With the election of the current Socialist-in-Chief the latest form of protest is a rash of petitions on whitehouse.gov for states to "peacefully" secede from the United States. So I thought I'd weigh in on this subject...
First is the question of whether or not it is Constitutional. The argument against it is a Supreme Court decision, Texas v. White 1868, that ruled it unconstitutional and, of course, the Civil War that put secession down by force. In argument for its Constitutionality is the simple fact that the surrender of the South was force, not law. There is no actual law stating that it is illegal/unconstitutional. True the Court did rule, but as we see now with Obamacare, the Court can make a mistake and rule in the wrong direction.
Also, how can the Court rule on the Constitutionality of an issue that is not discussed in the Constitution? The document makes no statement about secession, one way or another. In this case I would refer to the Constitution's preference for the States over the Federal Gov't. The 10th Amendment gives all powers not specifically granted to the Federal Govt, and not prohibited to the States, to the States themselves or the People. I would say the the ability of a State to secede would fall into that category.
Also, I would submit that the Constitution is not a despotic document. It was adopted in each state only after a consensual vote of its citizens. It did not force anyone to vote for it. If it was not adopted against any one's will, why should we interpret it to keep a state in that manner?
That being said, I think these petitions are a stupid idea!
First, they carry no weight. People are not proposing legislation. The Federal Govt has no obligation to even read them. What it does do is put every one's name, who is unhappy and angry at Obama and his administration, on easy to read lists that also have other information such as IP addresses. All you are doing is saving Obama the time of weeding out dissenters.
Actual secession can only be declared formally by the Legislature of each individual state. And such an action should not be taken lightly nor without fully understanding the consequences. If there is anything that history tells us it is that nothing less than civil war will achieve secession. Just like the previous attempt, the Federal Govt will bring the full weight and force of its resources to bear on the state in question. The only difference is that this time, a civil war would be much much worse. In the 1800's the Federal Govt was fighting to preserve the Union. This time, the Govt would be fighting to suppress the condemnation of this budding Socialist "utopia" that such an action would represent. Also, they would see it as taking resources from their already hemorrhaging social welfare programs.
If any state declares secession, the Govt will swoop down swiftly and mercilessly to crush them.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Forward....
Well, the results are in. Barack Obama is re-elected for 4 more years. Liberals are jubilant, conservatives are de-moralized. However, the time for mourning is passed. It is time to fight for the country we love! We conservatives, the Tea Party, those of us that believe that the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are the most sacred documents outside the bible ever written...we ae the ones that have inherited that revolutionary spirit of our Fore Fathers. We who favor the "animating contest of liberty" over "the tranquility of servitude"...are we ready to fight?!? I say yes. Just because a socialist still occupies the White House has no bearing on my ideals.
So, what should we expect in the next 4 years? Here is my predictions:
-There is hardly any chance that Obamacare will be repealed now. Along with Dodd-Frank, it will be implemented in full. Where before they merely caused "uncertainty" in the market pending the election, now the Market knows what to expect. And what to expect are higher taxes, more regulations that cost money to comply with, and a mandate to provide all inclusive healthcare for every employee that will increase the cost of hiring new employees. Job growth, which was anemic at best, will most likely flat line before job losses rise.
-As the cost of Private Healthcare rises, as even the Obama Administration has admitted will happen, employers will begin to drop coverage for employees as the costs become too much to cope with. Falling wages will prevent individuals from affording it n their own as well. Healthcare providers will begin to fail and file for bankruptcy. The whole industry will be decimated if not out-right destroyed, taking millions of jobs with them.
-After businesses halt hiring, as a last ditch effort to cut costs, the cost of complying with excessive regulation will become too much too handle. While big businesses are able to absorb these costs in the short term, small businesses will begin to shutdown as they do not have the capital to comply.
-As businesses begin to close, the unemployment rate will rise and rise quickly. Obama will try to cover this up by continuing to use the U3 number which only includes workers that are on unemployment and those that have looked for work in the last 4 weeks. The U6, which is the real unemployment rate and includes the U3 people plus those that have given up looking for work and those that are marginally empoyed, is currently around 14-15% and will rise into the 20's. This will tip us over the point where there are more people taking from the Government than are putting into it.
-Obama and the EPA will further restrict gas and oil exploration. Permits on federal land will slow to a trickle and the EPA will start persuing legislation prohibiting exploration on private lands. ANWAR and the outer continental shelf will continue to be off limits to our own people while permits for these areas for other countries will be rushed through. Gas prices will rise to $6+/gallon, driving up the price of goods and service all through the Market.
-The Obama-EPA alliance will continue its plan to bankrupt the coal industry and close nuclear power plants shifting the burden of the US power grid on unproven and woefully inadequate green energy such as wind/solar/geothermal. Home enegry costs will skyrocket into the hundreds.
-The Fed, with Obama's blessing, will continue to print money for "quantitative easing" and more stimulus legislation will be implemented. This will kick off a period of hyper-inflation which will severly weaken, if not collapse, the value of the US dollar further rising costs of goods and services across the Market
-Harry Ried and the Democrat controlled Senate will continue to refuse to pass a federal budget continuing yearly trillion dollar deficits, ballooning the national debt. Refusal to reign in spending combined with no plan to reduce the debt will result in more credit downgrades until this situation changes.
-As job disappear and unemployment compensation runs out, the Federal Government will aggressively expand the welfare rolls. This will further tip the scales where even more people will be taking from the federal coffers than are paying into them.
-All these will culminate in the collapse of the US economy. It will begin in January with "Taxmeggedon" when the Obamacare tax combines with ending tax cuts and new taxes to increase taxes by an average of $4000/household.
-As the economy declines and hardships increase, violence and chaos across the country will climb. Obama will side-step the Republican controlled House to acquire more authority and power to himself by Executive Fiat, shredding the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution, in the name of "keeping the peace." As more power is centralized in the Federal Government, Individual rights will be trampled and discarded "for the greater good."
-The US will find no help from other countries as most of Europe is already holding fast to this same road to ruin. And those that are considered allies have seen how The Obama Administration sells out their firends and stab them in the back. Israel, now further isolated, will hold out against its enemies for a while. However, with the certainty that Obama will not stand beside them, and the real threat of a nuclear Iran, Israel will eventually be overrun and destroyed by its Muslim neighbors.
-By the end of his second term, Obama will have solidified enough power behind him to make his final push for "change." He will throw out as much of the Constitution as he can and implement European Socialism. Finally, before the next election Obama will try and circumvent the "two-term rule." We will hear pleas and testimony that he needs more time, and we can't change horse in the middle of the stream...just four more years and Obama can fix everything. Mark my words...before Nov. 6, 2016 Obama will try and install himself as Pres. for life.
-Obama will be aided in all of this by a biased media that will lie, cover-up and screen him from any real scrutiny.
If nothing changes, and changes big, this is the path I forsee for the next four years. I pray that I am wrong...
So, what should we expect in the next 4 years? Here is my predictions:
-There is hardly any chance that Obamacare will be repealed now. Along with Dodd-Frank, it will be implemented in full. Where before they merely caused "uncertainty" in the market pending the election, now the Market knows what to expect. And what to expect are higher taxes, more regulations that cost money to comply with, and a mandate to provide all inclusive healthcare for every employee that will increase the cost of hiring new employees. Job growth, which was anemic at best, will most likely flat line before job losses rise.
-As the cost of Private Healthcare rises, as even the Obama Administration has admitted will happen, employers will begin to drop coverage for employees as the costs become too much to cope with. Falling wages will prevent individuals from affording it n their own as well. Healthcare providers will begin to fail and file for bankruptcy. The whole industry will be decimated if not out-right destroyed, taking millions of jobs with them.
-After businesses halt hiring, as a last ditch effort to cut costs, the cost of complying with excessive regulation will become too much too handle. While big businesses are able to absorb these costs in the short term, small businesses will begin to shutdown as they do not have the capital to comply.
-As businesses begin to close, the unemployment rate will rise and rise quickly. Obama will try to cover this up by continuing to use the U3 number which only includes workers that are on unemployment and those that have looked for work in the last 4 weeks. The U6, which is the real unemployment rate and includes the U3 people plus those that have given up looking for work and those that are marginally empoyed, is currently around 14-15% and will rise into the 20's. This will tip us over the point where there are more people taking from the Government than are putting into it.
-Obama and the EPA will further restrict gas and oil exploration. Permits on federal land will slow to a trickle and the EPA will start persuing legislation prohibiting exploration on private lands. ANWAR and the outer continental shelf will continue to be off limits to our own people while permits for these areas for other countries will be rushed through. Gas prices will rise to $6+/gallon, driving up the price of goods and service all through the Market.
-The Obama-EPA alliance will continue its plan to bankrupt the coal industry and close nuclear power plants shifting the burden of the US power grid on unproven and woefully inadequate green energy such as wind/solar/geothermal. Home enegry costs will skyrocket into the hundreds.
-The Fed, with Obama's blessing, will continue to print money for "quantitative easing" and more stimulus legislation will be implemented. This will kick off a period of hyper-inflation which will severly weaken, if not collapse, the value of the US dollar further rising costs of goods and services across the Market
-Harry Ried and the Democrat controlled Senate will continue to refuse to pass a federal budget continuing yearly trillion dollar deficits, ballooning the national debt. Refusal to reign in spending combined with no plan to reduce the debt will result in more credit downgrades until this situation changes.
-As job disappear and unemployment compensation runs out, the Federal Government will aggressively expand the welfare rolls. This will further tip the scales where even more people will be taking from the federal coffers than are paying into them.
-All these will culminate in the collapse of the US economy. It will begin in January with "Taxmeggedon" when the Obamacare tax combines with ending tax cuts and new taxes to increase taxes by an average of $4000/household.
-As the economy declines and hardships increase, violence and chaos across the country will climb. Obama will side-step the Republican controlled House to acquire more authority and power to himself by Executive Fiat, shredding the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution, in the name of "keeping the peace." As more power is centralized in the Federal Government, Individual rights will be trampled and discarded "for the greater good."
-The US will find no help from other countries as most of Europe is already holding fast to this same road to ruin. And those that are considered allies have seen how The Obama Administration sells out their firends and stab them in the back. Israel, now further isolated, will hold out against its enemies for a while. However, with the certainty that Obama will not stand beside them, and the real threat of a nuclear Iran, Israel will eventually be overrun and destroyed by its Muslim neighbors.
-By the end of his second term, Obama will have solidified enough power behind him to make his final push for "change." He will throw out as much of the Constitution as he can and implement European Socialism. Finally, before the next election Obama will try and circumvent the "two-term rule." We will hear pleas and testimony that he needs more time, and we can't change horse in the middle of the stream...just four more years and Obama can fix everything. Mark my words...before Nov. 6, 2016 Obama will try and install himself as Pres. for life.
-Obama will be aided in all of this by a biased media that will lie, cover-up and screen him from any real scrutiny.
If nothing changes, and changes big, this is the path I forsee for the next four years. I pray that I am wrong...
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Obamacare
So, SCOTUS ruled that Obamacare is constitutional. At first I was quite pissed about this. Obamacare is, and remains, a horrible piece of legislation that is unconstitutional. However, upon reading exerts from Chief Justice Roberts opinion, I have to admit there may be a silver lining to this cloud. Now it could be that Roberts totally abandoned conservatives and changed his views, or it could be a shrewd political move meant to out-flank Obama and his socialist cadres. Or maybe I am just grasping at straws...
Anyway, here is how I see it...
The Court ruled, 5-4, to uphold Obamacare in its enitrety, including the individual mandate. CJ Roberts wrote the opinion for the Court. In summary he noted that there two ways to interpret the law. One way is where the mandate is just that, a decree that all Americans purchase the level of healthcare that the government feels you should have or face a monetary penalty. The other is the one argued by Obama's attorneys before the court when defending the constitutionality of the law: that the mandate is merely a tax on behavior, a practice the government already uses in other areas of everyday life. And in the case where a law has two interpretations, one constitutional and one not, there is a precident in the Court to favor the interpretation that favors the constitution. So, the court ruled Obamacare constitutional based on the government's argument that is a tax, not a mandate forcing citizens to purchase something they do not want.
Now, let us be honest with ourselves. While the ideal situation would have been that the entire law be struck down, that scenario was never likely. The next best scenario was that the individual mandate would be struck down but the rest of the law would stand. But what would happen in that scenario? If the mandate were taken out, but the rest of the law upheld, it would loose its teeth as for individual citizens, but this is not the only issue here. With the bulk of the law intact, its interpretation against religious liberty, namely forcing religious institutions to abandon tenets of their faith, still stands. The provision forcing every employer that provides healthcare to give a mandatory level of care will stand, forcing employers to stop offering healthcare to keep costs down and making them reluctant to hire. In short, only a portion of the what is wrong would be fixed, still leaving a juggernaut that will wreck the economy anyway.
So, CJ Roberts chose option number three. He assented to the constitutionality of Obamacare. Here is the crux of my argument. I believe he did so for a specific reason: if Roberts assents he thereby gets to write the opinion and limit the laws impact, scope and meaning. And this what he did.
In defining the mandate as a tax Roberts throws the entire "Commerce Claus" justification out of the window, ruling that the federal government has no right or authority to compel citizens to engage in commerce for any reason. This is important as it was the key issue: can the federal government force people to buy a product they do not want. Roberts decided definitely no! He simply redefines it as a power Congress already exercises, rightly or wrongly is not the point here. The point is that he makes sure not to the federal government any new regulatory powers.
The bad news is that the law stands...for now. A law can still be repealed. Worse is that it is upheld on grounds almost as shaky as the "Commerce Clause" justification. To justify this under Congress's taxing power is in itself an assault on the constitution. In defining Congress's ENUMERATED powers, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states that "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."
To tax one group of people and not another based solely on behavior that is not illegal, but merely unliked by the government, is hardly uniform. It is the same reason why the current income tax is unconstitutional. It is not applied uniformly over the population.
So, now here is the good news. First, no matter if the law in constitutional or not, it remains grossly unpopular and gets more so everyday as more businesses are forced not to hire or drop health coverage to keep costs down. With the Court's decision, Obama cannot distance himself from an unpopular law in an election year. Now that it's constitutionality intact, Obamacare is now settled sqarely around Obama's neck.
Next, Obama cannot use the Court as a scapegoat anymore. Campaigning against a mean, conservative Court out to get poor little Obama doesn't work when the Court does what you want.
Third, to make a case for its constitutionality before the Court, Obama's lawyers were forced to acknowledge, indeed, forcefully assert that the "mandate" was in fact a tax. So, in an election year, Obama's administration is now on record fighting for higher taxes on ALL Americans. And this after he swore up and down in 2009 that Obamacare would never raise taxes on the middle and lower class.
Lastly, in the fight to repeal Obamacare, this is now a huge weapon. Americans hate taxes of any stripe. So, with this defined as a tax, it will be easier to pitch to people to get rid of it. "You want lower taxes, get rid of Obamacare."
So, as I said, I may be reaching here...but, while not ideal, there is a silver lining to this horrible cloud.
Anyway, here is how I see it...
The Court ruled, 5-4, to uphold Obamacare in its enitrety, including the individual mandate. CJ Roberts wrote the opinion for the Court. In summary he noted that there two ways to interpret the law. One way is where the mandate is just that, a decree that all Americans purchase the level of healthcare that the government feels you should have or face a monetary penalty. The other is the one argued by Obama's attorneys before the court when defending the constitutionality of the law: that the mandate is merely a tax on behavior, a practice the government already uses in other areas of everyday life. And in the case where a law has two interpretations, one constitutional and one not, there is a precident in the Court to favor the interpretation that favors the constitution. So, the court ruled Obamacare constitutional based on the government's argument that is a tax, not a mandate forcing citizens to purchase something they do not want.
Now, let us be honest with ourselves. While the ideal situation would have been that the entire law be struck down, that scenario was never likely. The next best scenario was that the individual mandate would be struck down but the rest of the law would stand. But what would happen in that scenario? If the mandate were taken out, but the rest of the law upheld, it would loose its teeth as for individual citizens, but this is not the only issue here. With the bulk of the law intact, its interpretation against religious liberty, namely forcing religious institutions to abandon tenets of their faith, still stands. The provision forcing every employer that provides healthcare to give a mandatory level of care will stand, forcing employers to stop offering healthcare to keep costs down and making them reluctant to hire. In short, only a portion of the what is wrong would be fixed, still leaving a juggernaut that will wreck the economy anyway.
So, CJ Roberts chose option number three. He assented to the constitutionality of Obamacare. Here is the crux of my argument. I believe he did so for a specific reason: if Roberts assents he thereby gets to write the opinion and limit the laws impact, scope and meaning. And this what he did.
In defining the mandate as a tax Roberts throws the entire "Commerce Claus" justification out of the window, ruling that the federal government has no right or authority to compel citizens to engage in commerce for any reason. This is important as it was the key issue: can the federal government force people to buy a product they do not want. Roberts decided definitely no! He simply redefines it as a power Congress already exercises, rightly or wrongly is not the point here. The point is that he makes sure not to the federal government any new regulatory powers.
The bad news is that the law stands...for now. A law can still be repealed. Worse is that it is upheld on grounds almost as shaky as the "Commerce Clause" justification. To justify this under Congress's taxing power is in itself an assault on the constitution. In defining Congress's ENUMERATED powers, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states that "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."
To tax one group of people and not another based solely on behavior that is not illegal, but merely unliked by the government, is hardly uniform. It is the same reason why the current income tax is unconstitutional. It is not applied uniformly over the population.
So, now here is the good news. First, no matter if the law in constitutional or not, it remains grossly unpopular and gets more so everyday as more businesses are forced not to hire or drop health coverage to keep costs down. With the Court's decision, Obama cannot distance himself from an unpopular law in an election year. Now that it's constitutionality intact, Obamacare is now settled sqarely around Obama's neck.
Next, Obama cannot use the Court as a scapegoat anymore. Campaigning against a mean, conservative Court out to get poor little Obama doesn't work when the Court does what you want.
Third, to make a case for its constitutionality before the Court, Obama's lawyers were forced to acknowledge, indeed, forcefully assert that the "mandate" was in fact a tax. So, in an election year, Obama's administration is now on record fighting for higher taxes on ALL Americans. And this after he swore up and down in 2009 that Obamacare would never raise taxes on the middle and lower class.
Lastly, in the fight to repeal Obamacare, this is now a huge weapon. Americans hate taxes of any stripe. So, with this defined as a tax, it will be easier to pitch to people to get rid of it. "You want lower taxes, get rid of Obamacare."
So, as I said, I may be reaching here...but, while not ideal, there is a silver lining to this horrible cloud.
Friday, June 8, 2012
Happy Graduation
In the spirit of the time of year when young adults graduate from high school/college and head out into the world I thought it appropriate to impart a few lessons from the real world. Namely:
1. Life is not fair.
2. Human Nature will not, and cannot change. There will always be people that are assholes and those that think nothing of taking advantage of your hard work.
3. No one owes you a damn thing. Hard work is the only way to get what you want.
These three basic facts will not, and cannot change no matter how much you wish it otherwise. Your best defense is to accept them and look out for them.
Now, I realize that this require a little elaboration...but why re-invent the wheel? Instead here it is explained far more eloquently and succinctly than I am capable of by Neal Boortz, a man far more intelligent than I.
http://patriotpost.us/alexander/13746
Please do the graduate in your life a favor and forward this to them.
1. Life is not fair.
2. Human Nature will not, and cannot change. There will always be people that are assholes and those that think nothing of taking advantage of your hard work.
3. No one owes you a damn thing. Hard work is the only way to get what you want.
These three basic facts will not, and cannot change no matter how much you wish it otherwise. Your best defense is to accept them and look out for them.
Now, I realize that this require a little elaboration...but why re-invent the wheel? Instead here it is explained far more eloquently and succinctly than I am capable of by Neal Boortz, a man far more intelligent than I.
http://patriotpost.us/alexander/13746
Please do the graduate in your life a favor and forward this to them.
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Conservatism: Back to Basics-Introduction
One of the people that responded to my "contest" brought up a really good point. It is actually a topic that I have considered before and just never committed to it since what is needed to cover the subject is quite an involved undertaking. However, since it has been brought to my attention again, I will take it as a sign that it is time.
My thanks to Ambient Malice for bringing up a valid point. It is a problem that underpins most of our problems today. It is a problem of understanding, of terminology and definition. For decades Conservatives on the national stage have failed to defend conservatism against its opponents. The thinking, I'm sure, was that to dignify the arguement wit ha response was to give them a measure validation. So conservatives have ignored liberals when they accuse them of things like racism. Well, taking the intellectual high road is all well and good but it has had a disastrous consequence. We have let liberals define what conservativism is.
We have let them saddle us with the label of "racist" when time and again it is liberal democrats that have earned that moniker with Jim Crow laws, Black Codes, segregation, the founding of the KKK, etc. It has been conservative republicans that advocated abolition of slavery and Civil Rights. Republicans founded the first black colleges and affirmative action. Freed slaves voted for years in the South after the Civil War, during Reconstruction, until the democrats took over again.
Liberals have defined conservatism as harmful to the elderly when it is liberals who are trying to keep Social Security which is projected to become insolvent within the next 15 years and gives a worse return on investment than a private retirement. They also advocate taking out Medicare Advantage, a free market approach to healthcare passed by republicans that gave seniors more choices, which is the most popular medicare program. Conservatives want to transition from Social Security, which costs the federal government more than $500 billion a year, to a private investment system which will provide a 17% increase in returns over Social Security and also more security since Congress is not actually obligated to pay anything and can change the legislation at anytime.
Liberals have labeled conservatives as being mean to the poor, disadvantaged, and the middle class. However, their "solution" is an ever increasing system of hand-outs and free rides that give the poor and disadvantage no incentive to get out of poverty, keeps them dependent on the government, and continuously decreases their marketable skills the longer they are on the programs. And it is the liberal addiction to over regulation and taxes that is destroying the economy and killing jobs, i.e. the middle class. Conservatism also wants to help the poor, but we do not want to make it easy to stay poor. We want to help the poor while giving them every incentive to get out of poverty and teh drive to do it. And it is the conservative policy of deregulation and lower taxes that, time and again, has proven to grow both the economy and the middle class through job growth and wealth creation.
Are you getting the picture? Everytime liberalism is implimented it has the exact opposite of its stated intent and hurt the country and the people. Everytime they blame conservatives and our silence, our taking the high road, lets them get away with it. Consider the past 3 and a half years. For the first two years of his presidency Barack Obama has had a super majority in both houses of Congress. Republicans did not even have the ability to delay legislation let alone block it. He had the ability to pass anything he wanted, and did. He got his trillion dollar stimulus, Obamacare, and a host of other bills including the expansion of the Patriot Act to give the president control of resources in a crisis, which he defines, and teh ability to arrest and detain citizens without trial.
What has the result been? The economy is in the tank. The housing market is still decimated, homes have not regained their value, tens of millions of jobs lost, unemployment is above 8%, and really more like 12% if you count those who are no longer receiveing benefits and those that are underemployed, which the government doesn't, and the explosion of the welfare state and increase of people on food stamps. And for all of this, Obama is still blaming Bush, and conservatives in Congress. At the same time he and his administration is using media gimicks such as low-balling unemployment and over-estimating economic numbers one week and tehn revising them up and down, respectively, the next week once they served their purpose.
No more! This time is different. This time conservatives are fighting back. We are not remaining silent so that the "status quo" can be maintained. We are getting down in the trenches and mixing it up intellectually. With or with out the "Party's" consent or participation.
But here we come to the crux of the matter: the problem of terminology. Because of the liberal educational system's deliberate failure to teach things like history and civics, a large portion of americans have no idea what we conservatives are talking about. They were never taught the history of our founding. I could write endlessly about conservatism vs. liberalism/socialism, but it won't matter if people we are trying to reach do not know what conservatism is, or that liberalism really is re-labeled socialism. It could preach that this or that law or bill is unconstitutional, but what good is that if someone doesn't know the Constitution?
There are many people that have taken on the task of educating people, see Bill Whittle's channel on youtube, also LearnLiberty.org, and others.
To do my little part, I am going to start a continuous series on this blog that I call "Back to Basics." I will attempt to cover things from the history of why the Founding Fathers opposed England and found it so abhorrent to live under crown law to the very Constitution itself, article by article.
So, stay tuned...
But, first, how about a participation question...What does Conservatism mean to you? You may simply consider this question personally or, if you feel brave, post your thoughts in the comments below.
My thanks to Ambient Malice for bringing up a valid point. It is a problem that underpins most of our problems today. It is a problem of understanding, of terminology and definition. For decades Conservatives on the national stage have failed to defend conservatism against its opponents. The thinking, I'm sure, was that to dignify the arguement wit ha response was to give them a measure validation. So conservatives have ignored liberals when they accuse them of things like racism. Well, taking the intellectual high road is all well and good but it has had a disastrous consequence. We have let liberals define what conservativism is.
We have let them saddle us with the label of "racist" when time and again it is liberal democrats that have earned that moniker with Jim Crow laws, Black Codes, segregation, the founding of the KKK, etc. It has been conservative republicans that advocated abolition of slavery and Civil Rights. Republicans founded the first black colleges and affirmative action. Freed slaves voted for years in the South after the Civil War, during Reconstruction, until the democrats took over again.
Liberals have defined conservatism as harmful to the elderly when it is liberals who are trying to keep Social Security which is projected to become insolvent within the next 15 years and gives a worse return on investment than a private retirement. They also advocate taking out Medicare Advantage, a free market approach to healthcare passed by republicans that gave seniors more choices, which is the most popular medicare program. Conservatives want to transition from Social Security, which costs the federal government more than $500 billion a year, to a private investment system which will provide a 17% increase in returns over Social Security and also more security since Congress is not actually obligated to pay anything and can change the legislation at anytime.
Liberals have labeled conservatives as being mean to the poor, disadvantaged, and the middle class. However, their "solution" is an ever increasing system of hand-outs and free rides that give the poor and disadvantage no incentive to get out of poverty, keeps them dependent on the government, and continuously decreases their marketable skills the longer they are on the programs. And it is the liberal addiction to over regulation and taxes that is destroying the economy and killing jobs, i.e. the middle class. Conservatism also wants to help the poor, but we do not want to make it easy to stay poor. We want to help the poor while giving them every incentive to get out of poverty and teh drive to do it. And it is the conservative policy of deregulation and lower taxes that, time and again, has proven to grow both the economy and the middle class through job growth and wealth creation.
Are you getting the picture? Everytime liberalism is implimented it has the exact opposite of its stated intent and hurt the country and the people. Everytime they blame conservatives and our silence, our taking the high road, lets them get away with it. Consider the past 3 and a half years. For the first two years of his presidency Barack Obama has had a super majority in both houses of Congress. Republicans did not even have the ability to delay legislation let alone block it. He had the ability to pass anything he wanted, and did. He got his trillion dollar stimulus, Obamacare, and a host of other bills including the expansion of the Patriot Act to give the president control of resources in a crisis, which he defines, and teh ability to arrest and detain citizens without trial.
What has the result been? The economy is in the tank. The housing market is still decimated, homes have not regained their value, tens of millions of jobs lost, unemployment is above 8%, and really more like 12% if you count those who are no longer receiveing benefits and those that are underemployed, which the government doesn't, and the explosion of the welfare state and increase of people on food stamps. And for all of this, Obama is still blaming Bush, and conservatives in Congress. At the same time he and his administration is using media gimicks such as low-balling unemployment and over-estimating economic numbers one week and tehn revising them up and down, respectively, the next week once they served their purpose.
No more! This time is different. This time conservatives are fighting back. We are not remaining silent so that the "status quo" can be maintained. We are getting down in the trenches and mixing it up intellectually. With or with out the "Party's" consent or participation.
But here we come to the crux of the matter: the problem of terminology. Because of the liberal educational system's deliberate failure to teach things like history and civics, a large portion of americans have no idea what we conservatives are talking about. They were never taught the history of our founding. I could write endlessly about conservatism vs. liberalism/socialism, but it won't matter if people we are trying to reach do not know what conservatism is, or that liberalism really is re-labeled socialism. It could preach that this or that law or bill is unconstitutional, but what good is that if someone doesn't know the Constitution?
There are many people that have taken on the task of educating people, see Bill Whittle's channel on youtube, also LearnLiberty.org, and others.
To do my little part, I am going to start a continuous series on this blog that I call "Back to Basics." I will attempt to cover things from the history of why the Founding Fathers opposed England and found it so abhorrent to live under crown law to the very Constitution itself, article by article.
So, stay tuned...
But, first, how about a participation question...What does Conservatism mean to you? You may simply consider this question personally or, if you feel brave, post your thoughts in the comments below.
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Contest...sort of
Ok...I am experiencing a block as to what to write about. What important issue should I tackle next? What topic of national importance needs scrutiny?
Well, I'm gonna try an experiment. Since I cannot think of anything, and I want to interact with the few of you that actually read my blog, I'm going to let you guys decide!
Leave a comment below as to what you would like me to talk about and I will choose one of your topics and write a full, detailed article on that subject. I wish I could reward the "winner" with a prize, but I am, regrettably, poor...but you will get my gratitude and appreciation.
So let the topics flow!!
**Update** Considering that so far only two people have participated I am extending this idea into a regular feature. Besides...this is a better idea. In addition to whatever else I feel like writing about, if you feel a certain issue needs to be discussed, or just want to see what Ihave to say about it, post your ideas below and I will do my best to address them.
Thanks
Well, I'm gonna try an experiment. Since I cannot think of anything, and I want to interact with the few of you that actually read my blog, I'm going to let you guys decide!
Leave a comment below as to what you would like me to talk about and I will choose one of your topics and write a full, detailed article on that subject. I wish I could reward the "winner" with a prize, but I am, regrettably, poor...but you will get my gratitude and appreciation.
So let the topics flow!!
**Update** Considering that so far only two people have participated I am extending this idea into a regular feature. Besides...this is a better idea. In addition to whatever else I feel like writing about, if you feel a certain issue needs to be discussed, or just want to see what Ihave to say about it, post your ideas below and I will do my best to address them.
Thanks
Friday, April 27, 2012
The conservative guide to fiscal sanity
IN this election year you will hear a lot of discussion about such issues as taxes, the deficit and the national budget. Contrary to what Liberals would like you to think this country doesn't have a revenue problem or a deficit problem. Tax revenue in this country is three times what it was in the 1950's, and that is adjusted for inflation and population growth, and deficit is merely the result of debt which is caused by spending.
The United States has a SPENDING problem. It does not matter how much you tax if your spending remains out of control. You will always be in debt. Think of your own household. What would happen if you spent more than you earned for 20 years. How much financial trouble would you be in? Why should the Federal Government be any different? For further information on this I invite you to view "Does Government Have a Revenue or Spending Problem" by Prof. Antony Davies of Duquesne University at LearnLiberty.org and "The Vote Pump" by Bill Whittle on his youtube channel.
This is the fourth straight year that Obama is running a $1 trillion+ deficit. Which means that the federal government is spending more than $1 trillion more than it receives in tax revenues each year. It is a spending problem and must be brought under control. The problem is that without a majority, conservatives need Liberals to pass such legislation. And getting a Lib to give up spending is like trying to get a fat man not to eat steak.
So, to help them out I present this simple guide. Follow these steps and the economy will turn around almost instantly.
1. Gut the Federal Reserve, or the Fed as it is known. Most people do not realize, by design, that the Fed is not actually a government agency, the Board of Governors is, but the bulk of it is a private organization. The Fed. Government contracts out to this organization all monetary regulation and policy. At first this might not have been that much of problem. However, when the country was taken off the Gold Standard, the dollar was no longer tied to a fix supply of anything which allowed to the Fed to simply authorize the printing new money. This kicked off an era of Inflation and the devaluing of the dollar that has yet to stop. Since 1913 when the Federal Reserve Act was passed, the dollar has lost 96% of its value and the Chinese recently announced that they soon will no longer use the dollar as an exchange currency.
Just because the Fed. Government has the authority to regulate money does not mean it has to. While the Constitution does not allow the Government to take powers forbidden to it, it does allow them to give up a power if they cannot do it as efficiently as the private sector, such as the postal service. So if they want to contract out the reponsibility of financial monitoring and policy, they can. But the authority to just print money just be closely watched
2. Abolish the Department of Education. The Federal Government has no business in education. And it is unconstitutional. The 10th Amendment clearly states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution," of which education is not, "nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." So this kind of authority belongs in the State and local government, and maybe not even that. The only authority that government should have in education would be granting vouchers on behalf of families so they may attend the school of their choice. Schools should not be run by government.
Secondly, look at the results of the Dept. of Education. Despite the billions, if not trillions, spent in education since Carter created the Dept. of Education in 1979 have the test scores of our children gotten better? Arte the schools safer or better? NO. There is no success to show for the Government's involvement in education. So why is it still there?
3. Abolish the Enviromental Protection Agency. This agency has long since stopped being a voice for the environment and has become a wreckingball for the economy. It has grossly overstepped it's authority by making law, which is soully the authority of the Congress, through regulation and it has been given entirely too much leash.
Take the Idaho couple that has been targeted. They bought a plot of land with all the proper local permits and permissions. A stream close to their property was blocked by logs and branches, flooding part of their land. They got permission to move the blockage and did so. Enter the EPA. They came down on this couple for "destroying a wetlands." Despite having the proper documentation, the EPA ordered them to restore the land to its wetlands state even ordering them to plant indigenous plants that were never there in the first place, tasked them with the expense and responsibility of monitoring the land and giving them a fine of $75,000 per day until it was done.
Among its other over reaches is the extreme over-regulation of the oil and gas industry. They shut down fracking without any demonstrable proof that it caused any harm, even after backing off the accusations. They helped hold up the Keystone XL pipeline even after it passed not one but two "impact studies." They recently caused the closing of five refineries along the Gulf due to the expensive regulation which forces these refineries to try and operate on a mere 3% profit margin. And three more are tettering on the brink. And I can go on...(see "If I want America to Fail" on youtube.)
And all this based on the false "science" of global warming, or Climate Change. A theory that is being debunked by the day including James Lovelock, leader in the Gaia idea, recently publicly recanting his theories, Climategates I & II, and the 50-or-so former NASA scientists formally asking the agency to stop tauting Global Warming as "proven science."
4. "Drill, baby, drill!" AS part of our natural resources the United States has more oil than all of OPEC combined. We also have huge natural gas fields and coal deposits. We have enough natural energy resources to fuel our economy solely on our own for the next 250 years. And with the miraculous breakthrough of Fracking and and the ability to process oil shale we can get more than ever before. But we are not allowed to get it.
Despite what Comrade Obama would like to tell you, oil drilling is not up. Exploration on private land is up 8% because the Government can't stop them yet. By contrast exploration on public lands is severely down. an AP analysis found that "80 percent of federal lands leased for oil and gas production in Wyoming are producing no oil or gas. Neither are 83 percent of the leased acres in Montana, 77 percent in Utah, 71 percent in Colorado, 36 percent in New Mexico and 99 percent in Nevada." These are the lands the Government and the EPA can control. They have put up road blocks and red tape where ever possoble, but its alright for the Chinese and Brazil to drill in the Gulf, both of whom are drilling and drilling fast with Obama's blessing. He even gave Brazil $40 million(?) to develop thier programs.
High energy prices not only hurt people at the pump. Natural gas is also extracted from drilling, often in conjunction with oil drilling. With nuclear power also being on the EPA's hit list, much of the country's electricity is produced by coal, which is also shackled with burdensome regulation. High gas prices are also paid by companies and businesses that pass those expenses onto the people through higher product prices.
4. Tax Reform. The US has the highest Corporate Tax rate in the world at 35%, and, despite the "1%" rhetoric, the top income tax rate for they highest income earners is already 35-40%. These are the people and businesses that create small businesses and jobs. They risk their own money and livelihoods to create opprotunity in every corner of the country. Raising the taxes even more on this segment of the population will not bring in revenue. It will cause them to leave this country in droves.
The point of a business is to make a profit. Along the way this profit allows them to hire people. make a product or offer a service, and expand to make more profit. If a business cannot make a profit here with a high corporate tax rate, they will go to another country like Iceland or Ireland, who have rates of 15% and 12.5% respectively. Then those countries would have that business. With Japan recently lowering their rate, we now have the world's highest.
And raising taxes on "the rich" will result in the same thing. In fact in 2009 more than 700 people renounced their US citizenship for countries with lower taxes. I believe that percentage is up 14%, not verified.
5. Cut Entitlements. This is the biggie. Because of our spending problem, for every $10 the government spends it borrows $4 and takes in $6 from taxes. That 43% is what gets added to the debt of the country, which you and your children will pay for through higher taxes. However, for every $10 the government spends $4 pays for the actual day-to-day operations of the government and $6 goes towards entitlements such as Medicaid and Foodstamps. 60%!!! 60% of all government spending goes to pay people for doing nothing.
This includes such programs as the Earned Income Tax Credit. This is the program where not only does the bottom tax bracket, about 50% of the population, not pay income tax, but they get money from the government on top of it...60%!!!
7. Miscellaneous Spending. After these specific examples there is a whole bunch of other government agencies and regulations that need greatly reduced if not abolished. It is unnecessary! The Constitution provides for a small, limited government with specific, enumerated powers. Everything else is unnecessary and damaging to both liberty and the economy.
There it is! the Conservative Guide to Fiscal Sanity. I'm sorry it took a little longer than I expected. Unlike Liberals, I like to back up my ideas with examples and facts. Bottom line: If you reduce the cost of government then everyone can take a tax cut, still pay for government, and reduce the debt at the same time.
The United States has a SPENDING problem. It does not matter how much you tax if your spending remains out of control. You will always be in debt. Think of your own household. What would happen if you spent more than you earned for 20 years. How much financial trouble would you be in? Why should the Federal Government be any different? For further information on this I invite you to view "Does Government Have a Revenue or Spending Problem" by Prof. Antony Davies of Duquesne University at LearnLiberty.org and "The Vote Pump" by Bill Whittle on his youtube channel.
This is the fourth straight year that Obama is running a $1 trillion+ deficit. Which means that the federal government is spending more than $1 trillion more than it receives in tax revenues each year. It is a spending problem and must be brought under control. The problem is that without a majority, conservatives need Liberals to pass such legislation. And getting a Lib to give up spending is like trying to get a fat man not to eat steak.
So, to help them out I present this simple guide. Follow these steps and the economy will turn around almost instantly.
1. Gut the Federal Reserve, or the Fed as it is known. Most people do not realize, by design, that the Fed is not actually a government agency, the Board of Governors is, but the bulk of it is a private organization. The Fed. Government contracts out to this organization all monetary regulation and policy. At first this might not have been that much of problem. However, when the country was taken off the Gold Standard, the dollar was no longer tied to a fix supply of anything which allowed to the Fed to simply authorize the printing new money. This kicked off an era of Inflation and the devaluing of the dollar that has yet to stop. Since 1913 when the Federal Reserve Act was passed, the dollar has lost 96% of its value and the Chinese recently announced that they soon will no longer use the dollar as an exchange currency.
Just because the Fed. Government has the authority to regulate money does not mean it has to. While the Constitution does not allow the Government to take powers forbidden to it, it does allow them to give up a power if they cannot do it as efficiently as the private sector, such as the postal service. So if they want to contract out the reponsibility of financial monitoring and policy, they can. But the authority to just print money just be closely watched
2. Abolish the Department of Education. The Federal Government has no business in education. And it is unconstitutional. The 10th Amendment clearly states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution," of which education is not, "nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." So this kind of authority belongs in the State and local government, and maybe not even that. The only authority that government should have in education would be granting vouchers on behalf of families so they may attend the school of their choice. Schools should not be run by government.
Secondly, look at the results of the Dept. of Education. Despite the billions, if not trillions, spent in education since Carter created the Dept. of Education in 1979 have the test scores of our children gotten better? Arte the schools safer or better? NO. There is no success to show for the Government's involvement in education. So why is it still there?
3. Abolish the Enviromental Protection Agency. This agency has long since stopped being a voice for the environment and has become a wreckingball for the economy. It has grossly overstepped it's authority by making law, which is soully the authority of the Congress, through regulation and it has been given entirely too much leash.
Take the Idaho couple that has been targeted. They bought a plot of land with all the proper local permits and permissions. A stream close to their property was blocked by logs and branches, flooding part of their land. They got permission to move the blockage and did so. Enter the EPA. They came down on this couple for "destroying a wetlands." Despite having the proper documentation, the EPA ordered them to restore the land to its wetlands state even ordering them to plant indigenous plants that were never there in the first place, tasked them with the expense and responsibility of monitoring the land and giving them a fine of $75,000 per day until it was done.
Among its other over reaches is the extreme over-regulation of the oil and gas industry. They shut down fracking without any demonstrable proof that it caused any harm, even after backing off the accusations. They helped hold up the Keystone XL pipeline even after it passed not one but two "impact studies." They recently caused the closing of five refineries along the Gulf due to the expensive regulation which forces these refineries to try and operate on a mere 3% profit margin. And three more are tettering on the brink. And I can go on...(see "If I want America to Fail" on youtube.)
And all this based on the false "science" of global warming, or Climate Change. A theory that is being debunked by the day including James Lovelock, leader in the Gaia idea, recently publicly recanting his theories, Climategates I & II, and the 50-or-so former NASA scientists formally asking the agency to stop tauting Global Warming as "proven science."
4. "Drill, baby, drill!" AS part of our natural resources the United States has more oil than all of OPEC combined. We also have huge natural gas fields and coal deposits. We have enough natural energy resources to fuel our economy solely on our own for the next 250 years. And with the miraculous breakthrough of Fracking and and the ability to process oil shale we can get more than ever before. But we are not allowed to get it.
Despite what Comrade Obama would like to tell you, oil drilling is not up. Exploration on private land is up 8% because the Government can't stop them yet. By contrast exploration on public lands is severely down. an AP analysis found that "80 percent of federal lands leased for oil and gas production in Wyoming are producing no oil or gas. Neither are 83 percent of the leased acres in Montana, 77 percent in Utah, 71 percent in Colorado, 36 percent in New Mexico and 99 percent in Nevada." These are the lands the Government and the EPA can control. They have put up road blocks and red tape where ever possoble, but its alright for the Chinese and Brazil to drill in the Gulf, both of whom are drilling and drilling fast with Obama's blessing. He even gave Brazil $40 million(?) to develop thier programs.
High energy prices not only hurt people at the pump. Natural gas is also extracted from drilling, often in conjunction with oil drilling. With nuclear power also being on the EPA's hit list, much of the country's electricity is produced by coal, which is also shackled with burdensome regulation. High gas prices are also paid by companies and businesses that pass those expenses onto the people through higher product prices.
4. Tax Reform. The US has the highest Corporate Tax rate in the world at 35%, and, despite the "1%" rhetoric, the top income tax rate for they highest income earners is already 35-40%. These are the people and businesses that create small businesses and jobs. They risk their own money and livelihoods to create opprotunity in every corner of the country. Raising the taxes even more on this segment of the population will not bring in revenue. It will cause them to leave this country in droves.
The point of a business is to make a profit. Along the way this profit allows them to hire people. make a product or offer a service, and expand to make more profit. If a business cannot make a profit here with a high corporate tax rate, they will go to another country like Iceland or Ireland, who have rates of 15% and 12.5% respectively. Then those countries would have that business. With Japan recently lowering their rate, we now have the world's highest.
And raising taxes on "the rich" will result in the same thing. In fact in 2009 more than 700 people renounced their US citizenship for countries with lower taxes. I believe that percentage is up 14%, not verified.
5. Cut Entitlements. This is the biggie. Because of our spending problem, for every $10 the government spends it borrows $4 and takes in $6 from taxes. That 43% is what gets added to the debt of the country, which you and your children will pay for through higher taxes. However, for every $10 the government spends $4 pays for the actual day-to-day operations of the government and $6 goes towards entitlements such as Medicaid and Foodstamps. 60%!!! 60% of all government spending goes to pay people for doing nothing.
This includes such programs as the Earned Income Tax Credit. This is the program where not only does the bottom tax bracket, about 50% of the population, not pay income tax, but they get money from the government on top of it...60%!!!
7. Miscellaneous Spending. After these specific examples there is a whole bunch of other government agencies and regulations that need greatly reduced if not abolished. It is unnecessary! The Constitution provides for a small, limited government with specific, enumerated powers. Everything else is unnecessary and damaging to both liberty and the economy.
There it is! the Conservative Guide to Fiscal Sanity. I'm sorry it took a little longer than I expected. Unlike Liberals, I like to back up my ideas with examples and facts. Bottom line: If you reduce the cost of government then everyone can take a tax cut, still pay for government, and reduce the debt at the same time.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Image is important, but is this what POTUS has been reduced to?
Let us not kid ourselves...while substance and issues are important image matters.
In 1960, the first presidential debate on TV was held. The candidates were Richard Nixon and John F Kennedy. Nixon, who had been sick lately and was still recovering, had insisted on campaigning until mere hours before the debate started. Kennedy did not. So, on the world's first televised debate you had Nixon who looked pale and sickly, was sweating perfusely from over exertion, and refused makeup so his his 5-oclock shadow showed vividly on the black and white TV's at the time. By contrast, Kennedy was well tanned and rested, looked refreshed and confident.
The result was clear. Those who listened on radio and couldn't see the debate resoundly thought Nixon had the better performance. He was solid on the issues and policy and rebutted Kennedy easily. However, those that watched on TV said that in their mind Kennedy was the clear winner. They did not so much hear or listen to the substance of teh debate but focused on what they saw. What they saw was this old, frail looking man who seemed nervous and unprepared and a calm and collected, handsome young man who "looked presidential."
Also in this vein, I have often heard the idea that if video cameras were in the Oval Office and the president were on TV 24/7 in the 1930's FDR would not have been president because americans would not have voted for a man in a wheel chair.
The message is clear: image matters. I think it is sad that people pay attention to looks instead of issues and policy, style over substance. But I am not going to argue that it matters.
However, when it comes to the race for the presidency I think there are two images that need to be considered. There is the image of the man, the candidate, and the image of the Office of the President of the United States. The image of the candidate needs to be collected and well dressed, how he conducts himself publicly, etc. This is why candidates wear sharp suits and ties, why they are seen in public kising babies and such. The campaign is basically a job interview. The candidates are the applicants and the american people are the employers. They are showing whether or not they can do the job and should be hired over the other guy.
After the election, on the other hand, the victorious candidate now represents the entire country to the world. His personal image no longer matters as it is the image of the President that the person must now present. While the nice suits and calm demeanor are still important to project and a good image there are other things to consider.
The president is the Commander-in-Chief. he must lead by example. The President doesn't relax until the nation is at ease, and rarely does so even then. He eats when the people have eaten, he sleeps when we can sleep well. He should arrive on the job early each day and leave late. He should be above petty publicity stunts and group pandering. People expect a president to have clear policies and try to win the people on their merits.
Image is important, but people are not as stupid as Liberals think.
Obama is seriously hurting in the polls. His shallow superficial slogan of "Hope n' Change" has melted in the face of reality because it never had any substance. He ran in 2008 on slogans and image alone. And when he was elected he tried to keep up his personal image while ignoring the image of teh Office he held. The whole of his presidency he has lived and acted like a king rather than a president. Obama's recognized workday is from 10 or 11 until 4 while most americans work a 9-5 or longer. While most of the country is hurting economically, the President expects us to cut back while he and the family take frequent vacations to Hawaii and various European locales and frequently eat out at "$50 hamburger" restaurants. Often Mrs. Obama insists on leaving early, costing the taxpayers millions in extra spending. And in just 3 years Obama has played well over 90 rounds of golf. Thats more than double what Bush played in 8 years, and more than once every two weeks.
This insistance on his personal image is why Obama is losing ground quickly. By abandoning the image of the Presidency he gives off an image of a man who doesn't care about the problems and issues facing the citizenry while not having and solutions to the problems. But the people actually living in these hard times are paying moire attention this time around. His disastrous economic policy has lost small business owners. His tax policy, the "Buffet Rule," is losing corporate america and much of the big businesses. Staggering student debt coupled with dismal job prospects are making the under thirty crowd leave in droves. And the astro-turfed "war on women" has back fired and now women, especially mothers, are looking to Republicans for support.
And what is Obama's response? He doubles down on his personal image. This past week alone he went on the Jimmy Fallon Show and "slow jams" the news and shameless fishes for votes with the Dave Matthews Band. Then there is his singing during a fundraising event. Don't get me wrong, the man can carry a tune, but is that the image of President we want? And finally we have his shameless and endless policy of buying votes with what he will give groups if they vote for him, also known as entitlements.
Image is important, but is this the image of President we as a country want to present to the world as well as the people of the United States? A president who asks for votes based on what free goodies he can give, at the expense of the taxpayer, not on what he can do for the country? A man that turns the Presidency into a lounge act on a popular late show to plead for votes? A leader that would rather be an old world King instead of an american president?
In 1960, the first presidential debate on TV was held. The candidates were Richard Nixon and John F Kennedy. Nixon, who had been sick lately and was still recovering, had insisted on campaigning until mere hours before the debate started. Kennedy did not. So, on the world's first televised debate you had Nixon who looked pale and sickly, was sweating perfusely from over exertion, and refused makeup so his his 5-oclock shadow showed vividly on the black and white TV's at the time. By contrast, Kennedy was well tanned and rested, looked refreshed and confident.
The result was clear. Those who listened on radio and couldn't see the debate resoundly thought Nixon had the better performance. He was solid on the issues and policy and rebutted Kennedy easily. However, those that watched on TV said that in their mind Kennedy was the clear winner. They did not so much hear or listen to the substance of teh debate but focused on what they saw. What they saw was this old, frail looking man who seemed nervous and unprepared and a calm and collected, handsome young man who "looked presidential."
Also in this vein, I have often heard the idea that if video cameras were in the Oval Office and the president were on TV 24/7 in the 1930's FDR would not have been president because americans would not have voted for a man in a wheel chair.
The message is clear: image matters. I think it is sad that people pay attention to looks instead of issues and policy, style over substance. But I am not going to argue that it matters.
However, when it comes to the race for the presidency I think there are two images that need to be considered. There is the image of the man, the candidate, and the image of the Office of the President of the United States. The image of the candidate needs to be collected and well dressed, how he conducts himself publicly, etc. This is why candidates wear sharp suits and ties, why they are seen in public kising babies and such. The campaign is basically a job interview. The candidates are the applicants and the american people are the employers. They are showing whether or not they can do the job and should be hired over the other guy.
After the election, on the other hand, the victorious candidate now represents the entire country to the world. His personal image no longer matters as it is the image of the President that the person must now present. While the nice suits and calm demeanor are still important to project and a good image there are other things to consider.
The president is the Commander-in-Chief. he must lead by example. The President doesn't relax until the nation is at ease, and rarely does so even then. He eats when the people have eaten, he sleeps when we can sleep well. He should arrive on the job early each day and leave late. He should be above petty publicity stunts and group pandering. People expect a president to have clear policies and try to win the people on their merits.
Image is important, but people are not as stupid as Liberals think.
Obama is seriously hurting in the polls. His shallow superficial slogan of "Hope n' Change" has melted in the face of reality because it never had any substance. He ran in 2008 on slogans and image alone. And when he was elected he tried to keep up his personal image while ignoring the image of teh Office he held. The whole of his presidency he has lived and acted like a king rather than a president. Obama's recognized workday is from 10 or 11 until 4 while most americans work a 9-5 or longer. While most of the country is hurting economically, the President expects us to cut back while he and the family take frequent vacations to Hawaii and various European locales and frequently eat out at "$50 hamburger" restaurants. Often Mrs. Obama insists on leaving early, costing the taxpayers millions in extra spending. And in just 3 years Obama has played well over 90 rounds of golf. Thats more than double what Bush played in 8 years, and more than once every two weeks.
This insistance on his personal image is why Obama is losing ground quickly. By abandoning the image of the Presidency he gives off an image of a man who doesn't care about the problems and issues facing the citizenry while not having and solutions to the problems. But the people actually living in these hard times are paying moire attention this time around. His disastrous economic policy has lost small business owners. His tax policy, the "Buffet Rule," is losing corporate america and much of the big businesses. Staggering student debt coupled with dismal job prospects are making the under thirty crowd leave in droves. And the astro-turfed "war on women" has back fired and now women, especially mothers, are looking to Republicans for support.
And what is Obama's response? He doubles down on his personal image. This past week alone he went on the Jimmy Fallon Show and "slow jams" the news and shameless fishes for votes with the Dave Matthews Band. Then there is his singing during a fundraising event. Don't get me wrong, the man can carry a tune, but is that the image of President we want? And finally we have his shameless and endless policy of buying votes with what he will give groups if they vote for him, also known as entitlements.
Image is important, but is this the image of President we as a country want to present to the world as well as the people of the United States? A president who asks for votes based on what free goodies he can give, at the expense of the taxpayer, not on what he can do for the country? A man that turns the Presidency into a lounge act on a popular late show to plead for votes? A leader that would rather be an old world King instead of an american president?
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Farewell to the Shuttle
Today, April 17th, 2012, the Shuttle Discovery made its final journey to a Smithsonian museum in Virginia. It was attached to the top of an outfitted 747, took off from Cape Canaverl, FL and arrived at Dulles Airport. Before landing the 747 flew over Washington DC a few times so everyone could see.
I grew up during the Shuttle Age. Like the generation before me, who grew up with the Apollo missions, I fondly remember seeing the shuttle launches on TV. The great billow of smoke and steam as the three-stage rockets instantly super heated the air under them, the deafening roar, the almost imperceptable movement as this massive feat of science and engineering struggled against the confines of gravity. The shuttle quickly gained speed as it built momentum and streaked upward across the sky. It gave me chills. It woke something in many of us as we saw, in front of our eyes, the testament to what the human mind could acheive. Like many little kids, I wanted to be an astronaut. I dreamt that one day I would be one of those lucky souls that would be riding that shuttle into Space. Not even the few horrible tragedies that occured could dampen that excitement.
If you are like me then you may have had the same thoughts as you viewed the pictures, or read the story, or maybe saw it yourself if you are in DC. For me, it had the feel of a memorial service or funeral procession. It was like a hero coming home and being laid to rest. It was emotional. But more than that it was sad. It was sad that the crowning achievement of the human race, and this nation, is being abandoned. It is sad that we have to rely on the Russians to comply with our one obligation, the International Space Station. And it is sad that this has happened because of the out of control growth of our current government.
For those of you may feel that this is no great loss let me ask you one question...how many innovations and advancements have come about as a result of space exploration? One is the entire area of commercial aviation. Modern air travel and technology is a direct result of the pursuit of space flight. We have pushed the bounds of our understanding of gravity, aeronautics, medicine and biology (from studies performed in zero gravity). How much further could we go?
Also, how about the necessity for our souls? I do not mean to get meta physical or philosophical, but think about. Why did Galileo feel the need to buck the Church and persist in his round earth theory? Why did Magellan, Columbus, de Gama and all those early explorers feel the need to go to the far ends of the world? Why were people fascinated with going into space in the first place? It is because the human race has a deep need or desire to explore. We need to know what is beyond the next horizon. It is part of nature, and to ignore that is to ignore a part of us. And Outer Space is the pinnacle of exploration. An almost infinite area to study and put our mark on.
For those of you who are sad that our era of space exploration appears to have ended, I say fear not! As I have wrote about before on this blog (see Free Markets Work) The American aero-space industry has not died. It has simply moved. It is no longer the sole purview of the government agency NASA. It has gone to the private sector where it belongs and can grow. Multiple private companies are now currently working on getting humans back into space and have had major successes towards that goal.
It is fitting that as the Shuttle Discovery is prepared for its final role in a museum, Spacex, one of those private firms, is at this very moment preparing for the first commercial orbital mission to resupply the International Space Station. A launch date of April 30th, only a couple weeks from now, has been confirmed and locked. And this will be just the beginning. Most of these private firms came into being around 2000. So in just twelve years a handful of private companies, using the Free Market, have accomplished what took three of the worlds largest governments almost 80 years to achieve. They have actually gone further! Think of what they could do in the next 20 years if left alone by the government.
Think of what could be accomplished. Think of the new industries and businesses that could be developed. I do not know what the price tag is on supplying the space station from the ground but I'm sure it is not cheap. How could the cost or service be improved by building that support system in orbit as well? It has already been proven that humans can live in space and a reliable and constant method of going into space is being developed. Is it so far fetched to think that businesses could set up shop in space where there might be a market? Bigelow Aerospace has already launched a developing orbital hotel. Is it not possible for family of Astronauts to be able to pay to stay there and see their loved ones more often? Or maybe instead of streaming video into school classrooms from the ISS, students could actually visit it.
What else is possible?
The bottom line is that the Space Age that every little boy and girl imagined when seeing the Apollo or Shuttle missions streak into the sky, and that the government has utterly failed on, is possible in our lifetime.
I grew up during the Shuttle Age. Like the generation before me, who grew up with the Apollo missions, I fondly remember seeing the shuttle launches on TV. The great billow of smoke and steam as the three-stage rockets instantly super heated the air under them, the deafening roar, the almost imperceptable movement as this massive feat of science and engineering struggled against the confines of gravity. The shuttle quickly gained speed as it built momentum and streaked upward across the sky. It gave me chills. It woke something in many of us as we saw, in front of our eyes, the testament to what the human mind could acheive. Like many little kids, I wanted to be an astronaut. I dreamt that one day I would be one of those lucky souls that would be riding that shuttle into Space. Not even the few horrible tragedies that occured could dampen that excitement.
If you are like me then you may have had the same thoughts as you viewed the pictures, or read the story, or maybe saw it yourself if you are in DC. For me, it had the feel of a memorial service or funeral procession. It was like a hero coming home and being laid to rest. It was emotional. But more than that it was sad. It was sad that the crowning achievement of the human race, and this nation, is being abandoned. It is sad that we have to rely on the Russians to comply with our one obligation, the International Space Station. And it is sad that this has happened because of the out of control growth of our current government.
For those of you may feel that this is no great loss let me ask you one question...how many innovations and advancements have come about as a result of space exploration? One is the entire area of commercial aviation. Modern air travel and technology is a direct result of the pursuit of space flight. We have pushed the bounds of our understanding of gravity, aeronautics, medicine and biology (from studies performed in zero gravity). How much further could we go?
Also, how about the necessity for our souls? I do not mean to get meta physical or philosophical, but think about. Why did Galileo feel the need to buck the Church and persist in his round earth theory? Why did Magellan, Columbus, de Gama and all those early explorers feel the need to go to the far ends of the world? Why were people fascinated with going into space in the first place? It is because the human race has a deep need or desire to explore. We need to know what is beyond the next horizon. It is part of nature, and to ignore that is to ignore a part of us. And Outer Space is the pinnacle of exploration. An almost infinite area to study and put our mark on.
For those of you who are sad that our era of space exploration appears to have ended, I say fear not! As I have wrote about before on this blog (see Free Markets Work) The American aero-space industry has not died. It has simply moved. It is no longer the sole purview of the government agency NASA. It has gone to the private sector where it belongs and can grow. Multiple private companies are now currently working on getting humans back into space and have had major successes towards that goal.
It is fitting that as the Shuttle Discovery is prepared for its final role in a museum, Spacex, one of those private firms, is at this very moment preparing for the first commercial orbital mission to resupply the International Space Station. A launch date of April 30th, only a couple weeks from now, has been confirmed and locked. And this will be just the beginning. Most of these private firms came into being around 2000. So in just twelve years a handful of private companies, using the Free Market, have accomplished what took three of the worlds largest governments almost 80 years to achieve. They have actually gone further! Think of what they could do in the next 20 years if left alone by the government.
Think of what could be accomplished. Think of the new industries and businesses that could be developed. I do not know what the price tag is on supplying the space station from the ground but I'm sure it is not cheap. How could the cost or service be improved by building that support system in orbit as well? It has already been proven that humans can live in space and a reliable and constant method of going into space is being developed. Is it so far fetched to think that businesses could set up shop in space where there might be a market? Bigelow Aerospace has already launched a developing orbital hotel. Is it not possible for family of Astronauts to be able to pay to stay there and see their loved ones more often? Or maybe instead of streaming video into school classrooms from the ISS, students could actually visit it.
What else is possible?
The bottom line is that the Space Age that every little boy and girl imagined when seeing the Apollo or Shuttle missions streak into the sky, and that the government has utterly failed on, is possible in our lifetime.
Saturday, April 14, 2012
What happens now
The Republican primary is all but over. With Santorum out of the running, the clear second place in this race, it is all but certain that Romney will get the nomination. Ron Paul has never even come close to reaching the number one position (sorry Paul-ies, its the truth). And Gingrich, in my opinion, is too erratic, and is out if money. Though, who knows, anything can happen. As for me, personally, my candidate was Rick Santorum and eventhough he has dropped out, I still can not bring myself to vote for Romney in the primary. Primaries are for the candidate you want, not the one you can live with.
Further more, I have strong reservations about Romney. He has yet to convince me that his conservatism is genuine, I want a candidate that feels it in his gut, not one that has to think about the answer that will go best with the audience he is speaking to. Romney care gives me great concern. It may be constitutional for a state to dabble in healthcare, it is still unconstitutional to force the people to buy a product/service. It also takes the biggest issue for conservatism, Obamacare, off the debate table. Other issues include taxes, I do not believe he will go as far as is needed in simplifying the tax code, and I do not believe he will go as far as is needed to shrink government. The Fed, which actually isn't a gov't agency and the EPA need to be completely abolished and the Departments of Education and State, not to be drastically reduced and overhauled, if not completely eliminated as well.
That being said, here is what happens now...
Romney will get the nomination and, despite the Left's desperate wishes to the contrary, it will not mean a certain victory for Comrade Obama. Because after the Primary is over, and we have a nominee, all Conservatives WILL get behind him and vote. There are too many issues and consequences involved. Romney may not be the ideal candidate, none of them are, but he is a hell of a lot better than Obama.
Romney will, I believe, at least halt the path the Obama and the Left have put us on and perhaps institute a few conservative measures. However, if Obama is re-elected, there is no telling how much more damage will be done to the country, how many more socialist policies he will enact by executive fiat, ignoring Congress. If you consider that he will not even be beholden to the people since he no longer needs to worry about an election, this threat become even graver.
Believe me, most other conservative feel the same way. We will vote for Mitt Romney's shoe over Obama for a second time. And if you believe in this country at all, want to see it great again, and believe that prosperity and liberty are essential to life, you will do the same.
Further more, I have strong reservations about Romney. He has yet to convince me that his conservatism is genuine, I want a candidate that feels it in his gut, not one that has to think about the answer that will go best with the audience he is speaking to. Romney care gives me great concern. It may be constitutional for a state to dabble in healthcare, it is still unconstitutional to force the people to buy a product/service. It also takes the biggest issue for conservatism, Obamacare, off the debate table. Other issues include taxes, I do not believe he will go as far as is needed in simplifying the tax code, and I do not believe he will go as far as is needed to shrink government. The Fed, which actually isn't a gov't agency and the EPA need to be completely abolished and the Departments of Education and State, not to be drastically reduced and overhauled, if not completely eliminated as well.
That being said, here is what happens now...
Romney will get the nomination and, despite the Left's desperate wishes to the contrary, it will not mean a certain victory for Comrade Obama. Because after the Primary is over, and we have a nominee, all Conservatives WILL get behind him and vote. There are too many issues and consequences involved. Romney may not be the ideal candidate, none of them are, but he is a hell of a lot better than Obama.
Romney will, I believe, at least halt the path the Obama and the Left have put us on and perhaps institute a few conservative measures. However, if Obama is re-elected, there is no telling how much more damage will be done to the country, how many more socialist policies he will enact by executive fiat, ignoring Congress. If you consider that he will not even be beholden to the people since he no longer needs to worry about an election, this threat become even graver.
Believe me, most other conservative feel the same way. We will vote for Mitt Romney's shoe over Obama for a second time. And if you believe in this country at all, want to see it great again, and believe that prosperity and liberty are essential to life, you will do the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)