It seems that most pundits get confused about the Tea Party movement thinking that it is in the political center. It is purely focused on fiscal responsibility and limited government. Since it does not focus on social issues, it is open to anyone who desires more freedom, lower government spending, and smaller federal government.

Blueprint #2: Progressive/Centrally planned Economic System

For the 21st century, the Federal Government must be redefined and rebuilt. Our founding fathers had no ability to fully understand the complexity of 21st century life in the United States. Therefore, we will review our founding documents, taking the parts that make sense today and add them to a new contract with the American People. We will also remove those parts that no longer make sense. With today’s complex problems, the Federal government can no longer afford to be inefficient with its duties. The existing difficulties of passing legislation must be streamlined. In order to do their job effectively and better help those in need, the branches of the Federal government must have more influence and control within this centrally planned system. This blueprint relies on FDR’s Second Bill of Rights to better define the role of the Federal Government in the 21st century. The government will provide to all its citizens: (1) The right to useful employment,(2) The right earn enough to provide adequate food, clothing, and recreation, (3) The right to sell products at a return to give one a decent living, (4) The right of every business to be free from unfair competition and monopolies, (5) The right to a decent home, (6) the right to healthcare and opportunity to achieve good health, (7) The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age sickness, accident, and unemployment, (8) The right to a good education.

The Federal government will design and build the institutions, departments, and agencies to enforce and administer these new rights. It will have the power to tax and manage currency. It will also be responsible for enforcing the original bill of rights, as well as be responsible for national defense. To increase efficiency, state and local governments will now become a part of the Federal system. With one government system, economic planning will be more effective and efficient.

With the new Centralized Nation Government in place, there will be times when the new bill of rights conflict with each other. (Example: #3 could conflict with #2 if a business cannot sell their products for enough money to provide its employees with adequate resources.) In these cases, central planners and administrators will determine and create the needed restrictions, rules, and management devices to ensure compliance with these new rights.
Businesses will work closely with government officials to supply the right products and services for the people. All prices for goods will be reasonable. But we therefore cannot guarantee all businesses will be successful. The new Central government can only ensure that individuals will have enough of life’s necessities. The amount will be determined by the central government.

Because of the added burdens of government, taxes will need to be raised substantially. Everyone will need to pay, with the richest paying upwards of 90% of their income, while those less fortunate will receive more than they give. This will ensure an equitable distribution of wealth regardless of station, race, creed, or religion. There will be no rich and no poor. The middle class will vary some, but the standard of living for everyone will be lower than what it has been over the past 20 years. The standard of living in the United States during the past two decades is not sustainable. The American People must live within a fiscal budget. We can no longer borrow money from foreign countries just to meet our basic necessities.

Blueprint #2 is a vote for higher taxes, lower standard of living, and the right to healthcare, a job, a home, and an education. It is also a vote for fewer individual liberties and more restrictions on business.

Which would you vote for? Honestly, I think it would be much closer than many of us care to imagine. My guess is that #1 would beat #2 in a 60/40 split without all of the doublespeak and euphemisms we use today in our language. Sadly, I believe that roughly 40 percent of ALL 300 million of us would probably go for security over freedom.

It is time to draw the Sandy Line

With all of the divisiveness and bitterness we, the American People, have both propagated and endured over the past 20 years, I propose a way for us to gain real clarity. This proposal will help the American People, and particularly Congress understand where the majority of this country wants to go in the future. We are at a crossroads in the country. With an out-of-control budget deficit and a high national debt, we need have no choice but to pick one of the following two options. Government either needs to get out of the People’s way or become more efficient in passing laws and managing our lives. We cannot stay on the current mixed economic path and spend more money that we don’t have. We must choose one of these two paths. Seriously, either choice will be better for our posterity during the 21st century.

Proposal:

Have an open and honest ideological vote on the foundation of this country as we move forward into the 21st century. There will be 2 choices proposed on the November 2010 ballot—one for a free republic and free enterprise market system and one for a progressive republic and centrally planned mixed market economy. Both sides will need to be comfortable with the wording on both options. It would be the only way the sides would agree to do this. The only requirement, out of respect for the American People, is that there is no political speak allowed. No Orwellian newsspeak or any circular logic, no “having one’s cake and eating it too.” The wording will be abrupt and to the point.

I recommend it look something like this:

Dear United States Citizen: Please vote for the option you want the federal government to use as a blueprint for the 21st century, from year 2010 – to year 2100. By voting, you are making a commitment to the United States that you will abide by the results and support those leaders who best fulfill the most popular blueprint. If you vote for the less popular option you are making a personal commitment to “agree to disagree” and support the majority or peaceably leave the country.

Blueprint #1: Free Republic/Free Market System

For the 21st century, the Federal Government of the United States should be a free republic based on a free enterprise market system. This system follows the U.S. Constitution and looks to this nation’s founding fathers for its structure. In this system, a citizen will have the freedom to fail and the freedom to succeed. The Federal Government will not have the resources to perform bailouts or other rescue efforts. The Federal Government will not be able to restrict any liberties of its citizens. Its only roles will be: (1) Organizing and maintaining a limited military with its only purpose to defend the country from enemies foreign and domestic, not nation building, (2) Protecting its citizens from tyranny, crime, or any other rights-restricting activities, including any individual state mandates or restrictions on freedom, (3) Overseeing interstate commerce and providing the opportunity for citizens to conduct enterprise across state lines, (4) Produce and manage a nationwide currency for the ability to more effectively trade in goods and services, (5) Levy enough taxes to pay for the effective operation of the above activities.

All other potential government activities can be debated, discussed, and rejected or approved at the state level. Social Security will be phased out over the next several decades. Those over 50 will see no change in benefits. Those under 50 will slowly see adjustments to age and monetary requirements. Welfare will end. Churches, charities, and other viable organizations will need to fully take on the welfare requirement. This includes money for Haiti or any other disaster. State and local governments will need to be wholly responsible for the welfare of its citizens for domestic disasters, like Hurricane Katrina. Charities and the American People, with complete economic liberty, can assist as well.

Every adult citizen of the United States will pay some tax, but everyone’s federal taxes will be considerably lower. Each citizen will have every opportunity to succeed in life. Successful citizens can freely give their money to help others. States, through the ballot box or their legislatures, can decide to provide welfare services, social security and any other program for their citizens.

Blueprint #1 is a vote for lower taxes, a smaller Federal government, more individual freedom, strong national defense, unlimited opportunity. It is also a vote for a restriction in the rights of the Federal government to redistribute wealth and spend money on anything outside of the 5 defined roles.

This particular skit was not very funny, but I also believe that we have skin that is too thin. It was more about Rahm than Palin. Sometimes I think that SNL can't win. Once, they tried to make fun of the media going to Alaska to dig up dirt on Palin. Again, it wasn't funny. But it also wasn't designed to attack Palin directly. But many on the right seemed to interpret it that way.

My patience is worn out with SNL. Mostly because it just isn't that funny. Last week, they had two different skits attempt humor with the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. There isn't much humor in this topic from any side and they did TWO SKITS!! What are their writers thinking? The actors are decent. But the writers are simply awful.

There is so much material that the Obama administration cranks out every week. It isn't that hard. I can't believe that comedic writers desire to be this partisan. It really is bizarre.

PS: The other week (with Jon Hamm?) was pretty good. The Scott Brown skit was funny. As was the Sergio digital short and the Ham & Buble skit. So it is possible for them, but it is such a chore for the audience to endure the tripe to find a few decent morsels of quality.

All it will take to completely destroy the narrative is to find a way to replace the associated press. If Breitbart can do this, then the MSM will become meaningless to the public. The news networks have already been compromised. The NY Times and other major papers are slowly becoming relevant and are financially dying. The AP is the last brick in the wall. We have plenty of pundits and "experts" on both sides of the spectrum. But the liberal side still reports the actual news (only small exception is Fox News). And ultimately the only way to control (and hopefully abolish) the narrative is to report (not comment) on the actual news.

I too need to rewatch, but to me it seems that the whole point of the movie is that David is a machine. The A stands for artificial, not real. John, you might know a bit about the evolution of this film. I do not, but it seems that Spielberg simply added the end to make himself feel better. He is great at having you leave the theatre feeling good about the experience. Kubrick wanted you to leave feeling empty, alone, or confused. I just figured that a perfect ending for a movie about artificial intelligence would be having that intelligence spending thousands of years staring at what he thought was his mother-- almost poetic knowing everything he had endured to get to that point.

PS: Though I can't really remember it, but from what I can recall, I definitely agree with you about the answer guy schtick.

A.I. would have been a masterpiece if Spielberg had left well enough alone and simply kept the boy David sitting on the bottom of the Hudson River staring at the statue for eternity. It would be have a classic Kubrick ending. Unfortunately, his "E.T." radar took over and completely ruined the ending.

Why do we complain about Hollywood not producing these types of movies? Mike, you mentioned several great potential projects. I have thought of dozens of others as well. We know the American people will spend their dollars on these shows. Why not create a movie studio and simply produce them? We could find the capital. There are thousands of capable waiters and waitresses in LA who would jump at the chance regardless of politics. If distribution is a problem, then let's convince a right-leaning billionaire to buy a theatre chain with the express purpose of providing a place for these films. There seems to be plenty of money in the movie business. It just needs to be better channeled.

If I am missing something, please tell me. But it seems almost odd that we would gripe regularly on movies that should be made when we know there is a market for it. I mean, a movie that featured Reagan, Thatcher, Pope John Paul, and Gorby about the end of the cold war would kill at the box office.

If conservatives simply aren't talented enough to pull this off, then we need to ask the question why.

Why? For creditability in the MSM's eyes. The media attempts to dismiss the movement as a bunch of old, white, out-of-touch hillbillies. So the film instead shows young, black, and urban....and tells the liberal establishment to "eat it."

That's why they are in the film. No question it is purposeful and deliberate. In a weird, ironic way almost anti-PC.

John:

When are the sequels coming out? Hopefully, Cameron will let the Farrelly brothers direct. That way, the sequels can be funny as hell and yet heartfelt and inspiring. I can't wait!