Barak E. Neuman – Hope v. Hopeless

Based on the extensive use of the word ‘hope’ in the Obama campaign it appears that this is considered a good word. I have to disagree, looking where this word is most often used. Mr. Hubbard once framed the expression “Hope – the word of skid row” and skid row indeed appears to the area where hope is most rampant.

If we are able and willing to DO something we do not need hope – we have knowledge and confidence that we can manage. Once we have lost this confidence we are down to ‘hope’ – the area of skid row.

This also means that that we should lose that hope and become hope-less – again used in a not so common fashion. Usually hopeless is considered worse than having only hope, but considering we don’t need hope and can be hope-less if we have confidence in our ability to accomplish, hopeless is the state to be obtained.

So, therefore I present to you this polarity and let you decide what is the be better choice…

Fascinating to me is also to observe myself how I sometimes succumb to hope. For example during the last month of serious campaigning I subjected myself to the ‘hope’ that Ron Paul would make it – I still think that he is the only one on the scene that could have made a difference – and I was disappointed that he was killed off by the powers behind all this. I realize how powerless hope can make us.

So, let’s become hopeless and look at some facts that Charlie Reese, a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper, so eloquently assembled…


By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The president does.

You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don’t write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don’t set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don’t control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don’t care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislators’ responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted by present facts of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can’t think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it’s because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it’s because they want it in the red.

If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ, it’s because they want them in IRAQ.

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it’s because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like “the economy,” “inflation,” or “politics” that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!


The only thing where he might be off base is that we are still able to ‘vote’ them out of office. Just as it is now most common in companies, the moment an employee is fired he is escorted out of the building never to return, just in case he is so disgruntled as to cause some serious damage in his Rueckzugsgefecht (withdrawal combat – the way Germany left Russia in shambles on their way out when beaten.)

And am I able to imagine that a politician being disgruntled when he is fired?