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.
Thursday, April 12, 2012
THE Problem part 2
Last week I wrote a post where I proposed that while the economy, the attack on and erosion of the constitution, and other prominent issues of the day, while important, are actually symptoms and consequences of a larger problem. That problem is the social issues.
The social issues influence public life. They affect how people view the world, how they interpret it. A person's idea of what the social issues are influence what laws and policies they favor, which ones they agree with and which ones they will work to get rid of. They also affect who they will vote for.
Another aspect of this underlying problem of lack of understanding of social issues is Us. "We the People." The American citizenry. And this is what I want to address.
Barack Obama has been disastrous for this country. He has expanded government power racked up more ruinous debt, and divided the people more than any other preident in the past 50 years at least. But he is still just a man. He did not seize power at the head of a military coup. He was elected by a majority of the population. We the People put him in office.
Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, have passed bills that have contributed to the over reach of government into our every day lives. Over the past century they have helped the federal government consolidate power away from the states and the People. They are still men. They were elected time and again by The People. Some of these congressmen have been in office for decades and have had the same views and agendas for all that time.
The judiciary may not be elected directly, but they are appointed by these official that are elected.
We are part of the problem. Not only the people that support this kind of government action but the rest of us too. I, and people like me, who have voted and spoken out against Obama and his Liberal cadres, may not have voted for them but it is up to us to inform and educate the rest. We have been lax in this responsibility.
I, myself, am guilty of this. Yes, I now have this blog where I air conservative views and opinions, at least how I see them, and yes I am not afraid to rise to the defense of my positions with vigor. However, I rarely start the conversation. Whether out of anxiety, laziness, or apathy it is rare that I walk up to a person that I know has a Liberal mindset and ask why they feel this way and ask them to defend their views. Even with more moderately minded people have I rarely started a conversation.
We avoid the subject either because we do not want to offend, or just don't want the hassle that such a conversation would bring. If we are unwilling to do this, how can we expect the country to change?
Elections are important. They are vital aspects in a Constitutional Republic such as ours but they will always be hampered and crippled if the people do not know how they work and why they work that way. If we get a Conservative president and legislature their priorities will be repeal bad laws and restoring the Constitution to its original function. This will require new amendments and the repeal of old ones. These will have to be voted on by the People. Also, how long will the country stay on the path back to the Rule of Law if the people do not know the Constitution as they are the ones that will elect future presidents and congressmen?
We Constututionalists have been complacent. When was the last time the Constitution was taught in schools? I don't just mean the history of it. I mean taking it line by line, every article, section and amendment. How many people in this country know the enumerated powers given to the federal government? Or that the Tenth Amendment gives all rights and powers not specifically given to the government in the Constitution to the States and the People? Or the Seventeenth Amendment destroyed the voice of the States in the government by making senators directly elected by the people?
We must start educating the next generations as to the how's and why's of our system of government. If the schools will not do it because they are funded and co-opted then it is up to each individual person to instill these values and knowledge ourselves. If we do not, then whatever gains we make now will last only until the next generation.
The social issues influence public life. They affect how people view the world, how they interpret it. A person's idea of what the social issues are influence what laws and policies they favor, which ones they agree with and which ones they will work to get rid of. They also affect who they will vote for.
Another aspect of this underlying problem of lack of understanding of social issues is Us. "We the People." The American citizenry. And this is what I want to address.
Barack Obama has been disastrous for this country. He has expanded government power racked up more ruinous debt, and divided the people more than any other preident in the past 50 years at least. But he is still just a man. He did not seize power at the head of a military coup. He was elected by a majority of the population. We the People put him in office.
Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, have passed bills that have contributed to the over reach of government into our every day lives. Over the past century they have helped the federal government consolidate power away from the states and the People. They are still men. They were elected time and again by The People. Some of these congressmen have been in office for decades and have had the same views and agendas for all that time.
The judiciary may not be elected directly, but they are appointed by these official that are elected.
We are part of the problem. Not only the people that support this kind of government action but the rest of us too. I, and people like me, who have voted and spoken out against Obama and his Liberal cadres, may not have voted for them but it is up to us to inform and educate the rest. We have been lax in this responsibility.
I, myself, am guilty of this. Yes, I now have this blog where I air conservative views and opinions, at least how I see them, and yes I am not afraid to rise to the defense of my positions with vigor. However, I rarely start the conversation. Whether out of anxiety, laziness, or apathy it is rare that I walk up to a person that I know has a Liberal mindset and ask why they feel this way and ask them to defend their views. Even with more moderately minded people have I rarely started a conversation.
We avoid the subject either because we do not want to offend, or just don't want the hassle that such a conversation would bring. If we are unwilling to do this, how can we expect the country to change?
Elections are important. They are vital aspects in a Constitutional Republic such as ours but they will always be hampered and crippled if the people do not know how they work and why they work that way. If we get a Conservative president and legislature their priorities will be repeal bad laws and restoring the Constitution to its original function. This will require new amendments and the repeal of old ones. These will have to be voted on by the People. Also, how long will the country stay on the path back to the Rule of Law if the people do not know the Constitution as they are the ones that will elect future presidents and congressmen?
We Constututionalists have been complacent. When was the last time the Constitution was taught in schools? I don't just mean the history of it. I mean taking it line by line, every article, section and amendment. How many people in this country know the enumerated powers given to the federal government? Or that the Tenth Amendment gives all rights and powers not specifically given to the government in the Constitution to the States and the People? Or the Seventeenth Amendment destroyed the voice of the States in the government by making senators directly elected by the people?
We must start educating the next generations as to the how's and why's of our system of government. If the schools will not do it because they are funded and co-opted then it is up to each individual person to instill these values and knowledge ourselves. If we do not, then whatever gains we make now will last only until the next generation.
Saturday, April 7, 2012
Journalism is dead
On February 26, 2012 Trayvon Martin was shot and killed in Sanford Florida. He was 17 years old. No matter how you slice it, this is a tragedy. Right, Left, Conservative, Liberal makes no difference. A young man is dead, a family is grieving, and another man, whether he turns out to be innocent or guilty, must now live with the fact that he has taken a life.
How does this tie into the title? Simple. In a volatile and charged situation the Mainstream Media, far from attempting to diffuse the situation, has stoked the fires and inflamed the public. They did it deliberately by falsifying information, selectively editing audio and video, and ignoring pertinent information all to further and portray a "narrative," as they call it.
First off, I admit that I do not have all of the facts. No one does as the information is still coming out. I do not know who was at fault. Did George Zimmerman act in self defense? Or did he "hunt Martin down and shoot him like a dog in the street," as suggested by Rep. Maxine waters on the floor of Congress, merely for "Walking while black in a gated community," as Rep. Hank Johnson states? I don't know. But what I do know is that we have a tradition of innocence until proven guilty.
This has not stopped the Left-shilling media from pushing the agenda that all white folk are racist and exist specifically to keep the black community down.
Lets start with the facts.
Trayvon Martin was walking through a community late at night, hood up in the pouring rain. George Zimmerman, the local neighborhood watch volunteer, noticed him and, as a man who knew everybody in the neighborhood, did not recognize him. Fresh from a rash of break-ins in the neighborhood he was suspicious of someone he did not know and decided to keep an eye on him while he called 911. Zimmerman gave them a description of Martin as best he could and the dispatcher told him to discontinue following. A short time later, Zimmerman and Martin had a confrontation at the end of which Martin was shot and killed. Police and paramedics arrived arrived, secured the scene, cleaned Zimmerman up and took him to the police station where he was questioned for 5 hours.
Zimmerman's story is that while on the phone with 911 he followed Martin behind a row of houses. When the dispatcher instructed him to stop the pursuit he complied and went to the nearest intersection to get street names to give to authorities. He was on his way back when Martin confronted him. Martin threw the first punch and quickly overwhelmed Zimmerman and took him to the ground where he proceeded to beat him and repeatedly slam his head into the ground. Martin reached for Zimmerman's gun. Zimmerman tried to prevent him while still trying to fend of the physical assault. Zimmerman shot in self defense.
The story the Media is trying to push is that Right-wing, racist Zimmerman saw poor little Trayvon decided to kill a black man, hunted him down like a dog, and killed him in cold blood. After which, the "white man establishment" refused to arrest him because he was white.
Lets take the Lib Media narrative from the beginning...
George Zimmerman was a racist white man. First off, he is not white. He is hispanic. And I have heard reports, which I have not been able to verify, that he even had African and Jewish blood in his family tree. In an attempt to begrudgingly acknowledge this fast while still pushing their narrative, they reclassified him with a new term: White-hispanic. They had to keep the "white" in there. Secondly, far from being racist, Zimmerman and his wife used their spare time to mentor and tutor neighborhood black and disadvantage children for free. And several blacks in the community have stated that they do not consider the man racist and trust completely as the neighborhood watch volunteer.
NBC, to further their agenda, took the 911 call where Zimmerman only gave a description of race when asked, took out the dispatcher's question asking for that information, and strung it together to make it sound like he was racially profiling Martin.
Actual call: Zimmermann: "This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about."
Dispatcher: "Oh, ok, and this guy is he white, black, or hispanic?"
Zimmermann: "He looks black."
NBC edit: "This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about. He looks black."
To their credit, NBC has fired the employee responsible, but only after they were caught and received intense pressure. However, there has been no apology to Zimmerman for the disparaging edit.
Zimmerman hunted down and murdered Martin in cold blood. Again, the evidence is not all in so nothing can be said conclusively. That being said, there are eyewitnesses that state that Martin was on top of Zimmermann and was slamming his head to the ground repeatedly. The initial police report noted severe lacerations and bleeding about the head and face.
This is where ABC did their part to further the Left narrative. They produced a video of Zimmerman at the police station that supposedly shows no bleeding or injury. Now, leaving out the fact that it was noted in the police report, the same people are the ones that think all cops are corrupt and akin to baby killers, paramedics were called to the scene and treated him before police took him into custody. I am not sure how things are done where you are, but paramedics usually clean up and treat cuts, scrapes, bleeding and other injuries of both victim and suspect, thereby erasing evidence of bleeding.
Again, to ABC's credit they reversed their claim, stating that under "enhanced video," a gash is clearly seen on the back of his head. However, just like NBC, they did so only after being caught and receiving pressure about it.
Then you have all the little things done to sway public opinion:
The media chose a photo of Martin as a 10-12 year old kid instead of the a current where he is reportedly a 6-foot-plus muscular athlete. The photo the chose of Zimmerman was as close to a mugshot that you can get and they have all but ignored the one of a smiling, well-dressed working man
The eyewitness that states that Martin was on top of Zimmerman came forward within days of the incident and was only reported by a handful of local papers. This was ignored by teh national media for almost a month. To save face after they were pressured into reporting this fact they claimed it as an "new, exclusive development."
Martin's father came forward and said the screaming on the 911 audio was not his son. However, after getting a lawyer, he miraculously changed his story.
The media claimed Zimmerman was let go from the scenebefore the video came out of him at the station and the police report stating he was questioned for hours.
Lastly, the media reports the neighborhood was your typical upper middle class suburban white community. In reality, while being a gated community, it is only about 46% white. The majority of residents are black and hispanic
Under normal circumstances this would be just one more instance of media changing facts to support their previously conceived notions and to sway public opinion. The situation, though, is far from normal. The atmosphere around this case has become increasingly charged and volatile. A responsible media would try to difuse the tension. Maybe remind the public that people are innocent until proven guilty, or publicly ask people to remain calm until the investigation is concluded.
Instead, they have fanned the flames. Now, we have retaliation crimes being committed "for Trayvon." In early march, a 13 year old white boy was set on fire by two black kids. A 76 year old man was beaten by 6 teenagers after the mention of Martin's name. And to tip it off, the New Black Panther Party has offered a bounty "dead or alive," to anyone who takes out Zimmerman, a man who has not been proven guilty.
Journalism is dead. The Mainstream media, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, are nothing more than shills for the Left and whatever agenda they want. They will apparently go to any length to support that agenda, facts be damned.
If they were really so outraged over this incident, and not just using it to make a point, then where is theri out rage of the fore-mentioned 13 year old victim? Or the 76 year old man? Or the recent weekend of violence in Chicago where 46 people were shot and 9 killed in just 3 days? Or the Uniform Crime Report mention last post that states blacks are involved in 80% of violent crimes while being only 16% of the population and that 90% of black victims has other blacks as their assailants? When the Left media shows just as much outrage over these and other incidents, I will take thier moral outrage a little more seriously.
I do not know if George Zimmerman is innocent or guilty. And it doesn't change the fact that a young man is dead. If it turns out he is guilty of homicide, then throw the book at him! Convict him of murder and give him the chair. However, as mentioned earlier, we have a trdition of "innocent until proven guilty" and he should be treated as such until then.
Finally, is it not possible that neither party is guilty? Zimmerman acted to protect his community after a rash of crimes. Martin, if innocent of any wrong doing, and not knowing why this man was following him, acted to protect himself. What happened could simply be a tragic accident with no body to blame. Think about it...
Addition (4/08/12):
More stories where the Left's flimsy "moral outrage" is conspicuously absent...
http://www.katu.com/news/national/7-California-boys-arrested-in-attack-on-teen-145286335.html
http://townhall.com/columnists/douggiles/2012/04/08/blacks_can_murder_whites_and_it_wont_make_national_news
How does this tie into the title? Simple. In a volatile and charged situation the Mainstream Media, far from attempting to diffuse the situation, has stoked the fires and inflamed the public. They did it deliberately by falsifying information, selectively editing audio and video, and ignoring pertinent information all to further and portray a "narrative," as they call it.
First off, I admit that I do not have all of the facts. No one does as the information is still coming out. I do not know who was at fault. Did George Zimmerman act in self defense? Or did he "hunt Martin down and shoot him like a dog in the street," as suggested by Rep. Maxine waters on the floor of Congress, merely for "Walking while black in a gated community," as Rep. Hank Johnson states? I don't know. But what I do know is that we have a tradition of innocence until proven guilty.
This has not stopped the Left-shilling media from pushing the agenda that all white folk are racist and exist specifically to keep the black community down.
Lets start with the facts.
Trayvon Martin was walking through a community late at night, hood up in the pouring rain. George Zimmerman, the local neighborhood watch volunteer, noticed him and, as a man who knew everybody in the neighborhood, did not recognize him. Fresh from a rash of break-ins in the neighborhood he was suspicious of someone he did not know and decided to keep an eye on him while he called 911. Zimmerman gave them a description of Martin as best he could and the dispatcher told him to discontinue following. A short time later, Zimmerman and Martin had a confrontation at the end of which Martin was shot and killed. Police and paramedics arrived arrived, secured the scene, cleaned Zimmerman up and took him to the police station where he was questioned for 5 hours.
Zimmerman's story is that while on the phone with 911 he followed Martin behind a row of houses. When the dispatcher instructed him to stop the pursuit he complied and went to the nearest intersection to get street names to give to authorities. He was on his way back when Martin confronted him. Martin threw the first punch and quickly overwhelmed Zimmerman and took him to the ground where he proceeded to beat him and repeatedly slam his head into the ground. Martin reached for Zimmerman's gun. Zimmerman tried to prevent him while still trying to fend of the physical assault. Zimmerman shot in self defense.
The story the Media is trying to push is that Right-wing, racist Zimmerman saw poor little Trayvon decided to kill a black man, hunted him down like a dog, and killed him in cold blood. After which, the "white man establishment" refused to arrest him because he was white.
Lets take the Lib Media narrative from the beginning...
George Zimmerman was a racist white man. First off, he is not white. He is hispanic. And I have heard reports, which I have not been able to verify, that he even had African and Jewish blood in his family tree. In an attempt to begrudgingly acknowledge this fast while still pushing their narrative, they reclassified him with a new term: White-hispanic. They had to keep the "white" in there. Secondly, far from being racist, Zimmerman and his wife used their spare time to mentor and tutor neighborhood black and disadvantage children for free. And several blacks in the community have stated that they do not consider the man racist and trust completely as the neighborhood watch volunteer.
NBC, to further their agenda, took the 911 call where Zimmerman only gave a description of race when asked, took out the dispatcher's question asking for that information, and strung it together to make it sound like he was racially profiling Martin.
Actual call: Zimmermann: "This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about."
Dispatcher: "Oh, ok, and this guy is he white, black, or hispanic?"
Zimmermann: "He looks black."
NBC edit: "This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about. He looks black."
To their credit, NBC has fired the employee responsible, but only after they were caught and received intense pressure. However, there has been no apology to Zimmerman for the disparaging edit.
Zimmerman hunted down and murdered Martin in cold blood. Again, the evidence is not all in so nothing can be said conclusively. That being said, there are eyewitnesses that state that Martin was on top of Zimmermann and was slamming his head to the ground repeatedly. The initial police report noted severe lacerations and bleeding about the head and face.
This is where ABC did their part to further the Left narrative. They produced a video of Zimmerman at the police station that supposedly shows no bleeding or injury. Now, leaving out the fact that it was noted in the police report, the same people are the ones that think all cops are corrupt and akin to baby killers, paramedics were called to the scene and treated him before police took him into custody. I am not sure how things are done where you are, but paramedics usually clean up and treat cuts, scrapes, bleeding and other injuries of both victim and suspect, thereby erasing evidence of bleeding.
Again, to ABC's credit they reversed their claim, stating that under "enhanced video," a gash is clearly seen on the back of his head. However, just like NBC, they did so only after being caught and receiving pressure about it.
Then you have all the little things done to sway public opinion:
The media chose a photo of Martin as a 10-12 year old kid instead of the a current where he is reportedly a 6-foot-plus muscular athlete. The photo the chose of Zimmerman was as close to a mugshot that you can get and they have all but ignored the one of a smiling, well-dressed working man
The eyewitness that states that Martin was on top of Zimmerman came forward within days of the incident and was only reported by a handful of local papers. This was ignored by teh national media for almost a month. To save face after they were pressured into reporting this fact they claimed it as an "new, exclusive development."
Martin's father came forward and said the screaming on the 911 audio was not his son. However, after getting a lawyer, he miraculously changed his story.
The media claimed Zimmerman was let go from the scenebefore the video came out of him at the station and the police report stating he was questioned for hours.
Lastly, the media reports the neighborhood was your typical upper middle class suburban white community. In reality, while being a gated community, it is only about 46% white. The majority of residents are black and hispanic
Under normal circumstances this would be just one more instance of media changing facts to support their previously conceived notions and to sway public opinion. The situation, though, is far from normal. The atmosphere around this case has become increasingly charged and volatile. A responsible media would try to difuse the tension. Maybe remind the public that people are innocent until proven guilty, or publicly ask people to remain calm until the investigation is concluded.
Instead, they have fanned the flames. Now, we have retaliation crimes being committed "for Trayvon." In early march, a 13 year old white boy was set on fire by two black kids. A 76 year old man was beaten by 6 teenagers after the mention of Martin's name. And to tip it off, the New Black Panther Party has offered a bounty "dead or alive," to anyone who takes out Zimmerman, a man who has not been proven guilty.
Journalism is dead. The Mainstream media, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, are nothing more than shills for the Left and whatever agenda they want. They will apparently go to any length to support that agenda, facts be damned.
If they were really so outraged over this incident, and not just using it to make a point, then where is theri out rage of the fore-mentioned 13 year old victim? Or the 76 year old man? Or the recent weekend of violence in Chicago where 46 people were shot and 9 killed in just 3 days? Or the Uniform Crime Report mention last post that states blacks are involved in 80% of violent crimes while being only 16% of the population and that 90% of black victims has other blacks as their assailants? When the Left media shows just as much outrage over these and other incidents, I will take thier moral outrage a little more seriously.
I do not know if George Zimmerman is innocent or guilty. And it doesn't change the fact that a young man is dead. If it turns out he is guilty of homicide, then throw the book at him! Convict him of murder and give him the chair. However, as mentioned earlier, we have a trdition of "innocent until proven guilty" and he should be treated as such until then.
Finally, is it not possible that neither party is guilty? Zimmerman acted to protect his community after a rash of crimes. Martin, if innocent of any wrong doing, and not knowing why this man was following him, acted to protect himself. What happened could simply be a tragic accident with no body to blame. Think about it...
Addition (4/08/12):
More stories where the Left's flimsy "moral outrage" is conspicuously absent...
http://www.katu.com/news/national/7-California-boys-arrested-in-attack-on-teen-145286335.html
http://townhall.com/columnists/douggiles/2012/04/08/blacks_can_murder_whites_and_it_wont_make_national_news
Thursday, April 5, 2012
THE Problem...
There are a lot of issues facing our once great Republic. Yes, I said "once great." Our constitutional, representative Republic has long since ceased to function or exist as founded. Our country is on the decline. It has come to this after almost a hundred years of small moves and shifts in our rights. However, this downward spiral does not have to continue. We can reverse it and put this nation back to what it was...but that is a different post.
Back on topic...
There are many issues on the national scene these days: Barrack Obama, the intrusion of socialism into our government, the intrusion of government into our daily lives, the erosion of the Constitution(specifically the 1st, 5th, and 10th Amendments), etc. While these are grave issues that infringe our rights as The People, they are not the problem. Don't get me wrong, they are problems. However, more than that, they are mere symptoms of an THE underlying problem.
That problem is: the destruction of social values and the family.
Now, I know I just lost some of you. "But, Hawk, we are tired of hearing about 'social issues.'" "Social issues aren't relevant." "Only those crazy right-wing tea party people care about social issues." Now, for those of you who were brave enough to stay and listen, let me ask you one question...
Why do you think that? Do social issues really mean nothing to you? Or is that what you were taught to say? If you really think that you might want to reconsider.
Social and family values are the bedrock upon which Law and Liberty are founded. The Founding Fathers understood this implicitly. Nothing about the Declaration and the Constitution was done by happenstance. Every word was written for a specific reason. That is why they wrote that we "are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights, and among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." They specifically declared that Rights are derived from God and faith..."social issues."
A strong family unit is the key to a thriving economy and a strong society. By family unit I mean father, mother, children. This unit is what teaches us proper behavior, moral, and the life skills that aid us throughout our adulthood. The traditional family teaches proper gender roles (yes, despite what the Left says there is a distinct difference between men and women). It teaches respect and admiration for sex as well as love and respect for the opposite sex. It gives self confidence, the care and comfort that only a mother can give plus the support and example of a strong father figure.
In addition to this, there are economic benefits as well. A single individual is likely to seek gainful employment past the needs of themselves and a single parent is less likely to have the ability to hold a steady job because they are doing the job of both parents. On the other hand, a household where the parenting is shared by two people affords the time and energy necessary to seek, acquire, and maintain a good job as well as the drive to do so, the need to provide for the family.
Most importantly though, a strong traditional family allows these values to be passed on from generation to generation.
To see the consequences of the breakdown of the traditional family we need look no further than our own society. Over the past century there has been a concentrated effort to de-legitimize the family in our society. Gay marriage (and before any rumors start circulating, just because I do not believe in gay marriage does not mean I hate homosexuals. As human beings they still deserve respect and have all rights that others have. If two homosexual people want to live together that is fine and dandy, but it is not marriage) has de-emphasized the family unit itself. A household of two women parents lacks a strong male role model for boys and a family with two dads lacks the caring, nurturing, comfort that most young children crave from a mother.
Abortion and the prevalence of contraceptives has cheapened the act of sex removed personal responsibility from an act that can have severe, far reaching consequences. 60 years ago sex was something that a responsible person waited to do until married. Because there were consequences to frivolous sex. The most obvious was pregnancy. If you did not want a child or were not ready for one, you didn't have sex. A baby was your responsibility as you were the one who irresponsibly had sex without thought to the consequences. This was reinforced by the social stigma that came along with premarital sex, being an unwed or single mother, and giving a child up for adoption if you chose to do that. Today, our society teaches that sex is no big deal and has no consequences. If you are a little cavalier with your sex life there are contraceptives to prevent pregnancy. If you happen to get pregnant it is neither your fault or responsibility as you can get an abortion and get rid of the "fetus." If you are careless enough to get pregnant and carry the baby to term, no problem. Go to a state that allows partial-birth abortions and you do not have to be burdened with the consequences of your actions.
The consequences of this demonization of the traditional family are glaring. As a country, the US has reached a dubious milestone. More than half of all births in the US now occur out of wedlock to single parents. And, most likely, that parent has two or three children. As I pointed out before, that parent is now unlikely to be able to juggle gainful employment and parenthood at the same time. When they can not keep a job, where are they likely to turn? The Government and Food Stamps and Medicaid. In addition, that parent is most likely to be a single mother. If she has a son, the child grows up without a father figure and, in the absence of that, is more likely to turn to gangs for acceptance and guidance. You don't have to be a Harvard professor to see where that will lead. And this cycle starts again as these males are more likely to have meaningless, "no consequence" sex than to actually settle down and start a family.
And men are by no means alone in this scenario. If that single parent is a male, a daughter grows up with the absence of a female role model and is more susceptible to teen pregnancy and frivolous sec as opposed to starting a family.
Consequently, as these single parents turn to the government to fill their needs, dependence increases and they increasingly vote for whoever will keep the gravy train coming. Politicians will keep pandering to that dependence to get the votes. This is when an entitlement society is born. And this is what we have now in our country where for every dollar the government spends it brings in $.40 and borrows $.60. However, it spends 60% on entitlements (welfare, medicare, medicaid), and only 40% on actually running the government.
As for the violent crime that comes from the breakdown of the family, the black community is usually hit hardest. According to the Uniform Crime Report, while blacks make up only 16% of the population at most, they are involved in 80% of violent crime. Also, when a black person is the victim 90% of the time the assailant is also black.
Family is a reflection of society and vice versa. To see this just turn your attention to Hollywood. Movies and TV are a powerful tool that can help spread ideas and values. It is a reflection of how a society portrays itself. So what does Hollywood have to say for itself?
Look at the movies 60, even 70, years ago. You had Jimmy Stewart portraying strong family values in "It's a Wonderful Life," John Wayne championing rugged American independence and individualism is just about every western he did, Bing Crosby and Danny Kay showed individual charity and kindness, not state subsidies and redistribution, in "White Christmas," Charlton Heston unashamedly protrayed Moses in the "Ten Comandments," and the list goes on. What happened?
Somewhere along the line, there was a dramatic shift. Suddenly, American soldiers were not heroic but psychopathic, drug addled killers. The Family was passe; the father was a moron or timid and ineffectual, the mother was an inebriated stepford wife who needed the sauce to stay married, and the children were defiant, loud mouthed snots and were shown as heroes for sticking it to their parents. the bad guys were no longer monsters, or Nazis, or communists. They were "evil corporations" and business men, or 2nd Amendment people. The comic relief was now christians, conservatives and people who clung to family values.
And all of this is broadcast, streamed, and preached to the masses 24/7/365.
So now I ask you again...are social issues really passe? or do they resonate with you?
If they resonate with you, you are not alone. America is still fundamentally a conservative nation. For evidence just look at the current Republican Primary. Back in January, Rick Santorum was barely a blip on the screen, a novelty. He was protrayed as just the latest social conservative who didn't have a prayer. The Left Media tried to keep it that way by hounding him with questions about social issues. Not one Mainstream Media outlet has asked him a single question about foreign affairs, teh economy, etc. eventhough he has clear stands and ideas on these subjects, which are easily found.
So, with only his social stances being portrayed to the public, Santorum has risen from last place to second and has given Romney, the "presumed candidate," a run for his money. He surpassed the other two candidates that were steering clear of social issues.
The economy is not the problem. Barack Obama is not the problem. He is reeking havoc on this country, but he is still one man. The People elected him through a lack of understanding of the social issues and, more importantly, the Constitution. If we want to get our fiscal house in order, we must first secure the foundation
Back on topic...
There are many issues on the national scene these days: Barrack Obama, the intrusion of socialism into our government, the intrusion of government into our daily lives, the erosion of the Constitution(specifically the 1st, 5th, and 10th Amendments), etc. While these are grave issues that infringe our rights as The People, they are not the problem. Don't get me wrong, they are problems. However, more than that, they are mere symptoms of an THE underlying problem.
That problem is: the destruction of social values and the family.
Now, I know I just lost some of you. "But, Hawk, we are tired of hearing about 'social issues.'" "Social issues aren't relevant." "Only those crazy right-wing tea party people care about social issues." Now, for those of you who were brave enough to stay and listen, let me ask you one question...
Why do you think that? Do social issues really mean nothing to you? Or is that what you were taught to say? If you really think that you might want to reconsider.
Social and family values are the bedrock upon which Law and Liberty are founded. The Founding Fathers understood this implicitly. Nothing about the Declaration and the Constitution was done by happenstance. Every word was written for a specific reason. That is why they wrote that we "are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights, and among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." They specifically declared that Rights are derived from God and faith..."social issues."
A strong family unit is the key to a thriving economy and a strong society. By family unit I mean father, mother, children. This unit is what teaches us proper behavior, moral, and the life skills that aid us throughout our adulthood. The traditional family teaches proper gender roles (yes, despite what the Left says there is a distinct difference between men and women). It teaches respect and admiration for sex as well as love and respect for the opposite sex. It gives self confidence, the care and comfort that only a mother can give plus the support and example of a strong father figure.
In addition to this, there are economic benefits as well. A single individual is likely to seek gainful employment past the needs of themselves and a single parent is less likely to have the ability to hold a steady job because they are doing the job of both parents. On the other hand, a household where the parenting is shared by two people affords the time and energy necessary to seek, acquire, and maintain a good job as well as the drive to do so, the need to provide for the family.
Most importantly though, a strong traditional family allows these values to be passed on from generation to generation.
To see the consequences of the breakdown of the traditional family we need look no further than our own society. Over the past century there has been a concentrated effort to de-legitimize the family in our society. Gay marriage (and before any rumors start circulating, just because I do not believe in gay marriage does not mean I hate homosexuals. As human beings they still deserve respect and have all rights that others have. If two homosexual people want to live together that is fine and dandy, but it is not marriage) has de-emphasized the family unit itself. A household of two women parents lacks a strong male role model for boys and a family with two dads lacks the caring, nurturing, comfort that most young children crave from a mother.
Abortion and the prevalence of contraceptives has cheapened the act of sex removed personal responsibility from an act that can have severe, far reaching consequences. 60 years ago sex was something that a responsible person waited to do until married. Because there were consequences to frivolous sex. The most obvious was pregnancy. If you did not want a child or were not ready for one, you didn't have sex. A baby was your responsibility as you were the one who irresponsibly had sex without thought to the consequences. This was reinforced by the social stigma that came along with premarital sex, being an unwed or single mother, and giving a child up for adoption if you chose to do that. Today, our society teaches that sex is no big deal and has no consequences. If you are a little cavalier with your sex life there are contraceptives to prevent pregnancy. If you happen to get pregnant it is neither your fault or responsibility as you can get an abortion and get rid of the "fetus." If you are careless enough to get pregnant and carry the baby to term, no problem. Go to a state that allows partial-birth abortions and you do not have to be burdened with the consequences of your actions.
The consequences of this demonization of the traditional family are glaring. As a country, the US has reached a dubious milestone. More than half of all births in the US now occur out of wedlock to single parents. And, most likely, that parent has two or three children. As I pointed out before, that parent is now unlikely to be able to juggle gainful employment and parenthood at the same time. When they can not keep a job, where are they likely to turn? The Government and Food Stamps and Medicaid. In addition, that parent is most likely to be a single mother. If she has a son, the child grows up without a father figure and, in the absence of that, is more likely to turn to gangs for acceptance and guidance. You don't have to be a Harvard professor to see where that will lead. And this cycle starts again as these males are more likely to have meaningless, "no consequence" sex than to actually settle down and start a family.
And men are by no means alone in this scenario. If that single parent is a male, a daughter grows up with the absence of a female role model and is more susceptible to teen pregnancy and frivolous sec as opposed to starting a family.
Consequently, as these single parents turn to the government to fill their needs, dependence increases and they increasingly vote for whoever will keep the gravy train coming. Politicians will keep pandering to that dependence to get the votes. This is when an entitlement society is born. And this is what we have now in our country where for every dollar the government spends it brings in $.40 and borrows $.60. However, it spends 60% on entitlements (welfare, medicare, medicaid), and only 40% on actually running the government.
As for the violent crime that comes from the breakdown of the family, the black community is usually hit hardest. According to the Uniform Crime Report, while blacks make up only 16% of the population at most, they are involved in 80% of violent crime. Also, when a black person is the victim 90% of the time the assailant is also black.
Family is a reflection of society and vice versa. To see this just turn your attention to Hollywood. Movies and TV are a powerful tool that can help spread ideas and values. It is a reflection of how a society portrays itself. So what does Hollywood have to say for itself?
Look at the movies 60, even 70, years ago. You had Jimmy Stewart portraying strong family values in "It's a Wonderful Life," John Wayne championing rugged American independence and individualism is just about every western he did, Bing Crosby and Danny Kay showed individual charity and kindness, not state subsidies and redistribution, in "White Christmas," Charlton Heston unashamedly protrayed Moses in the "Ten Comandments," and the list goes on. What happened?
Somewhere along the line, there was a dramatic shift. Suddenly, American soldiers were not heroic but psychopathic, drug addled killers. The Family was passe; the father was a moron or timid and ineffectual, the mother was an inebriated stepford wife who needed the sauce to stay married, and the children were defiant, loud mouthed snots and were shown as heroes for sticking it to their parents. the bad guys were no longer monsters, or Nazis, or communists. They were "evil corporations" and business men, or 2nd Amendment people. The comic relief was now christians, conservatives and people who clung to family values.
And all of this is broadcast, streamed, and preached to the masses 24/7/365.
So now I ask you again...are social issues really passe? or do they resonate with you?
If they resonate with you, you are not alone. America is still fundamentally a conservative nation. For evidence just look at the current Republican Primary. Back in January, Rick Santorum was barely a blip on the screen, a novelty. He was protrayed as just the latest social conservative who didn't have a prayer. The Left Media tried to keep it that way by hounding him with questions about social issues. Not one Mainstream Media outlet has asked him a single question about foreign affairs, teh economy, etc. eventhough he has clear stands and ideas on these subjects, which are easily found.
So, with only his social stances being portrayed to the public, Santorum has risen from last place to second and has given Romney, the "presumed candidate," a run for his money. He surpassed the other two candidates that were steering clear of social issues.
The economy is not the problem. Barack Obama is not the problem. He is reeking havoc on this country, but he is still one man. The People elected him through a lack of understanding of the social issues and, more importantly, the Constitution. If we want to get our fiscal house in order, we must first secure the foundation
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
The Free Market works!! Just ask the Aero-space industry
What we are seeing lately in this country is a war. A war of ideology. The Liberal Left has backed the failed policies of Socialism and Marxism in direct opposition to the Conservative Right and its support of the tried and true ideals of Small Government and Free Markets. In other words Capitalism.
There many ways that one can compare and contrast each of these drastically different world views. But the most glaring difference, especially lately with all the rhetoric against corporations, Wall Street, and the "1%," is the economy.
Socialism proposes a top-down approach where the large central government keeps the Market in the iron grip of a mountain of regulation and red tape. The Left believes that they can dictate fairness and appropriate behavior and order people to conform to their subjective definitions. This never leads to prosperity because as soon as an individual or entity wants to something that is against the small ruling elite, they bring the force of government to bare and make that person or company do what they don't wnat to do, consequences be damned. If government will still is not obeyed, they heap even more regulation on the pile until you submit.
Captilism, on the other hand, demands that a small de-centralized government enact as little regulation as possible and get out of the way of the Market. A Free Market works with human nature, competition and self interest, to good of all involved. This leads to the betterment of all because the Market can not force anyone to buy a product or service. It has to convince the consumer through better quality, cheaper prices, better service, etc. Also, as an added bonus of having multiple companies compete for your business, a Free Market produces diversity in product.
This contrast can be seen all through the long history of not just Aero-space but of manned flight itself...
In 1898 the War Department of the US government gave a federal grant to Samuel P. Langley to develop heavier-than-air flight. After 5 years, $70,000, and his only successes being an unmanned flight of a model aircraft, Langley gave up in 1903. The publicgrant was given to Langley regardless of results so he had no incentive for innovation or experimentation especially because it was not his money financing the project.
It was the Wright Brothers who would go down in the history books as the pioneers in aviation. Two independent businessmen free from government regulation who saw a profit in developing this field and so were willing to invest their own capital (money). Because it was their personal wealth and reputation on the line they had an incentive to make the best product they could for the lowest cost possible and to do it as quickly as possible to get a return on their investment. And in just 4 years, 1899-1903, a year shorter than Langley, the Wright Brothers made three successful full-size glider models and culminated in the world's first manned, powered, heavier-than-air craft, the Wright Flyer I, in 1903. In just two more years they improved their design through two more models, Flyer II and III, and went from a flight time and distance of 12 sec/120 ft. to 38 min 3 sec/24.5 miles with the Flyer III
So, as we can see, because of Free Market principals of investment of private capital, no regulation, and individual innovation two bicycle mechanics were able to, in a shorter time frame, far outshine a government-backed physicist.
In 1915, ten years after the Wright Brothers flew the Flyer III, the US government formed the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics. True, this was a government agency and subject to government regulation. However, there was minimal regulation and NACA encouraged the participation of commercial and private clients in both research and facility usage. They even encouraged governemnt employees to explore "bootleg" projects of their own on the side. As a result, from 1915-1958 NACA took manned flight from the basic fliers of the Wright Brothers to the X-1 supersonic flights (the NACA XS-1) in 1946.
In 1958 Congress signed the National Aeronautics and Space Act, creating NASA. In the beginning, NASA carried on the tradition of private sector participation in the research and development of its missions and technology. They even enlisted the help of American universities. This resulted in the first Apollo moon landing just 11 years later in July of 1969.
However, as the government beauracracy increased within the ageny the private sector participation has been de-emphasized. Over the next 40 years, as the central federal government edged out independent free market interests, far from exceeding that pinnacle accomplishment, NASA has not even come close, settling for regular orbital missions.
Fast forward to the present. Government beauracracy is more than ten times what it was in the 60's and NASA is no different. The shuttle age is over and there no realistic plans to go back into space. After $10 billion the Shuttle Replacement Program has been scrapped with nothing to show for it except one unmanned orbital test and a capsule with no delivery system. In fact, the only space commitment we have is to the International Space Station and we can't even get our own astronauts there. They have to beg rides from the Russians.
In recent years, to help spread out the costs, NASA has, actually, started to again involve the private sector, contracting out to companies like Boeing and Lockheed/Martin. The problem here is that government does not know how to participate in the Market. NASA operates on a "cost-plus" system. This means they simply re-imburse the contractors for whatever costs in time, labor and materials they incur and add a fixed profit. Just like what happened with Langley at the turn of the century, there is no incentive to produce a viable product on time and every advantage to dragging your feet to run up the cost.
Enter the Free Market.
Just because a government agency, NASA, is grounded from a government inability to be fiscally responsible doesn't mean that America is. Yet again, private capital, talent and innovation have come together where there is a profit to be made. Right now, and for several years now, the beginnings of a Free Market, private sector Aero-space industry have been taking shape. Since 2004, a handful of independent aero-space firms and companies have taken the initiative not to wait for the federal government to get its house in order.
John Carmack, programmer of Doom and Quake, has taken his fortune to form Armadillo Aero-space. Bigelow Aero-space was started by hotelier Robert Bigelow. Other firms include Mastin Space Systems, Excor Aero-space, Scaled Composites, and Spacex. All of these companies are working independently to explore and develop Outer Space. And, because of the Free Market, keeping an eye on cost, quality and service, and because of the competition of Capitalism, they can all do it for a fraction of the cost. Sure, NASA is still involved, it would be foolish to ignore 60 years of research and development. But now instead of a "cost-plus" contract, they have a "fixed-price" contract which gives a desire to complete a project on time and under budget.
The result? For $300 billion of NASA funds, 1/30th of the cost of a typical "cost-plus" contract, Spacex produced, from scratch, two separate and functional launch vehicles, a new generation of engines and a 7-passenger, pressurized capsule that had a flawless maiden flight, though unmanned.
From just this handful of private companies have already come two different designs for a vertical take off and landing systems, one of which can even shut down mid-flight, restart and immediately return to stability, a developing orbital hotel, and the latest generation of rocket engines that are safer and more efficient than anything NASA has. In addition, Scaled Composites performed the first commercial manned space flight and did it, not in a shuttle strapped to a giant rocket, but in an innovative one-man pod.
So, to sum up, the Free Market championed by Capitalism has done in 8 years what it took the governments of the US, China, Russia, and the EU more than 60 years to accomplish. And they are not stopping there. They are going further.
Right now you can by tickets on Scaled Composites orbital shuttle, Spacex is in the midst of planning the first manned flight of their dragon rocket and capsule, with a few more years development of the vertical take off engines space flight will never again be dependent on a three-stage delivery system, and right now these companies are preparing for the first commercial landing on the moon.
Command, Socialist governments can't even come close to this.
There many ways that one can compare and contrast each of these drastically different world views. But the most glaring difference, especially lately with all the rhetoric against corporations, Wall Street, and the "1%," is the economy.
Socialism proposes a top-down approach where the large central government keeps the Market in the iron grip of a mountain of regulation and red tape. The Left believes that they can dictate fairness and appropriate behavior and order people to conform to their subjective definitions. This never leads to prosperity because as soon as an individual or entity wants to something that is against the small ruling elite, they bring the force of government to bare and make that person or company do what they don't wnat to do, consequences be damned. If government will still is not obeyed, they heap even more regulation on the pile until you submit.
Captilism, on the other hand, demands that a small de-centralized government enact as little regulation as possible and get out of the way of the Market. A Free Market works with human nature, competition and self interest, to good of all involved. This leads to the betterment of all because the Market can not force anyone to buy a product or service. It has to convince the consumer through better quality, cheaper prices, better service, etc. Also, as an added bonus of having multiple companies compete for your business, a Free Market produces diversity in product.
This contrast can be seen all through the long history of not just Aero-space but of manned flight itself...
In 1898 the War Department of the US government gave a federal grant to Samuel P. Langley to develop heavier-than-air flight. After 5 years, $70,000, and his only successes being an unmanned flight of a model aircraft, Langley gave up in 1903. The publicgrant was given to Langley regardless of results so he had no incentive for innovation or experimentation especially because it was not his money financing the project.
It was the Wright Brothers who would go down in the history books as the pioneers in aviation. Two independent businessmen free from government regulation who saw a profit in developing this field and so were willing to invest their own capital (money). Because it was their personal wealth and reputation on the line they had an incentive to make the best product they could for the lowest cost possible and to do it as quickly as possible to get a return on their investment. And in just 4 years, 1899-1903, a year shorter than Langley, the Wright Brothers made three successful full-size glider models and culminated in the world's first manned, powered, heavier-than-air craft, the Wright Flyer I, in 1903. In just two more years they improved their design through two more models, Flyer II and III, and went from a flight time and distance of 12 sec/120 ft. to 38 min 3 sec/24.5 miles with the Flyer III
So, as we can see, because of Free Market principals of investment of private capital, no regulation, and individual innovation two bicycle mechanics were able to, in a shorter time frame, far outshine a government-backed physicist.
In 1915, ten years after the Wright Brothers flew the Flyer III, the US government formed the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics. True, this was a government agency and subject to government regulation. However, there was minimal regulation and NACA encouraged the participation of commercial and private clients in both research and facility usage. They even encouraged governemnt employees to explore "bootleg" projects of their own on the side. As a result, from 1915-1958 NACA took manned flight from the basic fliers of the Wright Brothers to the X-1 supersonic flights (the NACA XS-1) in 1946.
In 1958 Congress signed the National Aeronautics and Space Act, creating NASA. In the beginning, NASA carried on the tradition of private sector participation in the research and development of its missions and technology. They even enlisted the help of American universities. This resulted in the first Apollo moon landing just 11 years later in July of 1969.
However, as the government beauracracy increased within the ageny the private sector participation has been de-emphasized. Over the next 40 years, as the central federal government edged out independent free market interests, far from exceeding that pinnacle accomplishment, NASA has not even come close, settling for regular orbital missions.
Fast forward to the present. Government beauracracy is more than ten times what it was in the 60's and NASA is no different. The shuttle age is over and there no realistic plans to go back into space. After $10 billion the Shuttle Replacement Program has been scrapped with nothing to show for it except one unmanned orbital test and a capsule with no delivery system. In fact, the only space commitment we have is to the International Space Station and we can't even get our own astronauts there. They have to beg rides from the Russians.
In recent years, to help spread out the costs, NASA has, actually, started to again involve the private sector, contracting out to companies like Boeing and Lockheed/Martin. The problem here is that government does not know how to participate in the Market. NASA operates on a "cost-plus" system. This means they simply re-imburse the contractors for whatever costs in time, labor and materials they incur and add a fixed profit. Just like what happened with Langley at the turn of the century, there is no incentive to produce a viable product on time and every advantage to dragging your feet to run up the cost.
Enter the Free Market.
Just because a government agency, NASA, is grounded from a government inability to be fiscally responsible doesn't mean that America is. Yet again, private capital, talent and innovation have come together where there is a profit to be made. Right now, and for several years now, the beginnings of a Free Market, private sector Aero-space industry have been taking shape. Since 2004, a handful of independent aero-space firms and companies have taken the initiative not to wait for the federal government to get its house in order.
John Carmack, programmer of Doom and Quake, has taken his fortune to form Armadillo Aero-space. Bigelow Aero-space was started by hotelier Robert Bigelow. Other firms include Mastin Space Systems, Excor Aero-space, Scaled Composites, and Spacex. All of these companies are working independently to explore and develop Outer Space. And, because of the Free Market, keeping an eye on cost, quality and service, and because of the competition of Capitalism, they can all do it for a fraction of the cost. Sure, NASA is still involved, it would be foolish to ignore 60 years of research and development. But now instead of a "cost-plus" contract, they have a "fixed-price" contract which gives a desire to complete a project on time and under budget.
The result? For $300 billion of NASA funds, 1/30th of the cost of a typical "cost-plus" contract, Spacex produced, from scratch, two separate and functional launch vehicles, a new generation of engines and a 7-passenger, pressurized capsule that had a flawless maiden flight, though unmanned.
From just this handful of private companies have already come two different designs for a vertical take off and landing systems, one of which can even shut down mid-flight, restart and immediately return to stability, a developing orbital hotel, and the latest generation of rocket engines that are safer and more efficient than anything NASA has. In addition, Scaled Composites performed the first commercial manned space flight and did it, not in a shuttle strapped to a giant rocket, but in an innovative one-man pod.
So, to sum up, the Free Market championed by Capitalism has done in 8 years what it took the governments of the US, China, Russia, and the EU more than 60 years to accomplish. And they are not stopping there. They are going further.
Right now you can by tickets on Scaled Composites orbital shuttle, Spacex is in the midst of planning the first manned flight of their dragon rocket and capsule, with a few more years development of the vertical take off engines space flight will never again be dependent on a three-stage delivery system, and right now these companies are preparing for the first commercial landing on the moon.
Command, Socialist governments can't even come close to this.
Friday, February 3, 2012
"Freedom to choose" means choose them
Ever notice that all these people/organizations that speak of choice support anything but? To the Left, "choice" means their choice only. Lets looks at a few examples:
"Pro-choice"-One of the most heated topics of debate in this country at present is the topic of abortion. The pro-life side believes that life happens at conception and that growing life deserves all the protections and chances that everyone else gets. The pro-choice side believe in a woman's right to choose to have an abortion and that a baby is not a life, merely a fetus, until it has a "reasonable chance to survive outside the womb." I will admit fully and proudly that I am a pro-life person. And I, like most people that are, believe is the sanctity of life and will fight vociferously to outlaw abortion. However, I also am loyal to the constitution and, while I do not agree, as long as it is legal if you wish to have an abortion that is your right. I would try to convince you to do otherwise, and will pray for you not to, but ultimately that is your choice as long as it is legal.
On the other side of the issue you have people that identify themselves as pro-choice. They feel that it is their own personal choice, and right, to end their pregnancy when and how they wish. Their continual defense is the argument that "if you don't want an abortion, don't get one." Their actions tell a far different belief system. When these two sides meet and clash it are the "choice" people that insist that they get preference. When legislation is passed that makes no judgement on the legality of the issue, merely to cut off public funds that come from people who do not agree with abortion, they claim their rights are being infringed. They hit the streets and airwaves calling pro-life adherents "fascists," bigots," and "Nazis." They demonize women who do not choose abortion labelling them as narrow minded idiots, basically saying "we are for choice, as long as you choose our way."
They even frame the debate as such. I, and those like me, refer to this issue as "pro-life vs pro-choice." The Left on the other hand, label it "pro-choice vs anti-abortion." The subtle manipulation is repulsive.
This issue has been brought into the fore again recently by the decision of the Susan G. Komen foundation's to not fund Planned Parenthood anymore. Again, they make no assertion on the validity or legality of the issue. They simple said they would not support the organization anymore. The Left was immediately in the streets and on the air complaining. They said this violated their rights, completely forgetting that Komen is a private organization and can do what it wants with its own money. They Planned Parenthood touted increased donations to support their claim that the public disagrees with Komen, again ignoring that they are not a public company, while Komen reported a 100% increase in support. And, as usual with liberals, as soon as things don't go their way, they call for indictments and investigations.
"Feminism"--For the past 30 years the Feminist movement has been striving for "equality in gender." Their mantra is typical of the Left: equality and fairness for all. Men and Women should be treated the same and that women, especially children, should be free to choose how they want to act, what the want to like and do, and how society should see them. However, just like everything else, what they mean is hat you should be able to choose as long as you choose their way. Feminists say that a little girl should be able to choose, and should be encouraged, to play with army toys and toy weapons and that a little boy should have access to dolls. In reality, they vilify any children, and their parents, who conform to gender rolls. If a girl chooses dresses and Barbie they try and sue the parent for child abuse because they "did not let their child choose their own identity."
Lego felt the full force of the Left's lack of choice recently when the announced their new tow line. Lego is now producing a line of play sets specifically marketed to girls. The building sets are pink and frilly and are things like hair salons and daycares and the lego people are no longer the squat blocky design but something distinctly feminine. Their reasoning for this was nothing sinister. The fact is that the market is there for these toys. Little girls, and their parents, over-whelmingly still choose and gravitate towards princesses, the color pink, and activities such as doing their hair and playing house.
And what is the Left's reaction? Feminists groups have denounced the beloved toy company as "pandering to traditional values," "limiting women's right to choose," and so on.
"Politics"--Liberals love to support democracy and the will of the people until it doesn't go their way. When the vote goes against them. They insist that they know better than the people and do what they want. Take the recent election in Wisconsin. The people of the state, by a large margin, voted in Gov. Walker. In the short time he has been in office he turned a budget deficit into a surplus, allowed most municipalities and school districts to rise into the black, decreased property taxes and inceased wages. But since this came at the expense of Democrats and bloated unions, the Left is now attempting a recall election for him and four other senate seats they lost. Obamacare? The majority of Americans did not want it passed into law, as is seen by the number of states filling lawsuits against the federal government and having their own state-wide votes against it, yet the Left passed it anyway. Immigration? Several states now have put anti-illegal immigration laws in place with mass support from the their citizens. Liberals don't like it so the DOJ is now procecuting the states.
For the past 70 years, Liberals, the Left, Progressives, whatever you want to call them. Have envoked the "will of the people" and their right to choose their own path until they choose not to support them. When that happens the people no longer know whats best for them, only government does.
In this thinking the err severly. History has shown that time and again the American people do not like being told what to do. If there is one flaw to the American people it is comlacency. We are slow to action. As long as our lives are not too adversely affected we are willing to put up with many hardships and injustices. In 1941, the Japanese admiral responisble for Pearl Harbor, Isoroku Yamamoto, called the US "the sleeping giant" and they feared that all they did with the attack was to awaken that giant and "fill him wit ha terrible resolve." In our 236 year history, others have mistaken that complacency. The "giant" of the American people has already started to toss and turn as has been seen in the Tea Party and the number of states bucking the assumed authority of the federal government. The transgressions of the Liberals are reaching the point of becoming unbarable.
The American people may be slow to action, but once roused they will be satisfied with nothing less than every single Liberal, in both parties, being run out of Washington.
"Pro-choice"-One of the most heated topics of debate in this country at present is the topic of abortion. The pro-life side believes that life happens at conception and that growing life deserves all the protections and chances that everyone else gets. The pro-choice side believe in a woman's right to choose to have an abortion and that a baby is not a life, merely a fetus, until it has a "reasonable chance to survive outside the womb." I will admit fully and proudly that I am a pro-life person. And I, like most people that are, believe is the sanctity of life and will fight vociferously to outlaw abortion. However, I also am loyal to the constitution and, while I do not agree, as long as it is legal if you wish to have an abortion that is your right. I would try to convince you to do otherwise, and will pray for you not to, but ultimately that is your choice as long as it is legal.
On the other side of the issue you have people that identify themselves as pro-choice. They feel that it is their own personal choice, and right, to end their pregnancy when and how they wish. Their continual defense is the argument that "if you don't want an abortion, don't get one." Their actions tell a far different belief system. When these two sides meet and clash it are the "choice" people that insist that they get preference. When legislation is passed that makes no judgement on the legality of the issue, merely to cut off public funds that come from people who do not agree with abortion, they claim their rights are being infringed. They hit the streets and airwaves calling pro-life adherents "fascists," bigots," and "Nazis." They demonize women who do not choose abortion labelling them as narrow minded idiots, basically saying "we are for choice, as long as you choose our way."
They even frame the debate as such. I, and those like me, refer to this issue as "pro-life vs pro-choice." The Left on the other hand, label it "pro-choice vs anti-abortion." The subtle manipulation is repulsive.
This issue has been brought into the fore again recently by the decision of the Susan G. Komen foundation's to not fund Planned Parenthood anymore. Again, they make no assertion on the validity or legality of the issue. They simple said they would not support the organization anymore. The Left was immediately in the streets and on the air complaining. They said this violated their rights, completely forgetting that Komen is a private organization and can do what it wants with its own money. They Planned Parenthood touted increased donations to support their claim that the public disagrees with Komen, again ignoring that they are not a public company, while Komen reported a 100% increase in support. And, as usual with liberals, as soon as things don't go their way, they call for indictments and investigations.
"Feminism"--For the past 30 years the Feminist movement has been striving for "equality in gender." Their mantra is typical of the Left: equality and fairness for all. Men and Women should be treated the same and that women, especially children, should be free to choose how they want to act, what the want to like and do, and how society should see them. However, just like everything else, what they mean is hat you should be able to choose as long as you choose their way. Feminists say that a little girl should be able to choose, and should be encouraged, to play with army toys and toy weapons and that a little boy should have access to dolls. In reality, they vilify any children, and their parents, who conform to gender rolls. If a girl chooses dresses and Barbie they try and sue the parent for child abuse because they "did not let their child choose their own identity."
Lego felt the full force of the Left's lack of choice recently when the announced their new tow line. Lego is now producing a line of play sets specifically marketed to girls. The building sets are pink and frilly and are things like hair salons and daycares and the lego people are no longer the squat blocky design but something distinctly feminine. Their reasoning for this was nothing sinister. The fact is that the market is there for these toys. Little girls, and their parents, over-whelmingly still choose and gravitate towards princesses, the color pink, and activities such as doing their hair and playing house.
And what is the Left's reaction? Feminists groups have denounced the beloved toy company as "pandering to traditional values," "limiting women's right to choose," and so on.
"Politics"--Liberals love to support democracy and the will of the people until it doesn't go their way. When the vote goes against them. They insist that they know better than the people and do what they want. Take the recent election in Wisconsin. The people of the state, by a large margin, voted in Gov. Walker. In the short time he has been in office he turned a budget deficit into a surplus, allowed most municipalities and school districts to rise into the black, decreased property taxes and inceased wages. But since this came at the expense of Democrats and bloated unions, the Left is now attempting a recall election for him and four other senate seats they lost. Obamacare? The majority of Americans did not want it passed into law, as is seen by the number of states filling lawsuits against the federal government and having their own state-wide votes against it, yet the Left passed it anyway. Immigration? Several states now have put anti-illegal immigration laws in place with mass support from the their citizens. Liberals don't like it so the DOJ is now procecuting the states.
For the past 70 years, Liberals, the Left, Progressives, whatever you want to call them. Have envoked the "will of the people" and their right to choose their own path until they choose not to support them. When that happens the people no longer know whats best for them, only government does.
In this thinking the err severly. History has shown that time and again the American people do not like being told what to do. If there is one flaw to the American people it is comlacency. We are slow to action. As long as our lives are not too adversely affected we are willing to put up with many hardships and injustices. In 1941, the Japanese admiral responisble for Pearl Harbor, Isoroku Yamamoto, called the US "the sleeping giant" and they feared that all they did with the attack was to awaken that giant and "fill him wit ha terrible resolve." In our 236 year history, others have mistaken that complacency. The "giant" of the American people has already started to toss and turn as has been seen in the Tea Party and the number of states bucking the assumed authority of the federal government. The transgressions of the Liberals are reaching the point of becoming unbarable.
The American people may be slow to action, but once roused they will be satisfied with nothing less than every single Liberal, in both parties, being run out of Washington.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Voting the Chicago Way
It has long been a truth in Chicago politics that after you die you are only truly dead when its not voting season. For years hundreds of deceased individuals somehow make their way to the polls to put their name on ballots every time an election happens. They have also been accompanied by such illustrious names as Mickey Mouse, Captain America and Bugs Bunny. And the amazing thing is they always vote Democrat. I guess cartoons and comic book characters have unions, too.
Chicago voting practices are alive and well even today as yet again the dead and the fictitious have turned out to vote this time in South Carolina and Wisconsin, respectively.
In Wisconsin, the issue at hand is Gov. Walker's recall election. The Governer, a conservative has raised union and Liberal ire by making deep cuts and reforms. Namely, he, along with the conservative state legislature, reigned in the collective bargaining right of unions to cover basic pay only. Also, state workers must now pay 5.8% to their pension and 6.6% to their healthcare. The result? The state of Wisconsin went from having a $200 billion deficit to a $300 billion surplus, property taxes state wide were reduced, and schools and municipalities now have more control over their budgets eliminating the deficit of nearly all of them. Despite all of this, the unions are calling for a recall election in the hopes of ousting Walker, the Lt. Governer, and four newly elected republican senators.
According to Wisconsin law 540,208 signatures are needed. To this end ballots have been submitted with names from Disney's and Warner Bros.'s cast of character. The egregious part of this is that not only is Eric Holder's Justice Department not investigating, let alone prosecuting, this obvious voter fraud but they are insisting that these bogus ballots be counted. Even threatening legal action if they are not.
In SC Attorney General Wilson asked Kevin Shwedo, Director of the DMV, to do a thorough data review which found that in recent elections in the state over 900 deceased people appeared to have "voted." Again, they all voted Democrat. Again, these "voters" were registered by groups like ACORN, 19 members of which have been convicted of gross voter fraud in the years before Eric Holder came to lead the Justice Dept. Yet again the DOJ is not persuing legal action and threating the full weight of the Federal Government if they are not counted.
In light of examples like these several states, including SC and Wisconsin, have recently enacted voter identification laws. The main stipulation of these laws is that all voters must produce state issued photo ID when voting. True to form, the DOJ has either out right blocked such measures or brought suit against any state trying to enact similar legislation. This is despite the fact that the DOJ approved such a law in Georgia in 2005 and the Supreme Court, in 2008 in Crawford v. Marion Co. Election Board, ruled that the requirement of a photo ID is not an undue burden on voters.
Holder, along with the rest of the Obama regime, who argue that despite the evidence to the contrary voter fraud simply doesn't exist, maintain that any legislation requiring an ID is purely racist and meant to deter minorities from voting, claiming that they do not have photo ID's. These claims ring hollow when, as in the case of SC, photo Id's are offered free of charge along with transportation to any place to get an ID, if someone doesn't have a birth certificate the state will provide one for only $12, and the Governer herself is willing to drive anyone to the polls who needs it.
In truth, what reason is there to oppose such a law? These laws do not prevent anyone from voting, merely insisting that each person have an ID to vote, ensuring that everyone votes only once. What is there to oppose?
The only reason that I could see for anyone to oppose such measures is that they wish to rig and cheat an election. The only thing that voter registration supresses is fraud, people voting multiple times. Despite Liberal claims, voter fraud not only exists but is always done by their rank and file. For the average citizen who either has an ID or can get one easily and cheap, why is it a big deal to have to present said ID? Unless your expressed intent is to vote more than once. And, let's face it, this is the only way Democrats can win elections. So, for them, this is a big problem.
This issue has even greater impact to both the individual and the country. If such blatant voter fraud is allowed to continue, where a few vote as many to get their way over the will of the people, then what does your vote count for? Those of us who follow the rules and vote just the once will always be eclipsed by unscrupulous few.
AS this election approaches, as our country hangs in the balance, this is an issue that need to be addressed immediately. For if ACORN and their ilk are allowed to submit multiple ballots per voter, or just forge ballots with names of the dead and fictious, Obama may well just steal the presidency for a second term. At that point there will be no more veils, smoke or mirrors hiding his intent. It will be full bore down the path of socialism.
To this end, the Governer of SC, along with other states have filed a law suit against the Federal Government and the DOJ for interfering with state voter law. The suit was filed in DC to hopefully bring it before the supreme court quickly. It is every patriot's duty to support not only the lawsuit but any voter registration law in their state. Because, honestly, looking at Europe do you really want to go down that road?
Chicago voting practices are alive and well even today as yet again the dead and the fictitious have turned out to vote this time in South Carolina and Wisconsin, respectively.
In Wisconsin, the issue at hand is Gov. Walker's recall election. The Governer, a conservative has raised union and Liberal ire by making deep cuts and reforms. Namely, he, along with the conservative state legislature, reigned in the collective bargaining right of unions to cover basic pay only. Also, state workers must now pay 5.8% to their pension and 6.6% to their healthcare. The result? The state of Wisconsin went from having a $200 billion deficit to a $300 billion surplus, property taxes state wide were reduced, and schools and municipalities now have more control over their budgets eliminating the deficit of nearly all of them. Despite all of this, the unions are calling for a recall election in the hopes of ousting Walker, the Lt. Governer, and four newly elected republican senators.
According to Wisconsin law 540,208 signatures are needed. To this end ballots have been submitted with names from Disney's and Warner Bros.'s cast of character. The egregious part of this is that not only is Eric Holder's Justice Department not investigating, let alone prosecuting, this obvious voter fraud but they are insisting that these bogus ballots be counted. Even threatening legal action if they are not.
In SC Attorney General Wilson asked Kevin Shwedo, Director of the DMV, to do a thorough data review which found that in recent elections in the state over 900 deceased people appeared to have "voted." Again, they all voted Democrat. Again, these "voters" were registered by groups like ACORN, 19 members of which have been convicted of gross voter fraud in the years before Eric Holder came to lead the Justice Dept. Yet again the DOJ is not persuing legal action and threating the full weight of the Federal Government if they are not counted.
In light of examples like these several states, including SC and Wisconsin, have recently enacted voter identification laws. The main stipulation of these laws is that all voters must produce state issued photo ID when voting. True to form, the DOJ has either out right blocked such measures or brought suit against any state trying to enact similar legislation. This is despite the fact that the DOJ approved such a law in Georgia in 2005 and the Supreme Court, in 2008 in Crawford v. Marion Co. Election Board, ruled that the requirement of a photo ID is not an undue burden on voters.
Holder, along with the rest of the Obama regime, who argue that despite the evidence to the contrary voter fraud simply doesn't exist, maintain that any legislation requiring an ID is purely racist and meant to deter minorities from voting, claiming that they do not have photo ID's. These claims ring hollow when, as in the case of SC, photo Id's are offered free of charge along with transportation to any place to get an ID, if someone doesn't have a birth certificate the state will provide one for only $12, and the Governer herself is willing to drive anyone to the polls who needs it.
In truth, what reason is there to oppose such a law? These laws do not prevent anyone from voting, merely insisting that each person have an ID to vote, ensuring that everyone votes only once. What is there to oppose?
The only reason that I could see for anyone to oppose such measures is that they wish to rig and cheat an election. The only thing that voter registration supresses is fraud, people voting multiple times. Despite Liberal claims, voter fraud not only exists but is always done by their rank and file. For the average citizen who either has an ID or can get one easily and cheap, why is it a big deal to have to present said ID? Unless your expressed intent is to vote more than once. And, let's face it, this is the only way Democrats can win elections. So, for them, this is a big problem.
This issue has even greater impact to both the individual and the country. If such blatant voter fraud is allowed to continue, where a few vote as many to get their way over the will of the people, then what does your vote count for? Those of us who follow the rules and vote just the once will always be eclipsed by unscrupulous few.
AS this election approaches, as our country hangs in the balance, this is an issue that need to be addressed immediately. For if ACORN and their ilk are allowed to submit multiple ballots per voter, or just forge ballots with names of the dead and fictious, Obama may well just steal the presidency for a second term. At that point there will be no more veils, smoke or mirrors hiding his intent. It will be full bore down the path of socialism.
To this end, the Governer of SC, along with other states have filed a law suit against the Federal Government and the DOJ for interfering with state voter law. The suit was filed in DC to hopefully bring it before the supreme court quickly. It is every patriot's duty to support not only the lawsuit but any voter registration law in their state. Because, honestly, looking at Europe do you really want to go down that road?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)