Well, the results are in. Barack Obama is re-elected for 4 more years. Liberals are jubilant, conservatives are de-moralized. However, the time for mourning is passed. It is time to fight for the country we love! We conservatives, the Tea Party, those of us that believe that the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are the most sacred documents outside the bible ever written...we ae the ones that have inherited that revolutionary spirit of our Fore Fathers. We who favor the "animating contest of liberty" over "the tranquility of servitude"...are we ready to fight?!? I say yes. Just because a socialist still occupies the White House has no bearing on my ideals.
So, what should we expect in the next 4 years? Here is my predictions:
-There is hardly any chance that Obamacare will be repealed now. Along with Dodd-Frank, it will be implemented in full. Where before they merely caused "uncertainty" in the market pending the election, now the Market knows what to expect. And what to expect are higher taxes, more regulations that cost money to comply with, and a mandate to provide all inclusive healthcare for every employee that will increase the cost of hiring new employees. Job growth, which was anemic at best, will most likely flat line before job losses rise.
-As the cost of Private Healthcare rises, as even the Obama Administration has admitted will happen, employers will begin to drop coverage for employees as the costs become too much to cope with. Falling wages will prevent individuals from affording it n their own as well. Healthcare providers will begin to fail and file for bankruptcy. The whole industry will be decimated if not out-right destroyed, taking millions of jobs with them.
-After businesses halt hiring, as a last ditch effort to cut costs, the cost of complying with excessive regulation will become too much too handle. While big businesses are able to absorb these costs in the short term, small businesses will begin to shutdown as they do not have the capital to comply.
-As businesses begin to close, the unemployment rate will rise and rise quickly. Obama will try to cover this up by continuing to use the U3 number which only includes workers that are on unemployment and those that have looked for work in the last 4 weeks. The U6, which is the real unemployment rate and includes the U3 people plus those that have given up looking for work and those that are marginally empoyed, is currently around 14-15% and will rise into the 20's. This will tip us over the point where there are more people taking from the Government than are putting into it.
-Obama and the EPA will further restrict gas and oil exploration. Permits on federal land will slow to a trickle and the EPA will start persuing legislation prohibiting exploration on private lands. ANWAR and the outer continental shelf will continue to be off limits to our own people while permits for these areas for other countries will be rushed through. Gas prices will rise to $6+/gallon, driving up the price of goods and service all through the Market.
-The Obama-EPA alliance will continue its plan to bankrupt the coal industry and close nuclear power plants shifting the burden of the US power grid on unproven and woefully inadequate green energy such as wind/solar/geothermal. Home enegry costs will skyrocket into the hundreds.
-The Fed, with Obama's blessing, will continue to print money for "quantitative easing" and more stimulus legislation will be implemented. This will kick off a period of hyper-inflation which will severly weaken, if not collapse, the value of the US dollar further rising costs of goods and services across the Market
-Harry Ried and the Democrat controlled Senate will continue to refuse to pass a federal budget continuing yearly trillion dollar deficits, ballooning the national debt. Refusal to reign in spending combined with no plan to reduce the debt will result in more credit downgrades until this situation changes.
-As job disappear and unemployment compensation runs out, the Federal Government will aggressively expand the welfare rolls. This will further tip the scales where even more people will be taking from the federal coffers than are paying into them.
-All these will culminate in the collapse of the US economy. It will begin in January with "Taxmeggedon" when the Obamacare tax combines with ending tax cuts and new taxes to increase taxes by an average of $4000/household.
-As the economy declines and hardships increase, violence and chaos across the country will climb. Obama will side-step the Republican controlled House to acquire more authority and power to himself by Executive Fiat, shredding the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution, in the name of "keeping the peace." As more power is centralized in the Federal Government, Individual rights will be trampled and discarded "for the greater good."
-The US will find no help from other countries as most of Europe is already holding fast to this same road to ruin. And those that are considered allies have seen how The Obama Administration sells out their firends and stab them in the back. Israel, now further isolated, will hold out against its enemies for a while. However, with the certainty that Obama will not stand beside them, and the real threat of a nuclear Iran, Israel will eventually be overrun and destroyed by its Muslim neighbors.
-By the end of his second term, Obama will have solidified enough power behind him to make his final push for "change." He will throw out as much of the Constitution as he can and implement European Socialism. Finally, before the next election Obama will try and circumvent the "two-term rule." We will hear pleas and testimony that he needs more time, and we can't change horse in the middle of the stream...just four more years and Obama can fix everything. Mark my words...before Nov. 6, 2016 Obama will try and install himself as Pres. for life.
-Obama will be aided in all of this by a biased media that will lie, cover-up and screen him from any real scrutiny.
If nothing changes, and changes big, this is the path I forsee for the next four years. I pray that I am wrong...
Showing posts with label Election 2012. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Election 2012. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Obamacare
So, SCOTUS ruled that Obamacare is constitutional. At first I was quite pissed about this. Obamacare is, and remains, a horrible piece of legislation that is unconstitutional. However, upon reading exerts from Chief Justice Roberts opinion, I have to admit there may be a silver lining to this cloud. Now it could be that Roberts totally abandoned conservatives and changed his views, or it could be a shrewd political move meant to out-flank Obama and his socialist cadres. Or maybe I am just grasping at straws...
Anyway, here is how I see it...
The Court ruled, 5-4, to uphold Obamacare in its enitrety, including the individual mandate. CJ Roberts wrote the opinion for the Court. In summary he noted that there two ways to interpret the law. One way is where the mandate is just that, a decree that all Americans purchase the level of healthcare that the government feels you should have or face a monetary penalty. The other is the one argued by Obama's attorneys before the court when defending the constitutionality of the law: that the mandate is merely a tax on behavior, a practice the government already uses in other areas of everyday life. And in the case where a law has two interpretations, one constitutional and one not, there is a precident in the Court to favor the interpretation that favors the constitution. So, the court ruled Obamacare constitutional based on the government's argument that is a tax, not a mandate forcing citizens to purchase something they do not want.
Now, let us be honest with ourselves. While the ideal situation would have been that the entire law be struck down, that scenario was never likely. The next best scenario was that the individual mandate would be struck down but the rest of the law would stand. But what would happen in that scenario? If the mandate were taken out, but the rest of the law upheld, it would loose its teeth as for individual citizens, but this is not the only issue here. With the bulk of the law intact, its interpretation against religious liberty, namely forcing religious institutions to abandon tenets of their faith, still stands. The provision forcing every employer that provides healthcare to give a mandatory level of care will stand, forcing employers to stop offering healthcare to keep costs down and making them reluctant to hire. In short, only a portion of the what is wrong would be fixed, still leaving a juggernaut that will wreck the economy anyway.
So, CJ Roberts chose option number three. He assented to the constitutionality of Obamacare. Here is the crux of my argument. I believe he did so for a specific reason: if Roberts assents he thereby gets to write the opinion and limit the laws impact, scope and meaning. And this what he did.
In defining the mandate as a tax Roberts throws the entire "Commerce Claus" justification out of the window, ruling that the federal government has no right or authority to compel citizens to engage in commerce for any reason. This is important as it was the key issue: can the federal government force people to buy a product they do not want. Roberts decided definitely no! He simply redefines it as a power Congress already exercises, rightly or wrongly is not the point here. The point is that he makes sure not to the federal government any new regulatory powers.
The bad news is that the law stands...for now. A law can still be repealed. Worse is that it is upheld on grounds almost as shaky as the "Commerce Clause" justification. To justify this under Congress's taxing power is in itself an assault on the constitution. In defining Congress's ENUMERATED powers, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states that "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."
To tax one group of people and not another based solely on behavior that is not illegal, but merely unliked by the government, is hardly uniform. It is the same reason why the current income tax is unconstitutional. It is not applied uniformly over the population.
So, now here is the good news. First, no matter if the law in constitutional or not, it remains grossly unpopular and gets more so everyday as more businesses are forced not to hire or drop health coverage to keep costs down. With the Court's decision, Obama cannot distance himself from an unpopular law in an election year. Now that it's constitutionality intact, Obamacare is now settled sqarely around Obama's neck.
Next, Obama cannot use the Court as a scapegoat anymore. Campaigning against a mean, conservative Court out to get poor little Obama doesn't work when the Court does what you want.
Third, to make a case for its constitutionality before the Court, Obama's lawyers were forced to acknowledge, indeed, forcefully assert that the "mandate" was in fact a tax. So, in an election year, Obama's administration is now on record fighting for higher taxes on ALL Americans. And this after he swore up and down in 2009 that Obamacare would never raise taxes on the middle and lower class.
Lastly, in the fight to repeal Obamacare, this is now a huge weapon. Americans hate taxes of any stripe. So, with this defined as a tax, it will be easier to pitch to people to get rid of it. "You want lower taxes, get rid of Obamacare."
So, as I said, I may be reaching here...but, while not ideal, there is a silver lining to this horrible cloud.
Anyway, here is how I see it...
The Court ruled, 5-4, to uphold Obamacare in its enitrety, including the individual mandate. CJ Roberts wrote the opinion for the Court. In summary he noted that there two ways to interpret the law. One way is where the mandate is just that, a decree that all Americans purchase the level of healthcare that the government feels you should have or face a monetary penalty. The other is the one argued by Obama's attorneys before the court when defending the constitutionality of the law: that the mandate is merely a tax on behavior, a practice the government already uses in other areas of everyday life. And in the case where a law has two interpretations, one constitutional and one not, there is a precident in the Court to favor the interpretation that favors the constitution. So, the court ruled Obamacare constitutional based on the government's argument that is a tax, not a mandate forcing citizens to purchase something they do not want.
Now, let us be honest with ourselves. While the ideal situation would have been that the entire law be struck down, that scenario was never likely. The next best scenario was that the individual mandate would be struck down but the rest of the law would stand. But what would happen in that scenario? If the mandate were taken out, but the rest of the law upheld, it would loose its teeth as for individual citizens, but this is not the only issue here. With the bulk of the law intact, its interpretation against religious liberty, namely forcing religious institutions to abandon tenets of their faith, still stands. The provision forcing every employer that provides healthcare to give a mandatory level of care will stand, forcing employers to stop offering healthcare to keep costs down and making them reluctant to hire. In short, only a portion of the what is wrong would be fixed, still leaving a juggernaut that will wreck the economy anyway.
So, CJ Roberts chose option number three. He assented to the constitutionality of Obamacare. Here is the crux of my argument. I believe he did so for a specific reason: if Roberts assents he thereby gets to write the opinion and limit the laws impact, scope and meaning. And this what he did.
In defining the mandate as a tax Roberts throws the entire "Commerce Claus" justification out of the window, ruling that the federal government has no right or authority to compel citizens to engage in commerce for any reason. This is important as it was the key issue: can the federal government force people to buy a product they do not want. Roberts decided definitely no! He simply redefines it as a power Congress already exercises, rightly or wrongly is not the point here. The point is that he makes sure not to the federal government any new regulatory powers.
The bad news is that the law stands...for now. A law can still be repealed. Worse is that it is upheld on grounds almost as shaky as the "Commerce Clause" justification. To justify this under Congress's taxing power is in itself an assault on the constitution. In defining Congress's ENUMERATED powers, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states that "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."
To tax one group of people and not another based solely on behavior that is not illegal, but merely unliked by the government, is hardly uniform. It is the same reason why the current income tax is unconstitutional. It is not applied uniformly over the population.
So, now here is the good news. First, no matter if the law in constitutional or not, it remains grossly unpopular and gets more so everyday as more businesses are forced not to hire or drop health coverage to keep costs down. With the Court's decision, Obama cannot distance himself from an unpopular law in an election year. Now that it's constitutionality intact, Obamacare is now settled sqarely around Obama's neck.
Next, Obama cannot use the Court as a scapegoat anymore. Campaigning against a mean, conservative Court out to get poor little Obama doesn't work when the Court does what you want.
Third, to make a case for its constitutionality before the Court, Obama's lawyers were forced to acknowledge, indeed, forcefully assert that the "mandate" was in fact a tax. So, in an election year, Obama's administration is now on record fighting for higher taxes on ALL Americans. And this after he swore up and down in 2009 that Obamacare would never raise taxes on the middle and lower class.
Lastly, in the fight to repeal Obamacare, this is now a huge weapon. Americans hate taxes of any stripe. So, with this defined as a tax, it will be easier to pitch to people to get rid of it. "You want lower taxes, get rid of Obamacare."
So, as I said, I may be reaching here...but, while not ideal, there is a silver lining to this horrible cloud.
Saturday, April 14, 2012
What happens now
The Republican primary is all but over. With Santorum out of the running, the clear second place in this race, it is all but certain that Romney will get the nomination. Ron Paul has never even come close to reaching the number one position (sorry Paul-ies, its the truth). And Gingrich, in my opinion, is too erratic, and is out if money. Though, who knows, anything can happen. As for me, personally, my candidate was Rick Santorum and eventhough he has dropped out, I still can not bring myself to vote for Romney in the primary. Primaries are for the candidate you want, not the one you can live with.
Further more, I have strong reservations about Romney. He has yet to convince me that his conservatism is genuine, I want a candidate that feels it in his gut, not one that has to think about the answer that will go best with the audience he is speaking to. Romney care gives me great concern. It may be constitutional for a state to dabble in healthcare, it is still unconstitutional to force the people to buy a product/service. It also takes the biggest issue for conservatism, Obamacare, off the debate table. Other issues include taxes, I do not believe he will go as far as is needed in simplifying the tax code, and I do not believe he will go as far as is needed to shrink government. The Fed, which actually isn't a gov't agency and the EPA need to be completely abolished and the Departments of Education and State, not to be drastically reduced and overhauled, if not completely eliminated as well.
That being said, here is what happens now...
Romney will get the nomination and, despite the Left's desperate wishes to the contrary, it will not mean a certain victory for Comrade Obama. Because after the Primary is over, and we have a nominee, all Conservatives WILL get behind him and vote. There are too many issues and consequences involved. Romney may not be the ideal candidate, none of them are, but he is a hell of a lot better than Obama.
Romney will, I believe, at least halt the path the Obama and the Left have put us on and perhaps institute a few conservative measures. However, if Obama is re-elected, there is no telling how much more damage will be done to the country, how many more socialist policies he will enact by executive fiat, ignoring Congress. If you consider that he will not even be beholden to the people since he no longer needs to worry about an election, this threat become even graver.
Believe me, most other conservative feel the same way. We will vote for Mitt Romney's shoe over Obama for a second time. And if you believe in this country at all, want to see it great again, and believe that prosperity and liberty are essential to life, you will do the same.
Further more, I have strong reservations about Romney. He has yet to convince me that his conservatism is genuine, I want a candidate that feels it in his gut, not one that has to think about the answer that will go best with the audience he is speaking to. Romney care gives me great concern. It may be constitutional for a state to dabble in healthcare, it is still unconstitutional to force the people to buy a product/service. It also takes the biggest issue for conservatism, Obamacare, off the debate table. Other issues include taxes, I do not believe he will go as far as is needed in simplifying the tax code, and I do not believe he will go as far as is needed to shrink government. The Fed, which actually isn't a gov't agency and the EPA need to be completely abolished and the Departments of Education and State, not to be drastically reduced and overhauled, if not completely eliminated as well.
That being said, here is what happens now...
Romney will get the nomination and, despite the Left's desperate wishes to the contrary, it will not mean a certain victory for Comrade Obama. Because after the Primary is over, and we have a nominee, all Conservatives WILL get behind him and vote. There are too many issues and consequences involved. Romney may not be the ideal candidate, none of them are, but he is a hell of a lot better than Obama.
Romney will, I believe, at least halt the path the Obama and the Left have put us on and perhaps institute a few conservative measures. However, if Obama is re-elected, there is no telling how much more damage will be done to the country, how many more socialist policies he will enact by executive fiat, ignoring Congress. If you consider that he will not even be beholden to the people since he no longer needs to worry about an election, this threat become even graver.
Believe me, most other conservative feel the same way. We will vote for Mitt Romney's shoe over Obama for a second time. And if you believe in this country at all, want to see it great again, and believe that prosperity and liberty are essential to life, you will do the same.
Thursday, April 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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)