Indict, Prosecute and Adjudicate

This is not rocket engineering, to quote Sergio Garcia.

It is common sense – it also happens to be the American judicial system.  If we are accused of a crime – by we, we mean any one of the 93% of the US population; the other 7% work for one form of government or another – based on reasonable cause, some evidence and a prosecutor who by their own definition can indict a ham sandwich, we enter the American judicial system – indictment, prosecution, adjudication.  We defend ourselves at our own expense, and we are either found guilty, exonerated or the case is tossed out for lack of evidence, reasonable doubt, etc.

It works for us – the 93% - there is no reason why it can’t work for the 7%.

Now, there is only one little hitch – just as the 93% seldom argue that they should be able to conduct the investigation and the indictment process for themselves, so can we argue that the 7% should not conduct the investigation and the indictment process for themselves.  Alas, though, the government controls the investigators and the prosecutors.

So what to do?

Simple – assemble a cadre of independent investigators (no not the FBI or CIA or NSA or any of the countless inspector general’s working for the heads of the bureaucracies under investigation) and independent prosecutors to work the government cases.  This “we will investigate ourselves business” that is now rampant under the Obama administration is not independent and it is not going to produce an impartial result and it sure will not instill a tad of confidence in a government that is now deemed to be inefficient at best, routinely incompetent and, at worse, corrupt to its very core as is the governments of the locales from whence came Mr. Obama. 

Aside:  we hate to say it but we told you so – you cannot get good government by advancing someone who worships at the altar of Chicago, Cook County and Springfield, Illinois politics and politicians.  Many of these folk end up being prosecuted by the feds – but the feds can’t prosecute their own.

Anything short of this process is just more avoidance, deflection and distraction.  We would like to see the emails flying between the white house and AKPD propaganda – why isn’t the justice department investigating that gang?  Is the NSA listening in to their phone calls?

Oh, that’s right – if you are on the side of more government; more public employment unions; more bureaucrats; more rules, laws and regulations, you get a pass.

Either send a message now – with the situations (IRS, etc.) in front of you – or get ready for 3+ years of this “we will get back to you when we complete our investigation” nonsense.  In the meantime, someone needs to remember this simple fact – the United States has wasted more money and accumulated more debt in the last five years than any other time in its history.  And it has done nothing to advance the output and innovation of our economy.  All it has done is add to a federal government bureaucracy that depresses economic advancement.  The guiding principle of TheFundamentals is and continues to be:

Deficits = Debt = Destruction

These bureaucrats and their bumbling, illegal activities are just one of the more obvious causes of the deficits – and the one that clearly needs immediate elimination.

Managing the Bureaucrats

The title is tongue in cheek.

If you are a bureaucrat, and golly gosh have we got a ton of them, you are in one of two camps on the title issue:

Camp One – your bureaucracy has reached the optimum size where manageability is no longer a concern – no longer an issue – not even discussed.  When a bureaucracy reaches optimum size no one is responsible – there is no accountability – even the lowest bureaucrat in the bureaucracy fears no one because no one has a clue what he/she is doing; is supposed to be doing; they don’t even know why that person was hired.  The only thing anyone in Camp One bureaucracies care about is – is someone making more money than I am?  Camp One bureaucracies have achieved bureaucratic nirvana.

Examples of Camp One Bureaucracies, please –

·         US Department of Defense

·         US State Department

·         CIA

·         IRS

·         Department of Justice (here we have an example of Camp One bureaucratic humor – the appropriate name would be:  Department of Injustice)

·         Environmental Protection Agency (ditto as to use of the word “protection”)

·         Most state departments of motor vehicles, and

·         In the private sector – Comcast (desperately trying to rebrand their corporate image under the rather bizarre name – Xfinity (a reference, we think, to the amount of time it takes a customer to attain customer service)

Camp Two – all other bureaucracies.  By definition a bureaucracy, from its moment of conception, is on the path to Camp One status.  Otherwise, it would not be a bureaucracy.  The only objective of a bureaucrat is to ultimately belong to a Camp One bureaucratic organization.  Many attain this status (see above.)  All others strive to attain Camp One status but until you belong to a bureaucracy wherein you know for certain that someone else employed in the very same bureaucracy is doing the exact opposite of what you are supposed to be doing, you are still working at a Camp Two bureaucracy – shame on you.

Bureaucratic management update.  On February 1, 2012 TheFundamentals named Leon Panetta as America’s number one bureaucrat – Mr. Bureaucrat  (see:  http://thefundamentalsus.blogspot.com/2012/02/mr-bureaucrat.html )  The significance of this high honor cannot be understated.  Literally, one must spend an entire lifetime striving for such a vaunted position.  Leon’s resume reads like the script to a life of uncontrolled commitment to reaching Camp One enlightenment – no one knows what you are doing – few care – but you don’t care because you know that there can be no accountability for your actions or lack thereof.  But, Leon, be careful.  Hillary Clinton has her eyes of supplanting you – she wants that title (Ms. Bureaucrat) and she is very close to securing it.

Closing tip for all the Camp Two bureaucrats out there – if you are asking yourself, “Self, what can I do to get my bureaucracy to Camp One status while I can still enjoy it?” Here is your answer – screw up – as often as possible.  The bigger the screw up, the better.  The more visible the screw up, even better.  Try to involve the highest officials available – preferably top elected officials.  Then claim inadequate resources – inadequate authorizations – ask for more – resources (money, money, money) and authorizations (laws, rules, regulations, etc.)  It always works – and you will be on the road to Camp One status.  Or just hitch yourself to Hillary’s wagon – she knows the route.

 

 

 

In her own words – "Saint" Hillary Clinton, “..what difference..does it make.."

 

This is not the only time this person applies her dismissive philosophy to an event from which she singularly chooses to distance herself – quickly and completely:

·         How about her husband explaining his Vietnam War deferment shenanigans?

·         How about her husband denying sex with Gennifer Flowers?

·         Or renting out the Lincoln bedroom?

·         What about when Bill's vice president, AGore, observed that there was “no controlling legal authority” about raising campaign money from his VP office?

·         Or about Bill's close companion, the oh so handsome JCarville referring to Paula Jones as some opportunistic trailer park resident?

·         Or Katherine Willey coming onto her guy?

·         Or Monica wandering the oval office, on her knees?  Hubby Bill sans pants?

·         Or that handsome but somewhat chubby Bill Richardson offering Monica some form of post white house employment?

·         Or even the great Hillary herself flying into some war zone, under fire, but doing her job nonetheless, and then it turned out to never have happened?

Well, call it what you want – we call it lying.  She is a liar – her husband is a convicted liar.   Some pair, huh?  But what difference does it make?

Here is a situation we would pose to you, a hypothetical situation, involving this gal who knows what is best for all of us but who gets a bit testy when questioned or challenged:

"Let's say Mrs. Clinton were to go away and not be heard from again?"

"What difference would it make?"

 

ps:  our thanks to the late Michael Kelly (1957 - 2003) for much of this compilation of just why none of us really need even four more minutes of any one from the Arkansas Clinton family.  We highly recommend that you get your hands on Michael's Collected Writings, "Things Worth Fighting For."  Michael wrote one of the first "exposes" of Hillary for the New York Times Magazine in 1993 entitled "Saint Hillary" and it sure raises some interesting questions when matched up against the topics in those bullet points above.

In His Own Words - David Bego

 

The purpose of this post is twofold:

1.  For those who are not familiar with the Heritage Foundation - an introduction.  You can visit them anytime at www.heritage.org  TheFundamentals encourages support of this fine organization, and

2.  To introduce you to David Bego - an American who deserves the same recognition given to Eliot Ness.  An American who today stands up to organized thugs - even those who operate with the full legal and financial support of your federal government.

The Right to Choose

 

 

Jennifer

“The right to choose is the right to success and prosperity in this country. Being able to determine our future, or at least have a strong say in it empowers us a chance to put other goals in front of raising a family until that is our choice. I was 24, a recent graduate with a career in environmental field studies in pursuit, in a new relationship when our birth control method failed. I was not ready to be a mother, it would have been a terrible environment to raise a child and would have made all our lives miserable. Why would anyone choose that for a child?”

Source:  http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/womens-voices/womens-stories/jennifer-1.html

 

Our essay today focuses on the first sentence of Jennifer’s tale – the right to choose is the right to success and prosperity in this country.   Jennifer is addressing her right to success and prosperity.  One could say, “Jennifer is self focused.”  Jennifer has a great deal of support in her philosophy or belief of her right to prosper.  Her government supports her legally and financially – free birth control – free abortion – free choice.

 

Now let’s say you are not Jennifer and you made the choice to have your baby (i.e. you’re a Mom.)  Does your government continue its belief, its philosophy  – of letting you choose what is best for you and your child?  That is our question today.

 

So, now we’re Mom and we’ve got our baby and we need to take care of our baby and we very early on realize that we need to educate this little one because, just as Jennifer points out – the right to choose is the right to success and prosperity in this country.  Jennifer might even agree – education is also important in that success and prosperity focus of hers.

 

Jennifer made her choice with the full support of her government.  But does Mom get the same government support?  The right to choose?  Legal and financial support?

 

Well, we went to several places to seek an answer to this question:

 

www.whitehouse.gov

www.naral.org

www.plannedparenthood.org     

www.democrats.org

www.nea.org

www.aft.org

All support a woman’s right to choose (Jennifer’s definition)  – none support a Mom’s right to choose.  (Go ahead – go to each of the above site references and search on this phrase “right to choose”).   Think about that – they all agree with Jennifer – a woman’s right to choose is the right to success and prosperity in this country.  But no support for all the Mom’s seeking a good education for their child – the born child – the living child – the citizen child.  No right to choose; no right to have government legal and financial support – no decision with Mom, or Dad for that matter.  They offer one education choice – take it or leave it – otherwise you are on your own.  But you will pay for their one alternative, regardless.

What is this “right to choose” business all about?  Is it just a political convenience – not a committed philosophy of choice leading to success and prosperity.  Why would the right to choose be limited to having/not having your child and then disappear after your child is born?  This makes no sense.  If anything the choices one makes after the child is born are more important to a society focused on prosperity and success wouldn’t you think? 

This society of ours frowns on those who state the obvious – who see reality and don’t pretend otherwise.  If you support any of the organizations cited above, ask yourself this question – do I really believe that I should be limiting the choices of Mom’s to decide what is best for their child?  Have I thought it through?  Do I trust Mom’s to choose just as I trust women to choose?  Or am I just in this for the convenience of some politicians, bureaucrats and their union masters?

Bureaucrat Bluster

Once again we hear bluster from the federal bureaucrats: 

Bring them to justice…

...follow them to the ends of the earth...

...leave no rock (stone) unturned…

...let us go about our business…

...evildoers…

...terrorists…

...work around the clock.

Television loves it.  The bureaucrats love it.  All lined up.  All with something to say.  Tough.  Focused.    The big shots have a speech – get in front of the cameras – about what they will do now that the attack is over.  No one, not one of them said a thing about what they were doing the minute or the seconds before the bombs were detonated.  We don’t know where they were – what they were doing – but now we do – they’ve told us – we can count of them.  They’re on the job.  Now, but, in case you missed it - they knew about the older bomber brother.

 

How much do you think these bureaucrats cost the American people?  Well, we decided to do a little research and a little calculation and add it up – in numbers we can all relate to - billions and trillions of dollars.  We figured that we would cover the time period from 2001 (World Trade Center attacks) to 2013 (Boston marathon bombs.)   A thirteen year period of time.  No analysis, just the cost numbers (please focus on the bold numbers) from that impeccable of all sources:  www.whitehouse.gov

 

For each of their departments/agencies/programs/offices:

Department of Justice:   $340 Billion                                                              $ 133 Billion

Department of Homeland Security:  $529 Billion                                           $ 120 Billion

Department of Veteran Affairs:  $1.103 Trillion                                             $ 472 Billion

Department of State:  $ 222 Billion                                                                  $   74 Billion

Department of Defense – Military Programs:  $6.810 Trillion                    $3.531 Trillion

Other Defense Civil Programs:  $635 Billion                                                  $ 345 Billion

Judicial Branch:  $79 Billion                                                                             $   35 Billion

National Aeronautic and Space Administration:  $213 Billion                        $ 171 Billion

Executive Office of the President:  $24 Billion                                               $     3 Billion

 

Bureaucrats and their bluster.  Whoever said, “Talk is Cheap?”   They never encountered the blustering bureaucrats of Washington DC.  Remember, this is just the fed bureaucrats.  What would we do without them?  More pertinent - what would they do without us?  In case you’re wondering, about that other set of numbers; after the first set; on the  right; in italics?  That’s what these same outfits cost US taxpayers in the thirteen years preceding the attacks on the World Trade Center.   

Osama said he would bankrupt the US of A the same way he and his ilk took down the Soviet Union.   The bureaucrats are fulfilling Osama's prophecy - Osama's boys spend peanuts; Obama's bureaucrats spend billions and trillions.  Bernanke runs the printing presses to finance it.  No one will say - STOP.  Big winners besides the bureaucrats?   Their union masters:  AFGE, SEIU, AFSCME and AFL-CIO.  The bureaucrats and politicians tell us that the entitlement costs drive the federal budget deficit.  Baloney.  Look at the numbers above - bureaucrats are a big cost component  - running into each other - always on the job after the fact.  We are spending trillions of dollars on bureaucrats and we can't afford it.  No one can.

In His Own Words - Barack Obama says, "...get the facts..."

 

 

In this brief video, Mr. Obama uses his rhetoric/propaganda skills to dismiss citizen concerns about gun control.  He tells those who have concern to "...get the facts..."   Well, Mr. Obama, just last week, TheFundamentals, using your words, displayed you accusing your predecessor of being "irresponsible" and "unpatriotic" for building up the debt of the United States.  Since then, you have built debt at three times the pace of Mr. Bush.  Now that's a fact.  We do "get the facts."  The facts do not support confidence or trust in you or those you surround yourself with.  Blind trust, sure.  But, it's a big world out there, Mr. Obama.  Not everyone drinks the cool aid the way your cronies in Chicago and Cook County do.