spending nearly doubled while Bruno led the Senate!

Because of the debilitating taxation necessary to fund such spending, businesses have left in droves, taking our residents with them. In 1998 NYS was the fifth most-expensive state in which to do business, in 2007 we ranked second. In the 90’s, the net migration for New York was a loss of 1.9 million residents. It has been no better since the turn of the century: Two years ago, in just one year alone, we lost 124,000 New Yorkers.

Bruno and his Senate brethren have always placed the blame for these trends on the shoulders of the “liberal assembly.” That excuse exemplifies Bruno’s complete lack of responsibility and meaningful leadership because no bill, no budget can be passed without the support of both houses. And, don’t forget that up until 2006 Bruno always had a Republican governor as the third wheel. The demise of New York is a result of the collective efforts of Spitzer, Silver, Pataki and Bruno. He’s as guilty as the others and so are all of the Senators who obeyed his every order.

Bruno’s guilt extends beyond the halls of the Capitol. He has been under investigation by the FBI for over three years, the feds very critical of his moonlighting as a representative of Wright Investor Services, a company that controls pension funds for countless government workers employed in NY. The investigation into this conflict of interest and the expected outcome no doubt forced his unexpected retirement, even though he says it had nothing to do with it. That’s hard to believe when on the very day that he announced his desire to ride off into the sunset the FBI took 30 boxes of materials from his office.    

To top it off, his sudden departure was a slap in the face to the Republican Party that supported him through the decades. This is the GOP’s most important election year in memory, they holding a very slim 32-30 advantage over the Democrats in the Senate. It has been said for months now that they might lose that edge come November and, thusly, control of the house that they’ve held since 1965. Bruno’s exit makes that almost certain as the party must scramble to address not only leadership issues but filling his Senate seat as well.

So, this is the legacy that Joe Bruno leaves, one that smacks of failure and corruption. It’s almost fitting that he chose to leave in 2008, a year fraught with controversy so intense that when historians look back on this era they will remember the man who tried to ruin him (Spitzer) and not the man who did (Bruno).  

PROTECTING PROPERTY RIGHTS
By Bob Confer 

When our founding fathers penned the Declaration of Independence they noted we are endowed with unalienable rights which include “…Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Happiness was used as an all-inclusive term, but it had its basis in the property rights of the individual. This focus was borrowed from the writings of British philosopher John Locke who emphasized life, health, liberty, and property rights in writings that appeared over a century before the Declaration. Recognizing Locke’s influence on our nation’s principles is the key to understanding just exactly what the founding fathers meant with the language of the Declaration and the Constitution.

Taking this into consideration, all our citizens must realize that individual property rights are paramount to the American Dream and the concept of ownership by the common man is one of the most significant factors that separates our country from all others. We are a unique society, without a doubt the greatest in history, because of the ability for – and desire of – the individual to acquire things that can improve his quality of life and that of his descendents.

Many Americans don’t understand this, placing a greater emphasis on entitlements, which are the awarding of property (financial assets, aid, housing). They believe the government should provide for them and they willingly take from it. The government, too, has a sense of entitlement, believing it can provide for the masses by taking away from the individual. This government “right” was granted in the Fifth Amendment but with limitations. It reads as: ”nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”

Despite the limiting agent, that property can be taken only for public use, many government entities have abused the Amendment and have stolen property for purely private use. One such example occurred in Niagara Falls, where New York stole land from homeowners and businesses which it gave to a foreign nation - the Senecas - which then used it to develop their casino.

Unfortunately, acting in a manner that sees the Constitution as a “living document” fit for modernized interpretation, the Supreme Court finds merit in such practices. In 2005 the Court settled the case of Kelo vs. City of New London, in which it ruled 5-4 in favor of New London, indicating that eminent domain for private purposes is a legal practice because economic development could be construed as being beneficial to the public at large.

The Court’s ruling has set an ugly precedent. Now, no one’s property is safe: Using the Supreme Court as a crutch, any business acting through a municipality could steal the land from underneath you as long as they employed people and - to the benefit of the government - paid higher taxes than your home, farm, or camp might. This is not what our forefathers had intended. As a matter of fact, this sort of robbery is what they were up against when they fought for our independence.

There is one way to inhibit eminent domain. It’s called the Private Property Rights Protection and Government Accountability Act. Introduced on June 10 by Congressman John Sullivan of Oklahoma, this bill has two interesting facets. First of all, it would empower property owners to take any and all eminent domain issues to court in an effort to prevent the land grab. In most of the recent cases the courts have acted primarily on issues of compensating the property owner. This bill would address the act of eminent domain itself, suspending the theft until the issue is settled and, hopefully, ruling in favor of the individual depending on state law. Not all states are as liberal as New York; some, such as Michigan and Ohio, have barred eminent domain outright.

The second power of the bill is a rather intriguing one that would turn government’s sense of entitlement upon itself. For as much as local and state governments tax every one of us, they still remain reliant on – and feel entitled to - funds from the federal government for “economic development” purposes. Sullivan’s bill would restrict such federal funds for a period of ten years to any state or locality which uses eminent domain. This is the ultimate in accountability, you could almost consider the foregone monies a massive fine levied against the government entity which has chosen to steal property. They’ll all learn quickly.

Sullivan’s bill is currently in committee. Let’s not let it die there. Contact your Congressmen, ask them to support it and let them know you value your property and you don’t want it stolen from you by abuses of power.          

By Bob Confer, www.BobConfer.net

Over the past few years a majority of Americans have been quite disappointed with what’s happening at our Southern border. Millions of Mexicans have been allowed to illegally enter our nation and assimilate into our populace. Despite considerable uproar from legal, taxpaying citizens, our federal government has done almost nothing to rectify the situation. There has been some talk of increasing border security or maybe enforcing existing laws, but this “silent invasion” continues unchecked: For every one Mexican caught trying to illegally enter our nation, more than five make it through. This begs the question, “why isn’t the government doing anything about it?”

The government is not moving on this because, quite frankly, it doesn’t fit into their plans for the future. Open borders actually serve an obscene purpose for our government, because the free flow of humans and money facilitates something known as “the North American Union”.

Believing they achieved great success with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the leaders of the USA, Canada, and Mexico want to extend that style of governance beyond the realm of economics. They have a long-term plan to create an all-inclusive system that mirrors the European Union, something that would touch on economic, social, political, and judicial issues, truly affecting your everyday life.

The North American Union (NAU) has been in development behind the scenes for quite a while now. The brainchild of one-world-order promoters such as the Council of Foreign Relations (known as the most powerful influence upon US foreign policy), the concept has been pursued in earnest during the Bush Administration. In 2005 he, Mexican president Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Martin launched the first step in the process, an initiative called the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. The SPP meets annually and outlines plans to standardize trade, security, and the flow of people.

The European model started in the same fashion and quickly became something that eroded the sovereignty of all participating nations. There, national identity and national laws (and, therefore, any semblance of self rule) have been eroded. Every one of the participating countries once managed their own defense and foreign affairs and handled items of law via their standards. Now, they conduct all such tasks as a cooperative.

All of this can occur in North America and some of it already has. Our Constitution has been usurped on numerous occasions by NAFTA. In a couple of high profile cases occurring since 2000 a tribunal of that pact has interceded in legal affairs, discounting court rulings in Massachusetts and Mississippi and going so far as to negate the rulings of our US Supreme Court. It’s frightening to think that outsiders can rule on issues on American soil where we are supposed to set the law of the land.

Imagine taking that one step further and putting your national defense into the hands of a continental security force. One of the primary goals of the Partnership is to universally protect everyone from natural and man-made disasters. That means countless trillions in US funds will be dedicated towards aid in Mexico, in a sense adopting all of their problems. That very same Mexico, a nation steeped in a culture of corruption, will be empowered to protect our nation. Not a very comforting thought.

Just as uncomfortable is the thought of a shared currency. Most Americans know that the Europeans share a common currency, the Euro. To supposedly improve trade the NAU would institute the same concept here, something anecdotally known as the “Amero”. This move would eliminate US monetary policy and stifle the rewards of American capitalism by spreading the economic benefit across three nations. Our national economy is sailing some rough waters right now. The dollar is at all-time lows. Just imagine how much worse off we would be sharing our money with Mexico. It’s obvious that we’d only be subsidizing their people: their gross domestic product is $12,500 per person while ours is $46,000. In the end, our quality of life would plummet in order to improve theirs. 

Many people, including President Bush, have railed against NAU detractors, saying it will never exist and that it is not even in the planning stag