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.
Showing posts with label Conservativism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Conservativism. Show all posts
Thursday, June 28, 2012
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.
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.
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
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?
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Santorum: The first volley
As predictable as ever, right on the heels of Pres. Candidate Rick Santorum's virtual tie with fellow candidate Mitt Romney, the liberal wrecking crew changed targets to the new rising conservative. As with every other Republican candidate, from Bachmann to Cain to Newt, the mainstream media and the Obama regime is determined to destroy Santorum before he can get much traction. Earlier this week they fired their first shot...though the overwhelming opinion, even among liberals is that it was misfired below the belt.
Alan Colmes, liberal commentator and contributor to FoxNews, chose to take exception to the way the Santorums dealt with the tragedy of the death of their infant son, Gabriel, 16 years ago. Let's put aside that it is incredibly bad taste, and down right cruel, to bring up such a subject after so long and focus on the fact that he chose to portray the incident in the absolute worst light possible, claiming that the Sen. Santorum took his dead son home to "play with it."
Here is the real story:
Sixteen years ago Rick and Karen Santorum were blessed with the news that they were expectinig a child. Now keep in mind that the Santorums are devout in their Catholic Faith and staunchly pro-life. So, at 20 weeks, just five months along, the baby, whom they named Gabriel, was diagnosed with a birth defect that is fatal unless treated. It was determined that surgery was needed and mother and baby were eligible for the procedure. The operation was a complete success and Gabriel was healed. Unfortunately, an infection developed in the amniotic sac. Ms. Santorum was rushed to the hospital wit ha high fever and having contractions. While begging for the doctors to stop her going into labor they were informed that it was impossible and if they were to try she would die from the infection as it was untreatable.
At 20 weeks, Gabriel Santorum was born grossly premature and survived only two hours. The controversial part of this tragedy was that instead of the simply forgetting about the child and having it taken away to the morgue, they decided to celebrate even this brief bit of life. Rick and Karen baptized the child slept the night in the hospital with Gabriel between them and in the morning, on thier way to bury him, they stopped by their home to show the baby to their other children so that they would understand the situation.
Has our society become so apathetic to the sanctity of human life that a grieving family is brought under fire for how the cope with such a loss?
My question is what right has Colmes, or anyone for that matter, to judge Mr. and Ms Santorum? Have they been through anything even remotely similar?
I have, thankfully, never had to experience such a tragedy. I am not even a parent yet, so I can't even speak to the joys of fatherhood. However, I have known people who have gone through the heartache of a miscarriage of stillbirth. That kind of anguish is hell on the mind, body and soul. It is a blow to both heart and faith. So much so that doctors encourage mothers to name these children to help cope with the loss. To make it real and bring them closure. Is what the Santorum family did so different?
Being such pro-life conservatives they could not simply let an orderly take the child off to the morgue and be done with it. So they baptized him as family and spent at least one night as parents comforting their child.
And I am sure, as any parent would do who already has kids and is again expecting, that they kept their children involved and excited for the new addition to the family. Perhaps they had the children put a had to the mother's belly telling them that this was their brother they were going to meet. Being faithful Catholics, I am sure they told their children how precious each and every life is. So what message would they be giving their children if they simply came home without a baby and just said, "Oh well, there is no brother coming lets move on."
Kids are not dumb and are very intuitive. They can feel when something is wrong and would be just as affected by such a loss as the parents. So the Santorums, on the way to bury thier infant son, made sure that their children saw their brother. They took the time to show them that the child was real, and precious, and family but something awful had happened. They didn't defile a corpse. There was no heathen ritual performed at the Santorum home. There was only true and deep felt grief and a family trying the best they could to deal with their emotions.
To bring up such a painful memory to take a cheap political shot at the new conservative front runner is beyond low. It is truly disgusting and calls into question the existence of Colmes' soul, in my opinion if no one else's.
Perhaps more chilling is that there is, as usual, not one peep from the President, and his party, that preaches to Republicans about civility in discourse. While conservative are excoriated for simply reporting unsavory facts about liberals, liberals can say vile things, as Alan Colmes has done, and get away with a half-hearted apology if even that
Colmes did apologize quickly when he realized that his cheap shot misfired. Like a true christian, Rick Santorum turned the other cheek and graciously accepted the insincere apology. What a shame that he had to accept such an apology.
Alan Colmes, liberal commentator and contributor to FoxNews, chose to take exception to the way the Santorums dealt with the tragedy of the death of their infant son, Gabriel, 16 years ago. Let's put aside that it is incredibly bad taste, and down right cruel, to bring up such a subject after so long and focus on the fact that he chose to portray the incident in the absolute worst light possible, claiming that the Sen. Santorum took his dead son home to "play with it."
Here is the real story:
Sixteen years ago Rick and Karen Santorum were blessed with the news that they were expectinig a child. Now keep in mind that the Santorums are devout in their Catholic Faith and staunchly pro-life. So, at 20 weeks, just five months along, the baby, whom they named Gabriel, was diagnosed with a birth defect that is fatal unless treated. It was determined that surgery was needed and mother and baby were eligible for the procedure. The operation was a complete success and Gabriel was healed. Unfortunately, an infection developed in the amniotic sac. Ms. Santorum was rushed to the hospital wit ha high fever and having contractions. While begging for the doctors to stop her going into labor they were informed that it was impossible and if they were to try she would die from the infection as it was untreatable.
At 20 weeks, Gabriel Santorum was born grossly premature and survived only two hours. The controversial part of this tragedy was that instead of the simply forgetting about the child and having it taken away to the morgue, they decided to celebrate even this brief bit of life. Rick and Karen baptized the child slept the night in the hospital with Gabriel between them and in the morning, on thier way to bury him, they stopped by their home to show the baby to their other children so that they would understand the situation.
Has our society become so apathetic to the sanctity of human life that a grieving family is brought under fire for how the cope with such a loss?
My question is what right has Colmes, or anyone for that matter, to judge Mr. and Ms Santorum? Have they been through anything even remotely similar?
I have, thankfully, never had to experience such a tragedy. I am not even a parent yet, so I can't even speak to the joys of fatherhood. However, I have known people who have gone through the heartache of a miscarriage of stillbirth. That kind of anguish is hell on the mind, body and soul. It is a blow to both heart and faith. So much so that doctors encourage mothers to name these children to help cope with the loss. To make it real and bring them closure. Is what the Santorum family did so different?
Being such pro-life conservatives they could not simply let an orderly take the child off to the morgue and be done with it. So they baptized him as family and spent at least one night as parents comforting their child.
And I am sure, as any parent would do who already has kids and is again expecting, that they kept their children involved and excited for the new addition to the family. Perhaps they had the children put a had to the mother's belly telling them that this was their brother they were going to meet. Being faithful Catholics, I am sure they told their children how precious each and every life is. So what message would they be giving their children if they simply came home without a baby and just said, "Oh well, there is no brother coming lets move on."
Kids are not dumb and are very intuitive. They can feel when something is wrong and would be just as affected by such a loss as the parents. So the Santorums, on the way to bury thier infant son, made sure that their children saw their brother. They took the time to show them that the child was real, and precious, and family but something awful had happened. They didn't defile a corpse. There was no heathen ritual performed at the Santorum home. There was only true and deep felt grief and a family trying the best they could to deal with their emotions.
To bring up such a painful memory to take a cheap political shot at the new conservative front runner is beyond low. It is truly disgusting and calls into question the existence of Colmes' soul, in my opinion if no one else's.
Perhaps more chilling is that there is, as usual, not one peep from the President, and his party, that preaches to Republicans about civility in discourse. While conservative are excoriated for simply reporting unsavory facts about liberals, liberals can say vile things, as Alan Colmes has done, and get away with a half-hearted apology if even that
Colmes did apologize quickly when he realized that his cheap shot misfired. Like a true christian, Rick Santorum turned the other cheek and graciously accepted the insincere apology. What a shame that he had to accept such an apology.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Cain's unfortunate departure
So, presidential candidate Herman Cain has pulled out of the race for president under an avalanche of smear and here say. And this is truly an unfortunate turn of events. He would have been a fantastic president. No, I do not think he is perfect. No one is and those who think they are (*cough* Obama) are the ones who are least fit for such important jobs.
His experience in the business world is invaluable. It means he understands things like cost and profit ratios, how to maintain a budget while still getting the most for your money. In short he understands fiscal responsibility which is sorely needed in Washington. His 9-9-9 plan, while again not perfect, is still a great step in the right direction. But more importantly, he knows that which all great men should know: That he doesn't know everything.
That's right! While the President of the United States is the most powerful office in the world it is still held by a mortal man, or woman if that is the case. A person, especially a leader, with an over-blown sense of self is just as dangerous as someone without enough experience, maybe more so. A good leader makes up for a shortcoming in one area by hiring, and deferring to, someone who does have the necessary experience. That is the point of the presidential cabinet. So what if Herman Cain had a few missteps in foreign policy? That is what a foreign policy advisor is there for. He has enough general knowledge, and enough wisdom to go with it, and the advisor fills in the specifics if Cain needs it. At least he is smart enough not to isolate and antagonize Israel, our only ally in the Middle East, while giving a reach around to countries like Iran who have publicly stated their intent to wipe everyone that is not Islam off the face of the Earth with the Us right behind Israel as a priority.
But I digress. As I stated at the beginning of the this post it is a shame that Cain was forced out of the race. But even more then the fact that he is out the smear campaign against him , and the hypocrisy it reveals, is even more troubling.
If you count up the accusations of sexual indiscretions among Conservatives and Liberals, the Libs far outweigh Conservatives. JFK was a well documented horn dog having several extramarital affairs. And let us not forget Bill Clinton and the little blue dress. How many affairs did he have? Three that were proven through evidence and many more that remained allegations. That is just two presidents. If you include Congress the accounts are staggering. Including Ted Kennedy whose car contained the body of a woman as they dragged it out of tidal channel and Rep. Barney Frank whose boyfriend was a male prostitute that was running a brothel out of their shared DC apartment.
But I am getting off track...
The treatment these cases got in the Mainstream Media was a shrug and "who cares?" They said JFK's indiscretions paled in comparison to his progressive achievements. We were told that it was none of our business what Bill Clinton did in his personal life. Despite the fact that he lied under oath and obstructed justice by preventing a woman genuinely wronged from getting the justice she deserved he was a great guy. Good personality. Besides, the public didn't really care about all that anyway.
Now lets fast forward to 2011. Herman Cain has been accused by five separate women of sexual misconduct. If these charges are true, then he deserves everything he gets. IF. That is a big word. Where is the evidence? Where is the blue dress in this instance? Ginger White, the latest accuser states that her affair with Cain lasted 13 yrs., during which they met at hotels and went to high profile events such as boxing matches. Where are the video tapes of them in the hotel lobby? Where are the ticket stubs for the boxing matches? For that matter, where are the accusers?
Of the first four, only one, Sharon Bialek, was willing to give her name. They were only barely mentioned and they haven't been heard about since. Ms Bialek went further by hiring the high-profile Gloria Alred. Now if, as Ms. Bialek says, she just wants to "get the story out," why hire Alred? She could do that just as easily with a nameless attorney. Indeed, there would be many a lawyer salivating to take the case to make a name for themselves. A person hires Alred for the publicity of the name. And even she has disappeared since that one and only press conference. If there was really anything to these accusations, the Media would be hounding these women down for the story and a chance to bury Cain. All of these women stated their accusations and then just went back into the wood work. Last I saw in this country we still had a tradition of innocent til proven guilty. But, no. The Media has been having a field day crucifying Cain.
So now, we have the latest accuser Ginger White. Again there is no evidence. She claimed to have evidence but has never provided it. Plus she has a very questionable background. Several evictions including a recent one that may have prompted her story. Previous sexual harassment suits filed, one being thrown out for lack of evidence, and a restraining order by a former business partner. But we are supposed to believe her word? Now, some of your Libs may say "where there is smoke, there is fire." Bull! Where there is smoke, there is smoke. Especially in today's world of lawsuit happy idiots. You make a complaint loud enough you can make a buck. I don't know about the rest of you, but before I ruin an honest man's life and reputation, I would make damn sure that the facts and evidence are there. And the sad part is that now that Cain has dropped out of the race, the accusations will never be disproved. It's mission accomplished in the smear campaign. The Libs will say no more about what they unleashed and there will definitely be no apology. they will let the accusations hang out there as a warning.
The point of this post is to point out the difference between being a Liberal and a Conservative. Clinton was accused of sexual harassment, with evidence and instead of exposing the truth the Media not only helped Clinton cover it up and dismiss it but they also helped his attack and destroy all three women that accused him. Where was the ACLU then? Where were the feminists and women's rights activists? They helped defend Clinton and destroy Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, and Monica Lewinski.
Herman Cain is accused of sexual misconduct. There is no evidence, just a lot of here say, the accusers are questionable at best and now AWOL when it is time to be counted so Cain can face his accusers, as is his constitutional right. In this case what is the Media doing? Crucifying Cain and supporting the accusers. The key to this shift in behavior is that Cain was a threat to not only Obama, but everything that Liberals hold to be true.
For decades the Libs have survived on the narrative that all Conservatives are evil, sexist, racist bastards. Obama rode to victory in 2008 on this sentiment. He was a charismatic black man who claimed that his would be a historic election for the first black president. The Libs over looked the fact that he knew nothing about leadership. All he knew was rabble rousing and inciting mobs. With Cain you have an intelligent, articulated, strong, conservative black man that actually knows what it is like to lead. And if he were to stay in the race he might actually split the black vote as they are forced to actually think for themselves and decided what is more important: color or substance.
So the decision was that Cain had to be taken out at all cost. Just look at the smear campaign directed at him before the sexual harasment allegations. Obama, because he is a liberal, was called a visionary, the epitome of what it is to be black in America, this messianic figure. Herman Cain, a black Conservative, was labeled an "Uncle Tom," a traitor, the "Tea Party's black friend." Harry Belefonte said he is everything tha tis false in the black community. He was told to get off the symbolic crack pipe.
And this coming from the party of tolerance...
His experience in the business world is invaluable. It means he understands things like cost and profit ratios, how to maintain a budget while still getting the most for your money. In short he understands fiscal responsibility which is sorely needed in Washington. His 9-9-9 plan, while again not perfect, is still a great step in the right direction. But more importantly, he knows that which all great men should know: That he doesn't know everything.
That's right! While the President of the United States is the most powerful office in the world it is still held by a mortal man, or woman if that is the case. A person, especially a leader, with an over-blown sense of self is just as dangerous as someone without enough experience, maybe more so. A good leader makes up for a shortcoming in one area by hiring, and deferring to, someone who does have the necessary experience. That is the point of the presidential cabinet. So what if Herman Cain had a few missteps in foreign policy? That is what a foreign policy advisor is there for. He has enough general knowledge, and enough wisdom to go with it, and the advisor fills in the specifics if Cain needs it. At least he is smart enough not to isolate and antagonize Israel, our only ally in the Middle East, while giving a reach around to countries like Iran who have publicly stated their intent to wipe everyone that is not Islam off the face of the Earth with the Us right behind Israel as a priority.
But I digress. As I stated at the beginning of the this post it is a shame that Cain was forced out of the race. But even more then the fact that he is out the smear campaign against him , and the hypocrisy it reveals, is even more troubling.
If you count up the accusations of sexual indiscretions among Conservatives and Liberals, the Libs far outweigh Conservatives. JFK was a well documented horn dog having several extramarital affairs. And let us not forget Bill Clinton and the little blue dress. How many affairs did he have? Three that were proven through evidence and many more that remained allegations. That is just two presidents. If you include Congress the accounts are staggering. Including Ted Kennedy whose car contained the body of a woman as they dragged it out of tidal channel and Rep. Barney Frank whose boyfriend was a male prostitute that was running a brothel out of their shared DC apartment.
But I am getting off track...
The treatment these cases got in the Mainstream Media was a shrug and "who cares?" They said JFK's indiscretions paled in comparison to his progressive achievements. We were told that it was none of our business what Bill Clinton did in his personal life. Despite the fact that he lied under oath and obstructed justice by preventing a woman genuinely wronged from getting the justice she deserved he was a great guy. Good personality. Besides, the public didn't really care about all that anyway.
Now lets fast forward to 2011. Herman Cain has been accused by five separate women of sexual misconduct. If these charges are true, then he deserves everything he gets. IF. That is a big word. Where is the evidence? Where is the blue dress in this instance? Ginger White, the latest accuser states that her affair with Cain lasted 13 yrs., during which they met at hotels and went to high profile events such as boxing matches. Where are the video tapes of them in the hotel lobby? Where are the ticket stubs for the boxing matches? For that matter, where are the accusers?
Of the first four, only one, Sharon Bialek, was willing to give her name. They were only barely mentioned and they haven't been heard about since. Ms Bialek went further by hiring the high-profile Gloria Alred. Now if, as Ms. Bialek says, she just wants to "get the story out," why hire Alred? She could do that just as easily with a nameless attorney. Indeed, there would be many a lawyer salivating to take the case to make a name for themselves. A person hires Alred for the publicity of the name. And even she has disappeared since that one and only press conference. If there was really anything to these accusations, the Media would be hounding these women down for the story and a chance to bury Cain. All of these women stated their accusations and then just went back into the wood work. Last I saw in this country we still had a tradition of innocent til proven guilty. But, no. The Media has been having a field day crucifying Cain.
So now, we have the latest accuser Ginger White. Again there is no evidence. She claimed to have evidence but has never provided it. Plus she has a very questionable background. Several evictions including a recent one that may have prompted her story. Previous sexual harassment suits filed, one being thrown out for lack of evidence, and a restraining order by a former business partner. But we are supposed to believe her word? Now, some of your Libs may say "where there is smoke, there is fire." Bull! Where there is smoke, there is smoke. Especially in today's world of lawsuit happy idiots. You make a complaint loud enough you can make a buck. I don't know about the rest of you, but before I ruin an honest man's life and reputation, I would make damn sure that the facts and evidence are there. And the sad part is that now that Cain has dropped out of the race, the accusations will never be disproved. It's mission accomplished in the smear campaign. The Libs will say no more about what they unleashed and there will definitely be no apology. they will let the accusations hang out there as a warning.
The point of this post is to point out the difference between being a Liberal and a Conservative. Clinton was accused of sexual harassment, with evidence and instead of exposing the truth the Media not only helped Clinton cover it up and dismiss it but they also helped his attack and destroy all three women that accused him. Where was the ACLU then? Where were the feminists and women's rights activists? They helped defend Clinton and destroy Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, and Monica Lewinski.
Herman Cain is accused of sexual misconduct. There is no evidence, just a lot of here say, the accusers are questionable at best and now AWOL when it is time to be counted so Cain can face his accusers, as is his constitutional right. In this case what is the Media doing? Crucifying Cain and supporting the accusers. The key to this shift in behavior is that Cain was a threat to not only Obama, but everything that Liberals hold to be true.
For decades the Libs have survived on the narrative that all Conservatives are evil, sexist, racist bastards. Obama rode to victory in 2008 on this sentiment. He was a charismatic black man who claimed that his would be a historic election for the first black president. The Libs over looked the fact that he knew nothing about leadership. All he knew was rabble rousing and inciting mobs. With Cain you have an intelligent, articulated, strong, conservative black man that actually knows what it is like to lead. And if he were to stay in the race he might actually split the black vote as they are forced to actually think for themselves and decided what is more important: color or substance.
So the decision was that Cain had to be taken out at all cost. Just look at the smear campaign directed at him before the sexual harasment allegations. Obama, because he is a liberal, was called a visionary, the epitome of what it is to be black in America, this messianic figure. Herman Cain, a black Conservative, was labeled an "Uncle Tom," a traitor, the "Tea Party's black friend." Harry Belefonte said he is everything tha tis false in the black community. He was told to get off the symbolic crack pipe.
And this coming from the party of tolerance...
Friday, December 2, 2011
OWS wrong thinking
As you may have guessed from reading this blog my personal views run in the complete opposite direction as the "Occupy" "flea-baggers." To be more blunt....I can't stand them. Nothing but a bunch of self-serving, entitlement momma's boys who have been told all their lives that they are special for absolutely nothing. Now that they are in the real world and find out that their twit mothers' were wrong and they really aren't special they don't know what to do...
But maybe I am wrong. So, just for a moment, lets play devil's advocate.
*waves magic wand* POOF!!!! you all got your wish. Every dollar that the so called "wealthy" have has been seized and given to the government. Right now the government costs tens of billions a day to run and you insects want to up that bill with more entitlement programs and nanny-state give aways. Let us say that there are several hundred "millionaires and billionaires" in this country. There are more millionaires in that category than billionaires. But let us again go with your best case scenario and say that every person in the "1%" is worth $1 billion. If you confiscate every cent they have and give it to the government that is only about $300, I'll even be generous and say $500, billion. That is enough money to run the government and its myriad of handouts for a month...maybe two. Who are you going to take money from next month to pay for your welfare?
The people who you call the 1%, the wealthy are the business owners, the wealth creators. By leaving them penniless you have eliminated their ability to make more wealth. Also, since you have now seized and liquidated their businesses you have also destroyed billions of jobs for others. Now since these are the innovators and risk takers of the country they could bounce back if given the chance. But what would be the point? As soon as they make a buck you idiots will demand they give that to you too. So not only have you destroyed the wealth that currently exists, but you have also eliminated the desire to make more...all for the sake of running an unsustainable system for two months.
I like this game! Lets do it again. Devil's advocate take two...
You say "Ok. Fine." Lets not give the money to the federal government. Lets still soak the rich and give all the money to "the people." Lets run the math again. You still have the same pool of money of the "1%." We will again go with the optimistic number of $500 billion. The population of the US currently sits at about 312,000,000,000. Congratulations! You have now increased every body's wealth by less than $2! And you still have the problem that you have now destroyed all ability to create wealth in this country and any incentive to to do so anyway.
That's two scenarios down...how about a third!
You say "OK...FINE!!!" Lets give the money to a select few "right people" that will use it properly. Who decides these people? And then how do they decide the "correct" way to use it? Also, these new owners of wealth are now the "1%" Congratulations!! Does your ideology suddenly stop just because you now have the wealth? That's a pretty shallow ethos. And if you still believe in your re-distributionist methods you should have no problem handing over your new gotten wealth when someone else says that you are now the 1% and they deserve to have your money, right? You are just going to give them your money with a smile and a handshake?
*waits for an answer and listens to the silence. Also sees the truth on your face* I thought not.
The truth you do not want to admit is that who has the money is not the problem. You are just jealous its not you. Instead of actually working to make your own wealth, you just whine and complain until someone gives you something. I'm sorry that your parents lied to you that doing nothing makes you special. Doing nothing makes you a lazy piece of shit! You don't deserve anything especially if it comes from someone who actually worked and earned what they have.
The biggest and original complaint of the "Occupy" crowd was their student loans and that they couldn't find a job. I agree with that much. Big Education is an eye sore and a drain on the country...but that is another blog. Maybe you shouldn't take such useless major's as Women's Studies, or Bi-sexual Asian Cultures, or whatever government approved degree you have. I'm in the boat with you. I took Anthropology/Archeology only to find a limited job market. Now, six years later, I am not even using that degree. The difference is that I'm not bitching! I don't think that anyone else should pay for my poor choice in education. I'm not asking for a hand out. I got a steady job to provide for my family while I go back to school for something more useful even though it will mean more student loans and debt. It is just the right thing to do. You make decisions and live with the consequences. If they are mistakes, you take your licks and pick yourself back up and try again.
**UPDATE!!** 1/06/12
I did some research and found some real numbers provided by the IRS, Dept. of Labor Statistics and other Gov't groups. Now the most current tax numbers available are from 2010, but the spending numbers for 2011 are available, so it will not be an exact comparison but it will be close enough.
In 2011, the federal government spent $3.789 Trillion dollars on all its entitlements and regulations which was $1.615 Trillion more than it raised. In 2010, the "1%" had a total gross income of $1.685 trillion from 1,399,606 positive returns, meaning that many people that made money instead of having a loss for the year. So, even if you Occupados get your dearest wish and take the "1%" for all they are worth, you are not even funding the federal government for half the year.
And, again, you run into the same problems afterwards (see above). Namely, if you take everything the "1%" has, you eliminate their ability to earn anything at all. So, in 8 months who are you going to soak next?
But maybe I am wrong. So, just for a moment, lets play devil's advocate.
*waves magic wand* POOF!!!! you all got your wish. Every dollar that the so called "wealthy" have has been seized and given to the government. Right now the government costs tens of billions a day to run and you insects want to up that bill with more entitlement programs and nanny-state give aways. Let us say that there are several hundred "millionaires and billionaires" in this country. There are more millionaires in that category than billionaires. But let us again go with your best case scenario and say that every person in the "1%" is worth $1 billion. If you confiscate every cent they have and give it to the government that is only about $300, I'll even be generous and say $500, billion. That is enough money to run the government and its myriad of handouts for a month...maybe two. Who are you going to take money from next month to pay for your welfare?
The people who you call the 1%, the wealthy are the business owners, the wealth creators. By leaving them penniless you have eliminated their ability to make more wealth. Also, since you have now seized and liquidated their businesses you have also destroyed billions of jobs for others. Now since these are the innovators and risk takers of the country they could bounce back if given the chance. But what would be the point? As soon as they make a buck you idiots will demand they give that to you too. So not only have you destroyed the wealth that currently exists, but you have also eliminated the desire to make more...all for the sake of running an unsustainable system for two months.
I like this game! Lets do it again. Devil's advocate take two...
You say "Ok. Fine." Lets not give the money to the federal government. Lets still soak the rich and give all the money to "the people." Lets run the math again. You still have the same pool of money of the "1%." We will again go with the optimistic number of $500 billion. The population of the US currently sits at about 312,000,000,000. Congratulations! You have now increased every body's wealth by less than $2! And you still have the problem that you have now destroyed all ability to create wealth in this country and any incentive to to do so anyway.
That's two scenarios down...how about a third!
You say "OK...FINE!!!" Lets give the money to a select few "right people" that will use it properly. Who decides these people? And then how do they decide the "correct" way to use it? Also, these new owners of wealth are now the "1%" Congratulations!! Does your ideology suddenly stop just because you now have the wealth? That's a pretty shallow ethos. And if you still believe in your re-distributionist methods you should have no problem handing over your new gotten wealth when someone else says that you are now the 1% and they deserve to have your money, right? You are just going to give them your money with a smile and a handshake?
*waits for an answer and listens to the silence. Also sees the truth on your face* I thought not.
The truth you do not want to admit is that who has the money is not the problem. You are just jealous its not you. Instead of actually working to make your own wealth, you just whine and complain until someone gives you something. I'm sorry that your parents lied to you that doing nothing makes you special. Doing nothing makes you a lazy piece of shit! You don't deserve anything especially if it comes from someone who actually worked and earned what they have.
The biggest and original complaint of the "Occupy" crowd was their student loans and that they couldn't find a job. I agree with that much. Big Education is an eye sore and a drain on the country...but that is another blog. Maybe you shouldn't take such useless major's as Women's Studies, or Bi-sexual Asian Cultures, or whatever government approved degree you have. I'm in the boat with you. I took Anthropology/Archeology only to find a limited job market. Now, six years later, I am not even using that degree. The difference is that I'm not bitching! I don't think that anyone else should pay for my poor choice in education. I'm not asking for a hand out. I got a steady job to provide for my family while I go back to school for something more useful even though it will mean more student loans and debt. It is just the right thing to do. You make decisions and live with the consequences. If they are mistakes, you take your licks and pick yourself back up and try again.
**UPDATE!!** 1/06/12
I did some research and found some real numbers provided by the IRS, Dept. of Labor Statistics and other Gov't groups. Now the most current tax numbers available are from 2010, but the spending numbers for 2011 are available, so it will not be an exact comparison but it will be close enough.
In 2011, the federal government spent $3.789 Trillion dollars on all its entitlements and regulations which was $1.615 Trillion more than it raised. In 2010, the "1%" had a total gross income of $1.685 trillion from 1,399,606 positive returns, meaning that many people that made money instead of having a loss for the year. So, even if you Occupados get your dearest wish and take the "1%" for all they are worth, you are not even funding the federal government for half the year.
And, again, you run into the same problems afterwards (see above). Namely, if you take everything the "1%" has, you eliminate their ability to earn anything at all. So, in 8 months who are you going to soak next?
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
OWS's 15 minutes of fame
It looks like the "Occupy" movement is finally fizzling out and I say not soon enough!
For the last two months the whole nation has been inundated with press coverage of the daily activity of this errant "cause." We were treated to every shift, chant, hardship. The mainstream media cheered as each extension was formed in different cities. They pompously claimed this was the Left's version of the Tea Party only OWS was larger and was back by the majority. But finally truth has caught up to the mob.
The Tea Party succeeded, and continues to do so, where OWS failed because the Tea Party is a true grassroots movement where OWS is "astroturfing."
The Tea Party was not started to be a movement. It was truly built from the ground up with a few people gathering based on shared ideals, in this case the rapid, and foolish, expansion of government beyond its means and mandate. These few were joined by others, first in handfuls and then in droves. When the size of this phenomena dawned on them it was then that the idea of action began to develop. Even in this the Tea Party started small and grew to large protests outside Congress. In short, it was pbased on principal, passion, and patriotism.
OWS is almost the exact opposite. It was formed from the top down. This is what is known as "astroturfing:" A movement organized and funded for a specific agenda, precisely to make a scene, by a politician or interest group. This group then tries to pass itself off as a grassroots movement to falsely claim legitimacy. OWS was formed with protests and civil disruption in mind without any thought given to any unifying ideology.
The results of such differing approaches is very clear. Tea Party protests truly were non-violent. They consisted of a wide range of Americans from differing background. The Tea Partiers destroyed no property, obeyed the law, including the obtaining of proper permits, and showed utmost respect for the law enforcement assigned by Liberals "just in case" violence broke out, which never happened. They stood in group, holding candles and singing patriotic songs including "America the Beautiful," the National Anthem, and maybe an occassional hymn. They prayed to God for guidance, not only for themselves but for the leaders in Congress as well. And finally, when they left to go back to their jobs they cleaned up after themselves.
Now lets look at OWS...it is funded entirely by politicians and interest groups. These include the President, the Liberal establishment, Pelosi, Reid, etc.,and their sycophants such as ACORN, Unions, ACLU, and other such groups. Because it didn't start with a base of supporters it relied on two methods to gather them. One was basically to hire professional protesters. The other was to take a page from the President's community organizer days and stir up the rabble. They added gasoline to the fire they started three years ago by enflaming class and wealth envy. These people were gathered for money and hate. There was no common thought. The result of this tactic was clear: destruction of property, theft, rape, assault, public urination, public nudity, and violence towards police. They obtained no permits for their gathering, merely squatting illegally in a privately owned park.
Because these people had no unity they were unable to articulate any clear message: the younger protesters gave the nebulous reason of student loans, other vaguely shouted "soak the rich," yet others merely complained about "social fairness." Let alone that the mere premiss of these protests go against one of the Ten Commandments, Thou shalt not Covet!!!, when asked to add detail to these greivances, to clearly explain how they would fix them, they fell to incoherent shouting of protest chants.
Each day brought more speech laced increasingly with vulgarity, violence, and hate, more than a little of which was anti-semetic ranting. The songs coming from the Occupy shanty-town were "F*ck america!" And as they stayed, the filth and disease increased leading to outbreaks of several respiratory diseases, bacterial infections and even STD's.
And Obama and his sycophants want to tell us that the two are a lot alike...
The real problem is going to be the aftermath. The movement is breaking up; and not because they were forced like the media wants you to believe. OWS is being pack-in because the liberals can not deny the numbers anymore. Every Liberal, from Obama down to the lowliest ACORN aide, tried to tell us that this was mainstream america. They threw thier weight completely behind OWS to force it to catch on. BUt they were forced to face the reality that the majority of Americans identify with teh Tea Party more than OWS. Not only that, but now to tie ones political reputation to OWS is career suicide. So now the Liberals want the protesters to quietly fade to the background as more and more their true colors are made clear. The Liberal mayor of NYC, Bloomberg, was given permission to actually enforce the law now that OWS is an embarassment.
But OWS doesn't want to go away.
The Liberals are now faced with a real problem. They let the monster out of the box, practically dragged it out, and fed it until it had a life of its own. They went out in public, were taped telling the world how much they supported them. But now that OWS has a life of its own it has stopped listening to the Liberals. They can't put the monster back in its box and are now forced to ride out the storm.
The first wave of damage control was Bloomberg finally acting on the side of Law to give the pretense of official action against OWS. This only made it worse. Now that it had a taste of freedom, the monster resents trying to be locked away again. Upon being forced out of Zuccoti Park the protesters gave way to violence and threats. More than a handful gleefully told cameras that "the city would burn," "Macy's will soon know what a Molitov Cocktail can do to a store," and "we are gonna burn this mother f*cking city down." Within hours of being evicted from Zuccoti Park, they entered illegally again.
So now Liberals are faced with a difficult decision..Do they alienate their base by further distancing themselves from the remnants of OWS, or do they keep the stone around their neck?
For the last two months the whole nation has been inundated with press coverage of the daily activity of this errant "cause." We were treated to every shift, chant, hardship. The mainstream media cheered as each extension was formed in different cities. They pompously claimed this was the Left's version of the Tea Party only OWS was larger and was back by the majority. But finally truth has caught up to the mob.
The Tea Party succeeded, and continues to do so, where OWS failed because the Tea Party is a true grassroots movement where OWS is "astroturfing."
The Tea Party was not started to be a movement. It was truly built from the ground up with a few people gathering based on shared ideals, in this case the rapid, and foolish, expansion of government beyond its means and mandate. These few were joined by others, first in handfuls and then in droves. When the size of this phenomena dawned on them it was then that the idea of action began to develop. Even in this the Tea Party started small and grew to large protests outside Congress. In short, it was pbased on principal, passion, and patriotism.
OWS is almost the exact opposite. It was formed from the top down. This is what is known as "astroturfing:" A movement organized and funded for a specific agenda, precisely to make a scene, by a politician or interest group. This group then tries to pass itself off as a grassroots movement to falsely claim legitimacy. OWS was formed with protests and civil disruption in mind without any thought given to any unifying ideology.
The results of such differing approaches is very clear. Tea Party protests truly were non-violent. They consisted of a wide range of Americans from differing background. The Tea Partiers destroyed no property, obeyed the law, including the obtaining of proper permits, and showed utmost respect for the law enforcement assigned by Liberals "just in case" violence broke out, which never happened. They stood in group, holding candles and singing patriotic songs including "America the Beautiful," the National Anthem, and maybe an occassional hymn. They prayed to God for guidance, not only for themselves but for the leaders in Congress as well. And finally, when they left to go back to their jobs they cleaned up after themselves.
Now lets look at OWS...it is funded entirely by politicians and interest groups. These include the President, the Liberal establishment, Pelosi, Reid, etc.,and their sycophants such as ACORN, Unions, ACLU, and other such groups. Because it didn't start with a base of supporters it relied on two methods to gather them. One was basically to hire professional protesters. The other was to take a page from the President's community organizer days and stir up the rabble. They added gasoline to the fire they started three years ago by enflaming class and wealth envy. These people were gathered for money and hate. There was no common thought. The result of this tactic was clear: destruction of property, theft, rape, assault, public urination, public nudity, and violence towards police. They obtained no permits for their gathering, merely squatting illegally in a privately owned park.
Because these people had no unity they were unable to articulate any clear message: the younger protesters gave the nebulous reason of student loans, other vaguely shouted "soak the rich," yet others merely complained about "social fairness." Let alone that the mere premiss of these protests go against one of the Ten Commandments, Thou shalt not Covet!!!, when asked to add detail to these greivances, to clearly explain how they would fix them, they fell to incoherent shouting of protest chants.
Each day brought more speech laced increasingly with vulgarity, violence, and hate, more than a little of which was anti-semetic ranting. The songs coming from the Occupy shanty-town were "F*ck america!" And as they stayed, the filth and disease increased leading to outbreaks of several respiratory diseases, bacterial infections and even STD's.
And Obama and his sycophants want to tell us that the two are a lot alike...
The real problem is going to be the aftermath. The movement is breaking up; and not because they were forced like the media wants you to believe. OWS is being pack-in because the liberals can not deny the numbers anymore. Every Liberal, from Obama down to the lowliest ACORN aide, tried to tell us that this was mainstream america. They threw thier weight completely behind OWS to force it to catch on. BUt they were forced to face the reality that the majority of Americans identify with teh Tea Party more than OWS. Not only that, but now to tie ones political reputation to OWS is career suicide. So now the Liberals want the protesters to quietly fade to the background as more and more their true colors are made clear. The Liberal mayor of NYC, Bloomberg, was given permission to actually enforce the law now that OWS is an embarassment.
But OWS doesn't want to go away.
The Liberals are now faced with a real problem. They let the monster out of the box, practically dragged it out, and fed it until it had a life of its own. They went out in public, were taped telling the world how much they supported them. But now that OWS has a life of its own it has stopped listening to the Liberals. They can't put the monster back in its box and are now forced to ride out the storm.
The first wave of damage control was Bloomberg finally acting on the side of Law to give the pretense of official action against OWS. This only made it worse. Now that it had a taste of freedom, the monster resents trying to be locked away again. Upon being forced out of Zuccoti Park the protesters gave way to violence and threats. More than a handful gleefully told cameras that "the city would burn," "Macy's will soon know what a Molitov Cocktail can do to a store," and "we are gonna burn this mother f*cking city down." Within hours of being evicted from Zuccoti Park, they entered illegally again.
So now Liberals are faced with a difficult decision..Do they alienate their base by further distancing themselves from the remnants of OWS, or do they keep the stone around their neck?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)