As I look through the countless Blogs and web sites that claim to be conservative while spouting a fountain of restrictive and oppressive thoughts and ideas, I am beginning to see the real problem with today's politics. It is not that the left has gone too far socialist but that the right has redefined conservatism.
At first I began to question my own position but having learned so much about our founders I know where I stand. It is the backfire of the leftist takeover of our education system that has created this disconnect between the conservatives and what it is that they wanted to conserve to begin with.
Our founders saw marriage as an act of religion, not of government. If the religion of a gay man supports marriage to another gay man then it is not for any other man (or government) to pass legislation that restricts or discourages that marriage.
Our founders believed in the right of a man to fail as much as his right to succeed. If one man wants to destroy his own life with drugs then it is between him and his family, not the government.
Our founders encouraged the belief in God and would not have condoned drug use or gay marriage. They were both charitable and compassionate but they they sought to spread their morals through teaching rather than through legislation.
I am a conservative but many who wear that shirt are not. When you begin to consider a solution to a political problem you should stand back and ask yourself "what would Jefferson do". Sometimes you might not like the truth but it is necessary to face it to keep our individual freedoms intact. Once the right learns to protect personal freedom again you will find that the vast majority of Americans will gladly huddle under the conservative tent and any politician who holds true to our founders will find great success. It has happened before and can happen again, do it for the Gipper!
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Street Light Politics
Many people think that conservatives are opposed to government, they are wrong. The fact is that we want to keep government as small as possible, to oppose it would be anarchy.
Think of it this way... Every street corner is an open door to a serious car accident. The government puts signs up at those intersections in order to help prevent those accidents. This is good government because it provides the greatest amount of help with the least amount of interference.
Some intersections get very busy and a simple sign becomes restrictive to those who travel in one direction while encouraging others to pass in the other. The solution for this imbalance is to provide a signal light at that intersection, this allows equal opportunity for those who wish to choose their own direction. Again, this is good government.
The hard part for this government is deciding where those traffic lights should be placed. Politicians (of both parties) tend to want to place signs and lights where they are most likely to guide traffic to that destination which favors their own agenda. They are often inclined to make passage difficult for those who oppose them by putting up stop signs in strange places and call it "necessary for the betterment of society".
Conservatives want to keep the traffic flowing as much as possible which allows for a certain amount of risk while encouraging those who travel to be responsible for keeping that risk at a minimum. They would keep the basic signs in place but offer as few traffic signals as possible. The result of this is a fast paced network of traffic that is regulated mostly by those who frequent those roads.
Liberals see the risk of accidents inherrent in the conservative system and react in fear. They see a potential for danger at every intersection regardless of how busy it is, so, in order to protect us from those risks they tend towards placing traffic signals at every single intersection and thus seriously impeding the flow of traffic. I know you've gone down a busy street where there is a traffic light at every corner and sometimes you feel like you've been stopped at every one. This works to lower the risk of accident in two ways, it prevents people from coliding into each other through regulation and it causes many to refrain from traveling down that road through frustration. Once every road is that heavily regulated, most people will simply tire of traveling all together.
This is the flaw in the liberal ideology, they discourage economical progress through regulation designed to prevent economical risks. You see, Liberalism is not the opposite of Conservatism, it is the opposite of Anarchy.. Conservatism is the fulcrum between the two.
Think of it this way... Every street corner is an open door to a serious car accident. The government puts signs up at those intersections in order to help prevent those accidents. This is good government because it provides the greatest amount of help with the least amount of interference.
Some intersections get very busy and a simple sign becomes restrictive to those who travel in one direction while encouraging others to pass in the other. The solution for this imbalance is to provide a signal light at that intersection, this allows equal opportunity for those who wish to choose their own direction. Again, this is good government.
The hard part for this government is deciding where those traffic lights should be placed. Politicians (of both parties) tend to want to place signs and lights where they are most likely to guide traffic to that destination which favors their own agenda. They are often inclined to make passage difficult for those who oppose them by putting up stop signs in strange places and call it "necessary for the betterment of society".
Conservatives want to keep the traffic flowing as much as possible which allows for a certain amount of risk while encouraging those who travel to be responsible for keeping that risk at a minimum. They would keep the basic signs in place but offer as few traffic signals as possible. The result of this is a fast paced network of traffic that is regulated mostly by those who frequent those roads.
Liberals see the risk of accidents inherrent in the conservative system and react in fear. They see a potential for danger at every intersection regardless of how busy it is, so, in order to protect us from those risks they tend towards placing traffic signals at every single intersection and thus seriously impeding the flow of traffic. I know you've gone down a busy street where there is a traffic light at every corner and sometimes you feel like you've been stopped at every one. This works to lower the risk of accident in two ways, it prevents people from coliding into each other through regulation and it causes many to refrain from traveling down that road through frustration. Once every road is that heavily regulated, most people will simply tire of traveling all together.
This is the flaw in the liberal ideology, they discourage economical progress through regulation designed to prevent economical risks. You see, Liberalism is not the opposite of Conservatism, it is the opposite of Anarchy.. Conservatism is the fulcrum between the two.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
PROVE ME WRONG!
The left still does not get it. Actually, lots of people are still in the dark about what the Conservatives, Liberals, Progressives or Republicans really want. For this reason I will try to begin fundamentally defining each group. I encourage you to put in your two cents (providing you are honest with yourself) and either expand on those definitions or correct me where I'm wrong.
Republicans__ These are mostly politicians but there are many party line voters out there. The politicians are power hungry businessmen with no integrity. They only believe in that which will get them elected and that which will keep them in power. They think that they should lean left when the populous does and lean right when they need a few more votes. they generally oppose Democrats because they have convinced the ignorant masses to do the same and it helps to keep them in power. The followers are the type who generally follow very little politics but know from email bombs that the Dems are bad and must be defeated. this is how guys like Mccain can gain so much power with so few real values.
Liberals__ They are the real tree huggers. They live in a world consumed by emotion. Generally they are very good people who would do anything for a friend and there is no better friend to have. They tend to vote for Dems because the Dems tend to appeal to emotions rather than reason. While liberals make great followers they seldom find their way to lead. they are so concerned with searching for an equal solution to problems that they often react too late to those problems. It is their big hearts that consume the blood that would usually feed their mind. It is not a bad thing to care but they are controlled by caring at their own expense. The down side is that they often feel that they should force others to care as well, that's where they become tyrannical.
Progressives__ This is the German socialist party of the early 20th century. Seriously, look it up. They believe that the only way to have civility is to run society. They see the Constitution as an obstacle to a "great society". If they want to quit smoking they simply outlaw it so nobody can do it. If they want to be vegetarians they outlaw the eating of meat so everything will be fair. They blame the rich for the poor not getting paid to watch the rich work. They hate inequality and feel as if they alone can define what is fair. They are mostly educated but have no common sense. In fact, most of them have spent a lifetime being taught but have never been forced to learn. Think of it like this.. You can be taught that you need a certain amount of flour, sugar and eggs to bake a cake but if you have never made one and tasted it then you've really never learned to bake. This is the case with progressives, they usually hold jobs where they are judged by tenure rather than merit or productivity. Teachers, politicians, government jobs, lawyers and some medical jobs are predisposed to being progressive because they seldom are responsible for earning payroll, it just seems to show up (thanks to taxpayers).
Conservatives__ We are the keepers of the key to liberty. We choose to conserve the philosophy of our founders and hold the Constitution sacred. We believe that government is need to establish a very basic order and to keep people from encroaching on the rights of others (oh, and to provide for common defence). We usually have a great deal of faith, however it is not required. Conservatives (according to every source I've found) are the most charitable group in America. We make decisions mainly on logic and experience rather than emotion. That is, if our dog is in pain and nearly dead, we kill him rather than letting him suffer. We tend to have careers where we are required to solve problems and we are held accountable for those solutions. We are the hunter gatherers, we ask nothing of others but to let us live our lives as we see fit and we prefer to do the same. We know that all rewards require risk and are willing to live with the results of those risks. We protect freedom, even for those who fear it. We fight for liberty so that others can ignore it. We embrace integrity in the face of disintegration.
Republicans__ These are mostly politicians but there are many party line voters out there. The politicians are power hungry businessmen with no integrity. They only believe in that which will get them elected and that which will keep them in power. They think that they should lean left when the populous does and lean right when they need a few more votes. they generally oppose Democrats because they have convinced the ignorant masses to do the same and it helps to keep them in power. The followers are the type who generally follow very little politics but know from email bombs that the Dems are bad and must be defeated. this is how guys like Mccain can gain so much power with so few real values.
Liberals__ They are the real tree huggers. They live in a world consumed by emotion. Generally they are very good people who would do anything for a friend and there is no better friend to have. They tend to vote for Dems because the Dems tend to appeal to emotions rather than reason. While liberals make great followers they seldom find their way to lead. they are so concerned with searching for an equal solution to problems that they often react too late to those problems. It is their big hearts that consume the blood that would usually feed their mind. It is not a bad thing to care but they are controlled by caring at their own expense. The down side is that they often feel that they should force others to care as well, that's where they become tyrannical.
Progressives__ This is the German socialist party of the early 20th century. Seriously, look it up. They believe that the only way to have civility is to run society. They see the Constitution as an obstacle to a "great society". If they want to quit smoking they simply outlaw it so nobody can do it. If they want to be vegetarians they outlaw the eating of meat so everything will be fair. They blame the rich for the poor not getting paid to watch the rich work. They hate inequality and feel as if they alone can define what is fair. They are mostly educated but have no common sense. In fact, most of them have spent a lifetime being taught but have never been forced to learn. Think of it like this.. You can be taught that you need a certain amount of flour, sugar and eggs to bake a cake but if you have never made one and tasted it then you've really never learned to bake. This is the case with progressives, they usually hold jobs where they are judged by tenure rather than merit or productivity. Teachers, politicians, government jobs, lawyers and some medical jobs are predisposed to being progressive because they seldom are responsible for earning payroll, it just seems to show up (thanks to taxpayers).
Conservatives__ We are the keepers of the key to liberty. We choose to conserve the philosophy of our founders and hold the Constitution sacred. We believe that government is need to establish a very basic order and to keep people from encroaching on the rights of others (oh, and to provide for common defence). We usually have a great deal of faith, however it is not required. Conservatives (according to every source I've found) are the most charitable group in America. We make decisions mainly on logic and experience rather than emotion. That is, if our dog is in pain and nearly dead, we kill him rather than letting him suffer. We tend to have careers where we are required to solve problems and we are held accountable for those solutions. We are the hunter gatherers, we ask nothing of others but to let us live our lives as we see fit and we prefer to do the same. We know that all rewards require risk and are willing to live with the results of those risks. We protect freedom, even for those who fear it. We fight for liberty so that others can ignore it. We embrace integrity in the face of disintegration.
Monday, December 14, 2009
BREAKING NEWS!
Breaking news! Micheal Jackson died.. Breaking News! Tiger Woods had affair... Um, that happened a while ago so why does my TV still say Breaking News every time they talk about that nonsense.
Seriously, these TV networks put BREAKING NEWS! under every story regardless of how old it is. Do they expect us to believe anything they tell us when they try to get our attention by calling every story BREAKING NEWS. I've given up on Fox and CNN because I know I can't trust either one of them anymore. Can somebody please report the news again without all the fan fare and bull crap.
Imagine a news channel that comes on and the reporter (without telling us his name every five minutes) says "here is the news". After that the tells us the facts of an event without using any subjective words at all. Just Who, What, When, Where and Why.. that is if the why is confirmed and not speculated.
Here's an example.. "Last night, at 1:00 am, the police were called to the corner of main street and vine. There was a Nissan maxima wrapped around a tree and the driver, jane Doe, was killed."
Fox or CNN would have reported that same story like this... " Late last night, when most people her age should have been sleeping, Jane Doe drove into a tree after witnesses say she had been swerving all over the road. Some of those who claimed to have seen the accident stated that she seemed to be drunk, however, police will not say how much alcohol was in her blood stream. While Ms Doe was dead when the police arrived we do not know if she had taken her own life before the impact but we do know that she had purchased an automatic handgun with a high capacity magazine, capable of shooting 15 deadly bullets, only weeks before. Her husband did not know where she was returning from but we believe she was involved with another man because her credit card statement had multiple visits to a local hotel on it.
Yes, this is the same group of reporters who give us the very political news by which we choose our leaders.. Scary as hell isn't it!
Seriously, these TV networks put BREAKING NEWS! under every story regardless of how old it is. Do they expect us to believe anything they tell us when they try to get our attention by calling every story BREAKING NEWS. I've given up on Fox and CNN because I know I can't trust either one of them anymore. Can somebody please report the news again without all the fan fare and bull crap.
Imagine a news channel that comes on and the reporter (without telling us his name every five minutes) says "here is the news". After that the tells us the facts of an event without using any subjective words at all. Just Who, What, When, Where and Why.. that is if the why is confirmed and not speculated.
Here's an example.. "Last night, at 1:00 am, the police were called to the corner of main street and vine. There was a Nissan maxima wrapped around a tree and the driver, jane Doe, was killed."
Fox or CNN would have reported that same story like this... " Late last night, when most people her age should have been sleeping, Jane Doe drove into a tree after witnesses say she had been swerving all over the road. Some of those who claimed to have seen the accident stated that she seemed to be drunk, however, police will not say how much alcohol was in her blood stream. While Ms Doe was dead when the police arrived we do not know if she had taken her own life before the impact but we do know that she had purchased an automatic handgun with a high capacity magazine, capable of shooting 15 deadly bullets, only weeks before. Her husband did not know where she was returning from but we believe she was involved with another man because her credit card statement had multiple visits to a local hotel on it.
Yes, this is the same group of reporters who give us the very political news by which we choose our leaders.. Scary as hell isn't it!
Friday, December 11, 2009
Defining the Battlefront
"All will bear in mind this sacred principle, that the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable: that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression". No more true words have ever been spoken and more ignored than those of Thomas Jefferson during his first inauguration.
He was trying to educate those who had never truly understood why we should be governed as a republic rather than a democracy. We could really use him today. This battle still bubbles up as people are pushed through public school where they are told that democracy is fair and that a republic is oppressive. This skew in reality has led to the success of the democratic party and is dragging us down the path to destruction.
The point that Jefferson was making is that it was very difficult to create a government that was fair. It would take constant work and tremendous sacrifice from those who were governed in order to prevent our nation from being overtaken by soft tyranny. If you're asking what soft tyranny is, it's simple... it's called Democracy.
Democracy is, by definition, oppressive. That is, it only takes a majority to gain total control the minority. From this the majority can do anything from redistributing wealth to outright slavery. It seems far fetched but this is is the goal and the mantra of the left. They want to satisfy the majority at the expense of the minority. This is why they are slowly destroying the Constitution, a document that they call "outdated". Once it has no more value they can usher in a new era of "mob rule" and the liberty that built this country will be nothing but a distant memory.
We, you and I, need to remind people of why we are a republic and shift the political debates away from doing what is popular and towards how to make this a better republic. We need to challenge common senselessness and fight for what so many have died for in the past. Please, feel free to ask me any questions you have encountered in debate and I will help you teach others what it is to truly be an American. We must win this battle, if we do not... there will be no safe haven of liberty left in the world!
He was trying to educate those who had never truly understood why we should be governed as a republic rather than a democracy. We could really use him today. This battle still bubbles up as people are pushed through public school where they are told that democracy is fair and that a republic is oppressive. This skew in reality has led to the success of the democratic party and is dragging us down the path to destruction.
The point that Jefferson was making is that it was very difficult to create a government that was fair. It would take constant work and tremendous sacrifice from those who were governed in order to prevent our nation from being overtaken by soft tyranny. If you're asking what soft tyranny is, it's simple... it's called Democracy.
Democracy is, by definition, oppressive. That is, it only takes a majority to gain total control the minority. From this the majority can do anything from redistributing wealth to outright slavery. It seems far fetched but this is is the goal and the mantra of the left. They want to satisfy the majority at the expense of the minority. This is why they are slowly destroying the Constitution, a document that they call "outdated". Once it has no more value they can usher in a new era of "mob rule" and the liberty that built this country will be nothing but a distant memory.
We, you and I, need to remind people of why we are a republic and shift the political debates away from doing what is popular and towards how to make this a better republic. We need to challenge common senselessness and fight for what so many have died for in the past. Please, feel free to ask me any questions you have encountered in debate and I will help you teach others what it is to truly be an American. We must win this battle, if we do not... there will be no safe haven of liberty left in the world!
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Health Care has NOTHING to do with "General Welfare"
In today’s political arena there is one hotly contested proposal which has garnered the attention of the entire world. The debate over "Health care reform" has consumed the nation and forced many who have had little previous interest in politics into the battle. Clearly there are flaws in the current system and something should be done to fix it but is there a solid, logical and Constitutionally acceptable solution to our problem? As we all know, there are people from every side coming up with ideas which they think are fair and reasonable and, for the most part, they have some pretty good plans. The details and conclusions within these plans are a bit more debatable and have brought forth a flood of information and facts which has made the final decision much more difficult to reach. I have a much more unique perspective of how to resolve the issue and who is actually responsible for that solution. I contend that the widely accepted premise that the federal government needs to get involved on an operational level is seriously flawed. The United states Constitution does not give our federal government the liberty to control health care, rather, it reserves that power to the state or local levels.
To better understand my thesis we must first understand its merits. For this we will go back to the birth of our nation and the founding documents that bind our government to its responsibilities. The one phrase within the founding documents that has been the vessel for the federal involvement in social matters over the last hundred years or so is the "general welfare" clause. This phrase appears twice within the Constitution but is never clearly defined. The ambiguous phrase is found first in the preamble where it is written as "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America ". It is found again in Article I section 8 where it 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 Defence and general Welfare of the United States". For some, this is an open door for the federal government to step in and make changes, on a national level, in order to prevent or repair anything that could be construed as a national crises. For others, it was put in place as a binder between the states for the expressed purpose of keeping the union whole and functioning as one single nation.
The debate over this matter goes back to the founders themselves at the very conception of this great nation. The argument of the time was over the use of federal funding to aid in the growth of manufacturing and was most bitterly contested between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Mr Hamilton believed that the country had a far better chance for success if the manufacturing sector was propped up through funding provided by the taxpayers and that its success would translate to prosperity to all citizens. Mr Jefferson, on the other hand, felt that it would be an encroachment on the rights of others to take the fruits of their labor in another mans interest. As in any debate, others involved in politics at the time were quick to choose sides but the vast majority of notable figures fell on the side of Mr. Jefferson. Only Benjamin Franklin was willing to speak on the side of Hamilton and even he was hesitant to accept the long term ramifications of that kind of federal power.
The premise of governing on behalf of the common good was the basis for an ideology known as Res Publica (public matter) which was the Latin origin of the word Republic.Thomas Jefferson along with the majority of our founding fathers were strict Republicans, in that, they believed that America should be governed as a Republic. .The fundamental premise of a Republic originated in Rome during the time of Gaius Julius Caesar. It was created in opposition to the empirical power structure and was designed to spread power evenly across the nation to help promote the "common good" of the people. According to The International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral sciences, The Roman Republican Constitution of 509-49 bc was created to balance power between the government and the governed in order to promote the " common good, and never to the private will or domination ( dominatio ) of any private master". Jefferson wanted to create the same balance of power but where the Romans failed by not creating a defined separation between the powers, he was determined to make that separation a legal imperative. It was the desire to create a governing body which provided for the common good but favored no individual or group of individuals that led to the basic principles of our own Republic.
Prior to the ratification of our Constitution, there was another document which defined the governance of The United States known as the Articles of Confederation. This is not considered a "founding document" since it was actually replaced by the Constitution but it did serve as the base for its replacement and it was our first legislative federal document to contain the phrase "general welfare". The text of article III of the Articles of Confederacy reads as "The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever". Clearly the spirit of this text offers no support to the Hamiltonian perspective of the phrase, rather, it serves as a binder to the states in the name of national unity. After taking time to himself to truly consider the words of the Articles of Confederation, James Madison wrote in his notes that "The Idea of voluntery complience with the law was sheer fancy since no state would willing submit to the laws of a federal congress" "sacrifice for the general welfare was wishful thinking" .."every general act of the union must necessarily bear unequally hard on some particular member of the union" . Mr. Madison goes on to explain that compliance between the states in the name of general welfare must be a legal obligation and defined as such in the Constitution. The transfer of this phrase into article I, section 8 of the Constitution was unanimously approved by the Constitutional Convention with no debate over its meaning what so ever and was rewritten as "general welfare of the United States". This subtle difference in phrasing was the justification for Mr. Hamilton’s dispute but was not taken seriously by most of those who were involved at the time.
I would be remised if I were to leave out the single most compelling argument for my thesis. On Saturday, January 19,1788, James Madison published "The Federalist #41". This would be the definitive explanation of the "powers conferred by the constitution", authored by the very man who had been recognized as the actual author of the Constitution itself. After hearing and reading about his detractors who feared that article I, section 8 could be misused, Mr. Madison wrote that "It has been urged and echoed, that the 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, amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction". He goes on to state that "Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it". He makes a clear point that all of the powers conferred by the Constitution are clearly detailed, including the powers allowed for the promotion of the "general welfare" of the states.
The first real test involving the powers granted by the "general welfare" clause came about during the debate over Roosevelt’s "New Deal" programs. During the early twentieth century immigration was at its peak and the jobs were not keeping up with the population. We saw a sudden influx of uneducated workers with little understanding of the fundamental design of our political system. This massive shift in the populous opened the door for self proclaimed "socialist progressives" to gain popularity and led to the election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1932. Regardless of his popularity, his federally funded social programs were continually being struck down by the Supreme Court as "unconstitutional" under the
"reserve clause". Mr. Roosevelt reacted by attempting to restructure the Supreme Court by adding enough new members to "stack" it in his favor. While he failed in this effort he did garner enough support through his "fire side chat" to turn the Supreme Court’s decision on Social Security and a few other programs. On May 24th, 1937, the supreme court upheld the decision to give the federal government power to collect taxes to provide payments of "Old age benefits" . In the opinion of the court, delivered by Justice Cordozo, it was noted that " When money is spent to promote the general welfare, the concept of welfare or the opposite is shaped by congress, not the states".This suggested that the power granted by the constitution through the Supreme Court decision would leave the highest level of government with a great deal of "moral authority" for the first time in American history. Despite the courts discomfort with this power, they felt that the responsibility must lay on the national government because any one state who would implement this system would become "bait to the needy and dependent elsewhere". What bothers me about this decision is that they recognized that the system would be harmful on a local or state level but ignored that it would have the same effect on a national level. Now, instead of the needy migrating from state to state in search of "haven of repose", they are migrating from other nations and placing the predicted burden on our entire country.
The fact that the Supreme Court chose to grant the federal government a level of power that is not granted by the Constitution does not make it Constitutional. It simply means that the topic needs to be revisited and clarified. I believe that a Supreme Court who would act on behalf of supporting the Constitution, as it was defined by its authors, rather than acting on the perception of moral imperative, would find that the proposed health care reform does not comply with the Constitutional requirements. I also believe that a statewide version of this bill would be Constitutional but would create the scenario defined by Justice Cordozo where those who are needy will flock while those who provide will flee. As an alternative solution to the health care problem, I would consider creating a federal medical loan system. A pot from which people in need of care could draw a low interest loan that can be repaid through their own taxes. This creates an incentive for those who use the system to research their options and make decisions based on the balance of quality and cost of services rather than just taking what they can get and leaving others with the bill. Because my system is a "user pay" system, the costs will be merit based and controlled by market forces which would keep those costs substantially lower. The federal government would be operating a bank instead of an entire national medical system which would free up a good amount of bureaucratic costs and lessen the tax burden on American businesses. As we know from past evidence, when Americans get to keep more of their own money they are much more charitable. In short time there would be charities created to help those who cannot repay their medical debt due to their medical condition. My proposed system stands up to Constitutional scrutiny because its usage is not obligatory and its costs are distributed only among its users. Beyond that, the universal access to this program would force insurance companies to offer a much more competitive alternative than they do now.
To better understand my thesis we must first understand its merits. For this we will go back to the birth of our nation and the founding documents that bind our government to its responsibilities. The one phrase within the founding documents that has been the vessel for the federal involvement in social matters over the last hundred years or so is the "general welfare" clause. This phrase appears twice within the Constitution but is never clearly defined. The ambiguous phrase is found first in the preamble where it is written as "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America ". It is found again in Article I section 8 where it 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 Defence and general Welfare of the United States". For some, this is an open door for the federal government to step in and make changes, on a national level, in order to prevent or repair anything that could be construed as a national crises. For others, it was put in place as a binder between the states for the expressed purpose of keeping the union whole and functioning as one single nation.
The debate over this matter goes back to the founders themselves at the very conception of this great nation. The argument of the time was over the use of federal funding to aid in the growth of manufacturing and was most bitterly contested between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Mr Hamilton believed that the country had a far better chance for success if the manufacturing sector was propped up through funding provided by the taxpayers and that its success would translate to prosperity to all citizens. Mr Jefferson, on the other hand, felt that it would be an encroachment on the rights of others to take the fruits of their labor in another mans interest. As in any debate, others involved in politics at the time were quick to choose sides but the vast majority of notable figures fell on the side of Mr. Jefferson. Only Benjamin Franklin was willing to speak on the side of Hamilton and even he was hesitant to accept the long term ramifications of that kind of federal power.
The premise of governing on behalf of the common good was the basis for an ideology known as Res Publica (public matter) which was the Latin origin of the word Republic.Thomas Jefferson along with the majority of our founding fathers were strict Republicans, in that, they believed that America should be governed as a Republic. .The fundamental premise of a Republic originated in Rome during the time of Gaius Julius Caesar. It was created in opposition to the empirical power structure and was designed to spread power evenly across the nation to help promote the "common good" of the people. According to The International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral sciences, The Roman Republican Constitution of 509-49 bc was created to balance power between the government and the governed in order to promote the " common good, and never to the private will or domination ( dominatio ) of any private master". Jefferson wanted to create the same balance of power but where the Romans failed by not creating a defined separation between the powers, he was determined to make that separation a legal imperative. It was the desire to create a governing body which provided for the common good but favored no individual or group of individuals that led to the basic principles of our own Republic.
Prior to the ratification of our Constitution, there was another document which defined the governance of The United States known as the Articles of Confederation. This is not considered a "founding document" since it was actually replaced by the Constitution but it did serve as the base for its replacement and it was our first legislative federal document to contain the phrase "general welfare". The text of article III of the Articles of Confederacy reads as "The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever". Clearly the spirit of this text offers no support to the Hamiltonian perspective of the phrase, rather, it serves as a binder to the states in the name of national unity. After taking time to himself to truly consider the words of the Articles of Confederation, James Madison wrote in his notes that "The Idea of voluntery complience with the law was sheer fancy since no state would willing submit to the laws of a federal congress" "sacrifice for the general welfare was wishful thinking" .."every general act of the union must necessarily bear unequally hard on some particular member of the union" . Mr. Madison goes on to explain that compliance between the states in the name of general welfare must be a legal obligation and defined as such in the Constitution. The transfer of this phrase into article I, section 8 of the Constitution was unanimously approved by the Constitutional Convention with no debate over its meaning what so ever and was rewritten as "general welfare of the United States". This subtle difference in phrasing was the justification for Mr. Hamilton’s dispute but was not taken seriously by most of those who were involved at the time.
I would be remised if I were to leave out the single most compelling argument for my thesis. On Saturday, January 19,1788, James Madison published "The Federalist #41". This would be the definitive explanation of the "powers conferred by the constitution", authored by the very man who had been recognized as the actual author of the Constitution itself. After hearing and reading about his detractors who feared that article I, section 8 could be misused, Mr. Madison wrote that "It has been urged and echoed, that the 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, amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction". He goes on to state that "Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it". He makes a clear point that all of the powers conferred by the Constitution are clearly detailed, including the powers allowed for the promotion of the "general welfare" of the states.
The first real test involving the powers granted by the "general welfare" clause came about during the debate over Roosevelt’s "New Deal" programs. During the early twentieth century immigration was at its peak and the jobs were not keeping up with the population. We saw a sudden influx of uneducated workers with little understanding of the fundamental design of our political system. This massive shift in the populous opened the door for self proclaimed "socialist progressives" to gain popularity and led to the election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1932. Regardless of his popularity, his federally funded social programs were continually being struck down by the Supreme Court as "unconstitutional" under the
"reserve clause". Mr. Roosevelt reacted by attempting to restructure the Supreme Court by adding enough new members to "stack" it in his favor. While he failed in this effort he did garner enough support through his "fire side chat" to turn the Supreme Court’s decision on Social Security and a few other programs. On May 24th, 1937, the supreme court upheld the decision to give the federal government power to collect taxes to provide payments of "Old age benefits" . In the opinion of the court, delivered by Justice Cordozo, it was noted that " When money is spent to promote the general welfare, the concept of welfare or the opposite is shaped by congress, not the states".This suggested that the power granted by the constitution through the Supreme Court decision would leave the highest level of government with a great deal of "moral authority" for the first time in American history. Despite the courts discomfort with this power, they felt that the responsibility must lay on the national government because any one state who would implement this system would become "bait to the needy and dependent elsewhere". What bothers me about this decision is that they recognized that the system would be harmful on a local or state level but ignored that it would have the same effect on a national level. Now, instead of the needy migrating from state to state in search of "haven of repose", they are migrating from other nations and placing the predicted burden on our entire country.
The fact that the Supreme Court chose to grant the federal government a level of power that is not granted by the Constitution does not make it Constitutional. It simply means that the topic needs to be revisited and clarified. I believe that a Supreme Court who would act on behalf of supporting the Constitution, as it was defined by its authors, rather than acting on the perception of moral imperative, would find that the proposed health care reform does not comply with the Constitutional requirements. I also believe that a statewide version of this bill would be Constitutional but would create the scenario defined by Justice Cordozo where those who are needy will flock while those who provide will flee. As an alternative solution to the health care problem, I would consider creating a federal medical loan system. A pot from which people in need of care could draw a low interest loan that can be repaid through their own taxes. This creates an incentive for those who use the system to research their options and make decisions based on the balance of quality and cost of services rather than just taking what they can get and leaving others with the bill. Because my system is a "user pay" system, the costs will be merit based and controlled by market forces which would keep those costs substantially lower. The federal government would be operating a bank instead of an entire national medical system which would free up a good amount of bureaucratic costs and lessen the tax burden on American businesses. As we know from past evidence, when Americans get to keep more of their own money they are much more charitable. In short time there would be charities created to help those who cannot repay their medical debt due to their medical condition. My proposed system stands up to Constitutional scrutiny because its usage is not obligatory and its costs are distributed only among its users. Beyond that, the universal access to this program would force insurance companies to offer a much more competitive alternative than they do now.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Global Warmology 101
With all of this new information coming out about the e-mails concerning global warming, both sides are ratcheting up their efforts to gain support. The left, along with the majority of mainstream media, are simply ignoring the new evidence while the right is exaggerating and exploiting it's significance.
To be honest, I do not believe that mankind is capable of affecting the temperature of the entire planet, however, I know for sure that we are responsible for regional warming. I am sure that the reason the tornadoes always aim for trailer parks is because the shiny metal roofs reflect solar heat into the air above them creating a constant inward breeze that acts as a vacuum for small storms. Likewise, big cities are engines for local heating and cooling patterns. I am just as sure that those effects are restrained to the boundaries of those places.
What I do not subscribe to is a huge federally mandated financial overhaul in the name of saving the planet. That kind of tyrannical solution only polarizes half the country against the intended consequences. The general result is similar to the fact that it was Obama's history of supporting gun control that has created the strongest gun sales market in history. The whiplash has been a greater detriment to the cause than the original reasoning itself.
I would rather make a social effort to move people to take care of the environment for their own reasons. Try to follow me here.. Believe it or not, conservatives are a much greater force (in general) for environmentalism than liberals. A large number of hunters, fishermen and woodsmen are politically conservative. These are the people who are truly in touch with nature. They spend their leisure time in the woods or on the water and I can tell you from experience that they spew a dictionary of fowl and angry language when they come across a pile of trash left behind by some group of weekend warriors.
As an avid outdoorsman myself, I spend lots of time with friends on all sides of the political spectrum. With that in mind, i can also tell you from experience that it is the pot smoking, vodka drinking boaters and campers that preach about how greedy the rich are while they throw their trash where ever they go. It is the poor and uneducated that stand with their Obama shirt on and their hand out, in a pile of their own trash that is the real danger to our environment.
So, instead of preaching with condescension to the right about some fabricated global warming threat while prying money out of their pockets, lets just give them their own reasons and offer them some simple solutions that actually do help everybody.
To be honest, I do not believe that mankind is capable of affecting the temperature of the entire planet, however, I know for sure that we are responsible for regional warming. I am sure that the reason the tornadoes always aim for trailer parks is because the shiny metal roofs reflect solar heat into the air above them creating a constant inward breeze that acts as a vacuum for small storms. Likewise, big cities are engines for local heating and cooling patterns. I am just as sure that those effects are restrained to the boundaries of those places.
What I do not subscribe to is a huge federally mandated financial overhaul in the name of saving the planet. That kind of tyrannical solution only polarizes half the country against the intended consequences. The general result is similar to the fact that it was Obama's history of supporting gun control that has created the strongest gun sales market in history. The whiplash has been a greater detriment to the cause than the original reasoning itself.
I would rather make a social effort to move people to take care of the environment for their own reasons. Try to follow me here.. Believe it or not, conservatives are a much greater force (in general) for environmentalism than liberals. A large number of hunters, fishermen and woodsmen are politically conservative. These are the people who are truly in touch with nature. They spend their leisure time in the woods or on the water and I can tell you from experience that they spew a dictionary of fowl and angry language when they come across a pile of trash left behind by some group of weekend warriors.
As an avid outdoorsman myself, I spend lots of time with friends on all sides of the political spectrum. With that in mind, i can also tell you from experience that it is the pot smoking, vodka drinking boaters and campers that preach about how greedy the rich are while they throw their trash where ever they go. It is the poor and uneducated that stand with their Obama shirt on and their hand out, in a pile of their own trash that is the real danger to our environment.
So, instead of preaching with condescension to the right about some fabricated global warming threat while prying money out of their pockets, lets just give them their own reasons and offer them some simple solutions that actually do help everybody.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Get the Politics out of Politics!
I'm really sick of politicians... ALL OF THEM! Before I start I want to point out that the Republicans did the same thing when they held the majority and I was complaining then as well.
Here's the basic problem.. The Senate has the right to filibuster, that is, the minority can stall a bill indefinitely until the entire Senate just gives up on that bill and move on to something else. The positive side of this rule is that it keeps the minority from being completely helpless in cases where there is strong opposition against the majority.
The only recourse the majority has is to build a three fifths majority (60 votes) and vote to stop the filibuster and put the bill to a simple majority vote (requiring only 51 votes). This seems fair so far and I like the way this has worked in the past.
The only problem I have with this system is that it is used as a political tool and the citizens of the United States are dumb enough to fall for it. You see, I believe that if you support something then you should vote for it, adversely, if you do not then you should not. In other words, If 60 people are willing to vote for Cloture (stopping the filibuster) then 60 people clearly support the bill.
We have 60 Senators who wanted the bill to pass so much that they were willing to stop the filibuster but several of them claim to NOT support the bill. They do this because they have worked out a deal with the Majority leader to prearrange just enough votes to achieve a simple majority and can guarantee passage while voting against it so that they will not be held responsible by their constituency.
Taking the step to stop the filibuster is a dramatic show of support for a bill in and of itself, so for these Senators to go home after doing so and to claim that they voted against the unpopular bill is damn near treason. These clowns are voting to allow the passage of a bill that they would never be allowed to vote for by those who gave them the office and the morons that keep supporting them are screwing things up for the rest of us.
Once the Health Care bill is put to vote on the floor and voted on, I intend to call out every single Senator who supported it through cloture but pretended to vote against it. It is then your job to hold those traitors accountable and remind them of their dishonesty come election time.
This applies to both Republicans and Democrats. If you support this ridiculous health care abortion (that's my opinion)and you saw Senators vote for and then against those measures then you should be equally pissed off. These people need to just be honest and vote their heart rather than working the system just to keep us pacified!
Here's the basic problem.. The Senate has the right to filibuster, that is, the minority can stall a bill indefinitely until the entire Senate just gives up on that bill and move on to something else. The positive side of this rule is that it keeps the minority from being completely helpless in cases where there is strong opposition against the majority.
The only recourse the majority has is to build a three fifths majority (60 votes) and vote to stop the filibuster and put the bill to a simple majority vote (requiring only 51 votes). This seems fair so far and I like the way this has worked in the past.
The only problem I have with this system is that it is used as a political tool and the citizens of the United States are dumb enough to fall for it. You see, I believe that if you support something then you should vote for it, adversely, if you do not then you should not. In other words, If 60 people are willing to vote for Cloture (stopping the filibuster) then 60 people clearly support the bill.
We have 60 Senators who wanted the bill to pass so much that they were willing to stop the filibuster but several of them claim to NOT support the bill. They do this because they have worked out a deal with the Majority leader to prearrange just enough votes to achieve a simple majority and can guarantee passage while voting against it so that they will not be held responsible by their constituency.
Taking the step to stop the filibuster is a dramatic show of support for a bill in and of itself, so for these Senators to go home after doing so and to claim that they voted against the unpopular bill is damn near treason. These clowns are voting to allow the passage of a bill that they would never be allowed to vote for by those who gave them the office and the morons that keep supporting them are screwing things up for the rest of us.
Once the Health Care bill is put to vote on the floor and voted on, I intend to call out every single Senator who supported it through cloture but pretended to vote against it. It is then your job to hold those traitors accountable and remind them of their dishonesty come election time.
This applies to both Republicans and Democrats. If you support this ridiculous health care abortion (that's my opinion)and you saw Senators vote for and then against those measures then you should be equally pissed off. These people need to just be honest and vote their heart rather than working the system just to keep us pacified!
Monday, November 16, 2009
Intellectual Cowardice
Everyone on the right is calling Obama to hurry up and make a decision on what to do about the war in Afghanistan while everyone on the left is praising him for not letting the situation pressure him int making a bad decision. This, as we know, is a shining example of the ignorance of the left.
It is a personality flaw that is inherent with liberalism and created by the untested intellect of the educated elitists. What that means is that, for the most part, those who have spent most of their lives learning from others rather than their own mistakes have never really been held responsible for their solutions. Let me explain.. Engineers are employed to come up with a design for a product that will be installed by a tradesman. That product is deemed perfect by that engineer who will never be required to actually make it work nor install it in everyday applications. Once the "perfectly engineered" product gets into the hands of the tradesman he makes the necessary modifications to make it actually work. The engineer never knows that his product is flawed so he continues to think of himself as an elite designer and a great problem solver.
Usually it is the guy that has to do the real work who is the real engineer because he is directly responsible for his own actions. This applies to teachers and government officials as well. I can't tell you how many guys I've hired with great scores in school that were totally incapable when the rubber met the road. Yet, teachers really do think they know what they're doing...Ha! What a joke, you know what they say, those who can...do, those who can't... teach!
Back to the topic at hand. I want you to consider something. The president is taking time to come up with just the right decision while the soldiers are losing morale and sitting as targets for their enemies. As a military leader it is more often right to make the wrong decision quickly then the right one after the battle is lost. It does not make him wise to wait around thinking of the right thing to do while the circumstances worsen, it makes him a coward.
I understand that virtually nobody on the left has ever been in a position where they were required to decide on putting others in harms way so it's easy for them to say the things they say... but... to claim that Bush was a coward because he sent others to fight and did not fight himself is outright ignorant. It takes far more courage to send others into battle then to go yourself .This is why our wise and intellectual leader is still pondering this decision, he lacks the courage to take on the responsibility of his office.
As a disabled vet who permanently gave up the practical use of my right arm in an attempt to fight for your freedom, I have far more respect for Clinton as a poor military leader then for Obama who is afraid to lead at all!
It is a personality flaw that is inherent with liberalism and created by the untested intellect of the educated elitists. What that means is that, for the most part, those who have spent most of their lives learning from others rather than their own mistakes have never really been held responsible for their solutions. Let me explain.. Engineers are employed to come up with a design for a product that will be installed by a tradesman. That product is deemed perfect by that engineer who will never be required to actually make it work nor install it in everyday applications. Once the "perfectly engineered" product gets into the hands of the tradesman he makes the necessary modifications to make it actually work. The engineer never knows that his product is flawed so he continues to think of himself as an elite designer and a great problem solver.
Usually it is the guy that has to do the real work who is the real engineer because he is directly responsible for his own actions. This applies to teachers and government officials as well. I can't tell you how many guys I've hired with great scores in school that were totally incapable when the rubber met the road. Yet, teachers really do think they know what they're doing...Ha! What a joke, you know what they say, those who can...do, those who can't... teach!
Back to the topic at hand. I want you to consider something. The president is taking time to come up with just the right decision while the soldiers are losing morale and sitting as targets for their enemies. As a military leader it is more often right to make the wrong decision quickly then the right one after the battle is lost. It does not make him wise to wait around thinking of the right thing to do while the circumstances worsen, it makes him a coward.
I understand that virtually nobody on the left has ever been in a position where they were required to decide on putting others in harms way so it's easy for them to say the things they say... but... to claim that Bush was a coward because he sent others to fight and did not fight himself is outright ignorant. It takes far more courage to send others into battle then to go yourself .This is why our wise and intellectual leader is still pondering this decision, he lacks the courage to take on the responsibility of his office.
As a disabled vet who permanently gave up the practical use of my right arm in an attempt to fight for your freedom, I have far more respect for Clinton as a poor military leader then for Obama who is afraid to lead at all!
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Healthcare For Beginners and Dum Dums
Hopefully you have joined us here at FREEDOMFRONT for some clarity. If you are a current reader then this might seem a bit redundant but please hang in there, this is important. I have tried to pull a debate from a facebook page over to this blog because this seems a more reasonable place for a political debate.
The prevouusly mentioned debate was about what else but the health care bill. With that in mind I will answer some charges as well as questions from said debate.
Number one: I have been poor! As a matter of fact I am now as poor as anyone I have ever met, including the homeless which I have interviewed. I have a wife who is unemployed because she had to leave work to care for me and my young child after I was disabled. I am obviously unemployed at the time because my disability does not allow me to return to any profession for which I have marketable experience. I also have two other children for which I am financially responsible. We are on food stamps and my disability pays $200 monthly, which just about covers nothing.
There are many other details about my personal life that I feel I should not share but I promise I am as bad off as anyone reading this. Beyond that I have lived without insurance for most of my life and in that time I have had Meningitis, a fractured neck, severe burns over more than 10% of my body, multiple bone breaks, countless stitches and an ulcer. All of this is absolute truth, do I qualify to talk about health care?
Number two: "The system is broken and needs to be fixed". As it stands our system is broken because our doctors can "write off" unpaid health care as a tax break and the taxpayers pick that up on the back side. Those taxpayers who were being robbed by the system still have the choice of getting better care at their own expense. This new plan will continue paying for those who cannot pay but will do it in the open which will invite more abuse and more expense. The problem is that those who could have chosen better care will no longer have that option. This only breaks the system more.
I propose a "loan" for health care. A low interest government loan that must be paid back in much the same way we pay our taxes. This will keep people from mindlessly spending money and force them to seek out better pricing while allowing them to choose the level of care. This will also force the health care providers to keep their prices and service marketable, you know, the free market way.
Number three: "The governments job is to take care of us". Clearly you never paid attention in school. The constitution is very clear on what the federal government is responsible for and nowhere in there is there anything about taking care of us. You need to move to Cuba if you need a babysitter in charge.
The design of our government was intentionally built from the bottom up. You are responsible for yourself. It is the place of each community to take care of the things that happen in that community and making sure that the people are fair to each other. The state is charged with the task of keeping the communities from working against each other while allowing them every opportunity to choose how they better themselves. This provides competition from community to community.
After that, it is the job of the federal government to make sure that states do not work against each other while allowing them the liberty to market themselves. This provides competition from state to state. The net effect is that any one community or even state is allowed to try this health care plan and the rest can see how it works out. If it is successful then other states will be forced to adopt it in order to keep its citizenry.
Obviously the federal government is also responsible for national defense and a couple other things but this is debate about their responsibility to each of us. The fact is that they have no responsibility towards the individual, this is the only way our founders could garuntee that the government would not be granted the power that accompanies that responsibility. Those who support this bill are fine with Obama having that power because they believe he will use it wisely. The question is... Would they have trusted Bush with that much power?
The point is that, regardless of the FACT that federal health care is unconstitutional, it is just a bad Idea to force an irreversable and all encompassing wad of legislation on every single American without even testing it on a smaller level. Really, would you get in a jet that has never been tested or drive a car on the interstate without knowing that the brakes work.
There are many more reasons to reconsider this legislation and I encourage you to read some of my past posts to get a more detailed explanation of how this country is supposed to work. I also challenge you to continue this debate in the comment section underneath each post.
Thanks for reading and keeping up with the most important stuff in the world.
The prevouusly mentioned debate was about what else but the health care bill. With that in mind I will answer some charges as well as questions from said debate.
Number one: I have been poor! As a matter of fact I am now as poor as anyone I have ever met, including the homeless which I have interviewed. I have a wife who is unemployed because she had to leave work to care for me and my young child after I was disabled. I am obviously unemployed at the time because my disability does not allow me to return to any profession for which I have marketable experience. I also have two other children for which I am financially responsible. We are on food stamps and my disability pays $200 monthly, which just about covers nothing.
There are many other details about my personal life that I feel I should not share but I promise I am as bad off as anyone reading this. Beyond that I have lived without insurance for most of my life and in that time I have had Meningitis, a fractured neck, severe burns over more than 10% of my body, multiple bone breaks, countless stitches and an ulcer. All of this is absolute truth, do I qualify to talk about health care?
Number two: "The system is broken and needs to be fixed". As it stands our system is broken because our doctors can "write off" unpaid health care as a tax break and the taxpayers pick that up on the back side. Those taxpayers who were being robbed by the system still have the choice of getting better care at their own expense. This new plan will continue paying for those who cannot pay but will do it in the open which will invite more abuse and more expense. The problem is that those who could have chosen better care will no longer have that option. This only breaks the system more.
I propose a "loan" for health care. A low interest government loan that must be paid back in much the same way we pay our taxes. This will keep people from mindlessly spending money and force them to seek out better pricing while allowing them to choose the level of care. This will also force the health care providers to keep their prices and service marketable, you know, the free market way.
Number three: "The governments job is to take care of us". Clearly you never paid attention in school. The constitution is very clear on what the federal government is responsible for and nowhere in there is there anything about taking care of us. You need to move to Cuba if you need a babysitter in charge.
The design of our government was intentionally built from the bottom up. You are responsible for yourself. It is the place of each community to take care of the things that happen in that community and making sure that the people are fair to each other. The state is charged with the task of keeping the communities from working against each other while allowing them every opportunity to choose how they better themselves. This provides competition from community to community.
After that, it is the job of the federal government to make sure that states do not work against each other while allowing them the liberty to market themselves. This provides competition from state to state. The net effect is that any one community or even state is allowed to try this health care plan and the rest can see how it works out. If it is successful then other states will be forced to adopt it in order to keep its citizenry.
Obviously the federal government is also responsible for national defense and a couple other things but this is debate about their responsibility to each of us. The fact is that they have no responsibility towards the individual, this is the only way our founders could garuntee that the government would not be granted the power that accompanies that responsibility. Those who support this bill are fine with Obama having that power because they believe he will use it wisely. The question is... Would they have trusted Bush with that much power?
The point is that, regardless of the FACT that federal health care is unconstitutional, it is just a bad Idea to force an irreversable and all encompassing wad of legislation on every single American without even testing it on a smaller level. Really, would you get in a jet that has never been tested or drive a car on the interstate without knowing that the brakes work.
There are many more reasons to reconsider this legislation and I encourage you to read some of my past posts to get a more detailed explanation of how this country is supposed to work. I also challenge you to continue this debate in the comment section underneath each post.
Thanks for reading and keeping up with the most important stuff in the world.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
What's Wrong With Socialism: The final word (I hope)
I have recently made a point of asking several people a number of questions to help better understand what I am up against. While it was anything but scientific I tried to get the most honest results possible and was very careful not to let the pattern of the questions taint the results.
First I looked for people who i knew to be generally uninterested in politics, that is, those who are only subjected to the basic flow of information through mass media and the bias of their upbringing. Then I asked questions about government programs (including health care) and eventually about capitalism vs socialism.
What I learned was both interesting and scary as hell. First of all I found that few knew of a difference between a democracy and a republic. Most, however, thought that we were a democracy. Obviously they are wrong... We are (or once were) a Republic, more to the point, a representative democratic republic. If you don't understand then please let me know so I can help you out.
I also found that most people in my survey thought that socialism was "definitely not good" and that capitalism had "something to do with greed" but could not define either one. I'm guessing that the Hollywood portrayal of both sides has led to this conception of each. I'm glad that they think of socialism as bad but I'm not comfortable with their lack of reason in the matter.
Finally, I found that most people want the government to get involved in the lives of other people but not of their own. That is to say that they want to punish the "greedy rich" and to "help the poor" but they are not willing to give up their own freedoms nor the product of their own labor in the process. I guess that's the middle class mantra... "leave me out of it".
What most people seem to ignore is that when you give the government the power to give to the poor and take from the rich you have also giving them the power to set those parameters. You see, during the campaign Obama promised that the necessary tax hike would only apply to those who made over $300k. Then he dropped that number to $250k, and then $200k and now I'm hearing both $150k and $100k. "So what, they are rich" right? Well how much do you make? What if they decide that they need to raise taxes on everyone making over $40k?
Now in order to pay for those who have nothing you are being forced to pay up to 40% of your earnings. That means that the first 3 hours of your workday go to paying for those who do not work and then you get to keep what you've earned for the other 5 hours. That hardly seems fair right?... Wait, it gets worse.
So the government feels that $7 an hour is not a livable wage and raises the minimum wage to $10. At that point it would cost every business in the country an extra 30% to pay the least productive employees. How does a business offset that extra cost? Well, either by raising the price of the product or reducing the payroll and demanding more productivity from the remaining employees.
If they raise the price of the products then the new wage will no longer be considered a livable wage in a market where all of the prices are higher and the same cycle will continue to repeat itself until the minimum and maximum wages meet. Remember, every time the minimum wage goes up your wage stays the same but the prices go up. That means that the entry level worker gains nothing while your income to expense ratio decreases.
On the other hand.. If the employees choose to absorb the new wage increase by reducing payroll then they will need to release those who are least productive. those individuals will become dependant on the state and the cost of welfare will skyrocket. The government will then be forced to raise the tax burden on the producers in order to absorb the cost.
With an increase in taxes levied on the businesses they will be forced to raise the price of their product in order to absorb the new cost. You will also feel that increase in cost as your expenses go up while your income goes down. The net result is the same, everyone will make the same thing regardless of their productivity.
This is the Democrats dream, the Utopian fantasy that Obama preaches. A world where no matter what you do you will not be able to gain ground on others. All will be equal but will anything be fair? The "progressives" are proud to tell us that they can provide universal equality at the expense of the "rich".
Sure, they want us to all drive little "green" go carts and plan to tax us if we choose not to. They want us to all eat healthy so that we do not add a burden to the "free" health care system and they have proposed punishments if we don't comply. They will offer affordable energy to everyone who uses the right amount at the right time (as they define). They want to offer federally approved education to every single child at no cost to anyone.
They are currently offering up these things and many more... but, where is the freedom? All we hear from Obama (the millionaire) is how we need to be prepared to "sacrifice" for the "common good". How only our federal government can make things good for "everyone". His Idea of responsibility is that everyone is responsible for everyone but themselves. If lawyers have proven anything it is that we can get away with anything as long as we can blame someone else. This is where our nation is headed, "I'm not responsible so I can't be held responsible for my actions".
All of the things that I've shown you are consistent with socialist societies. I hope that my short series has enlightened you and you are willing to admit that it is better to start with capitalism and introduce limited restrictions than to move to socialism and try to introduce freedoms. I pray that I never again find myself having to answer the question "what's wrong with socialism"!
First I looked for people who i knew to be generally uninterested in politics, that is, those who are only subjected to the basic flow of information through mass media and the bias of their upbringing. Then I asked questions about government programs (including health care) and eventually about capitalism vs socialism.
What I learned was both interesting and scary as hell. First of all I found that few knew of a difference between a democracy and a republic. Most, however, thought that we were a democracy. Obviously they are wrong... We are (or once were) a Republic, more to the point, a representative democratic republic. If you don't understand then please let me know so I can help you out.
I also found that most people in my survey thought that socialism was "definitely not good" and that capitalism had "something to do with greed" but could not define either one. I'm guessing that the Hollywood portrayal of both sides has led to this conception of each. I'm glad that they think of socialism as bad but I'm not comfortable with their lack of reason in the matter.
Finally, I found that most people want the government to get involved in the lives of other people but not of their own. That is to say that they want to punish the "greedy rich" and to "help the poor" but they are not willing to give up their own freedoms nor the product of their own labor in the process. I guess that's the middle class mantra... "leave me out of it".
What most people seem to ignore is that when you give the government the power to give to the poor and take from the rich you have also giving them the power to set those parameters. You see, during the campaign Obama promised that the necessary tax hike would only apply to those who made over $300k. Then he dropped that number to $250k, and then $200k and now I'm hearing both $150k and $100k. "So what, they are rich" right? Well how much do you make? What if they decide that they need to raise taxes on everyone making over $40k?
Now in order to pay for those who have nothing you are being forced to pay up to 40% of your earnings. That means that the first 3 hours of your workday go to paying for those who do not work and then you get to keep what you've earned for the other 5 hours. That hardly seems fair right?... Wait, it gets worse.
So the government feels that $7 an hour is not a livable wage and raises the minimum wage to $10. At that point it would cost every business in the country an extra 30% to pay the least productive employees. How does a business offset that extra cost? Well, either by raising the price of the product or reducing the payroll and demanding more productivity from the remaining employees.
If they raise the price of the products then the new wage will no longer be considered a livable wage in a market where all of the prices are higher and the same cycle will continue to repeat itself until the minimum and maximum wages meet. Remember, every time the minimum wage goes up your wage stays the same but the prices go up. That means that the entry level worker gains nothing while your income to expense ratio decreases.
On the other hand.. If the employees choose to absorb the new wage increase by reducing payroll then they will need to release those who are least productive. those individuals will become dependant on the state and the cost of welfare will skyrocket. The government will then be forced to raise the tax burden on the producers in order to absorb the cost.
With an increase in taxes levied on the businesses they will be forced to raise the price of their product in order to absorb the new cost. You will also feel that increase in cost as your expenses go up while your income goes down. The net result is the same, everyone will make the same thing regardless of their productivity.
This is the Democrats dream, the Utopian fantasy that Obama preaches. A world where no matter what you do you will not be able to gain ground on others. All will be equal but will anything be fair? The "progressives" are proud to tell us that they can provide universal equality at the expense of the "rich".
Sure, they want us to all drive little "green" go carts and plan to tax us if we choose not to. They want us to all eat healthy so that we do not add a burden to the "free" health care system and they have proposed punishments if we don't comply. They will offer affordable energy to everyone who uses the right amount at the right time (as they define). They want to offer federally approved education to every single child at no cost to anyone.
They are currently offering up these things and many more... but, where is the freedom? All we hear from Obama (the millionaire) is how we need to be prepared to "sacrifice" for the "common good". How only our federal government can make things good for "everyone". His Idea of responsibility is that everyone is responsible for everyone but themselves. If lawyers have proven anything it is that we can get away with anything as long as we can blame someone else. This is where our nation is headed, "I'm not responsible so I can't be held responsible for my actions".
All of the things that I've shown you are consistent with socialist societies. I hope that my short series has enlightened you and you are willing to admit that it is better to start with capitalism and introduce limited restrictions than to move to socialism and try to introduce freedoms. I pray that I never again find myself having to answer the question "what's wrong with socialism"!
Friday, November 6, 2009
Including a Semi-Automatic?
Today I have to put a couple things out there before I get to my point.
First.. To all of those who are feeling the pains from that dispicible attack on Ft Hood I want you to know that My prayers are with you....Hooah!
Second.. I am doubled in my pain as I was on my way to the family viewing of my grandfather when I heard about the attack. Sadly, my grandfather passed away last Sunday and I am in Virginia this week for the funeral. We were very close and it has been a very painful loss for me so please excuse my lack of enthusiasm in the blog this week. Next week I will return with a vengence.
So while watching the news coverage of the "mass shooting" in Texas I sat with baited breath, waiting for the anti-gun animosity to show through from our "balanced" media. The moment came in subtle whisps but were heard loudly by those who listened. The news babe says "the shooter used two handguns" and then emphasised "including a semi automatic".
This is the kind of nonsense that our media reports daily and people just accept it. Pointing out that a handgun used in a crime was semi automatic is tant amount to telling us that a car used in a hit and run had an automatic transmission. Seriously, does that really make i sound more ominous? Is it not painfully obvious why they had to throw that in?
This is the way they move people against guns, by making it sound like they "automatically" kill innocent bystanders. They invent words like "assult rifle" to make guns sound like the bad guys while ignoring the fact that people kill with lots of different weapons.
Maybe if we start calling cars with automatic transmissions "assault vehicles" and any club that can be swung multiple times could be called a "semi-automatic pounder" we can get people to stop doing just about anything.
On the other hand, I have noticed that in places where guns are not allowed (Ft Hood, Va Tech, Columbine) the death toll gets high quickly but in places where guns are liberally distributed you never hear about mass shootings. Maybe there is something to this fact... naa, that makes too much sense.
First.. To all of those who are feeling the pains from that dispicible attack on Ft Hood I want you to know that My prayers are with you....Hooah!
Second.. I am doubled in my pain as I was on my way to the family viewing of my grandfather when I heard about the attack. Sadly, my grandfather passed away last Sunday and I am in Virginia this week for the funeral. We were very close and it has been a very painful loss for me so please excuse my lack of enthusiasm in the blog this week. Next week I will return with a vengence.
So while watching the news coverage of the "mass shooting" in Texas I sat with baited breath, waiting for the anti-gun animosity to show through from our "balanced" media. The moment came in subtle whisps but were heard loudly by those who listened. The news babe says "the shooter used two handguns" and then emphasised "including a semi automatic".
This is the kind of nonsense that our media reports daily and people just accept it. Pointing out that a handgun used in a crime was semi automatic is tant amount to telling us that a car used in a hit and run had an automatic transmission. Seriously, does that really make i sound more ominous? Is it not painfully obvious why they had to throw that in?
This is the way they move people against guns, by making it sound like they "automatically" kill innocent bystanders. They invent words like "assult rifle" to make guns sound like the bad guys while ignoring the fact that people kill with lots of different weapons.
Maybe if we start calling cars with automatic transmissions "assault vehicles" and any club that can be swung multiple times could be called a "semi-automatic pounder" we can get people to stop doing just about anything.
On the other hand, I have noticed that in places where guns are not allowed (Ft Hood, Va Tech, Columbine) the death toll gets high quickly but in places where guns are liberally distributed you never hear about mass shootings. Maybe there is something to this fact... naa, that makes too much sense.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
What's Wrong With Socialism: Part III
Trading Freedom for Security
For those who volunterily enter into socialism it seems like a Utopian idea. The simplified thought is that everyone will work for the good of the whole rather than for their own "greed". They honestly believe that if you take away the potential for profit then everyone will just live life free of stress and they will all feel patriotic as they carry their assigned grain of sand.
At the same time they believe that it is the promise of profit, presented by capitalism, that causes the worlds evil. In other words, they think that rich people deserve to be robbed and that an attractive woman is at fault if she is raped because she "invited" the evil behavior, as if to say that the rapist was not in control of his own actions.
The reality of socialism is that it is a system for relieving people of personal responsibility and projecting it on to the elected government. It is the surrender of personal freedom in the name of security. This freedom includes the right to property, prosperity and the right to express opinions.
Starting with property, in a socialist system all property is owned by all people but is "fairly" controlled by the government. If you posess property that the government deems necessary for public use then you will be forced to surrender it. If you live in a home that the government considers unsafe then you will be forced to leave it and live in provided dormatories, like it or not.
Going further, if you have developed a product or proposed an idea, it will become public property and any expense you've incurred will be your own responsibility. All of these things are happening here in America (on some level) today, thanks to social programs. We have given our government the power to decide which companies fail and which companies should be controlled by "the people". I could prove this to you but I think you are all honest enough to admit that I'm right.
Prosperity is tied to personal property, after all, one cannot sell what one does not own. Our banks, power and automotive industries are a great example of this. When the TARP bill was passed many of us expressed serious concern that acceptance of the funds would be equal to a government takeover. To that we were told that "it is only a loan, the government would play NO active roll". Now our great wise trustworthy government is dictating the salaries of those companies which accepted the money. That seems like a pretty active roll to me... liars.
The right to an opinion... That's a fun one. It's a universal fact that those in power wish to remain in power. When the republicans were in power (in the past) they were well known for stifling free expression in the name of "forced morality". That was as wrong then as it would be now. These days, the left owns the monopoly on stifling free expression. These controls are in place to show favor to the majority in order to keep votes coming in and thus retain power.
We are now afraid of losing our jobs, homes and personal property if we utter anything that could be defined (by the left) as offensive. We are not allowed to smoke on private property, we are not allowed to speak about the Bible in public places and if the left gets their way, there will be no more Tv or radio shows that do not fit the government provided mold of "fair". These are not the rules of society but of the government.
Seriously? How can the government punish people for being biggots? What the Hell kind of freedom is that. You see, the basic design of capitalism is that if one is offensive towards people then those people could choose not to support his product and thus he would be forced to either fail, change or find a market (however small) among people who agree with him. This prevents people who disagree with him from preventing him from having an opinion. In a socialist society the majority can create laws that allow the government to punish him for his thought. This happens today in the form of "Hate Crimes". We are no longer punishing people for their actions, we are punishing them for what they were thinking during that action.
Adversly, we are punishing people for success as well. If the majority of people lack the courage to cross the river then the few that do will gain nothing for doing so. If the other bank has an abundance of food and shelter but many of those who attempt to cross the river drown then those who are afraid will make it illegal to attempt. They are using the fear of the majority to impose restrictions on the minority... in the name of "safety". It was the courage and willingness to cross that river that made America what it is today (or what it could have been without the wimps on the left). To "change" in the name of safety would be about as un-American as it gets.
It is not the place of government to dictate morals, punish thoughts or choose who is "too big to fail". That is, unless you live in a socialist society. In a socialist society you have the right to believe whatever the majority says you can believe, sell whatever the majority says you can sell and own whatever the majority says you can own... that is, until they want it back.
Be sure to go back and read Moral capital vs moral authority ( http://freedomfront.blogspot.com/2009/08/moral-capital-vs-moral-authority.html )
For those who volunterily enter into socialism it seems like a Utopian idea. The simplified thought is that everyone will work for the good of the whole rather than for their own "greed". They honestly believe that if you take away the potential for profit then everyone will just live life free of stress and they will all feel patriotic as they carry their assigned grain of sand.
At the same time they believe that it is the promise of profit, presented by capitalism, that causes the worlds evil. In other words, they think that rich people deserve to be robbed and that an attractive woman is at fault if she is raped because she "invited" the evil behavior, as if to say that the rapist was not in control of his own actions.
The reality of socialism is that it is a system for relieving people of personal responsibility and projecting it on to the elected government. It is the surrender of personal freedom in the name of security. This freedom includes the right to property, prosperity and the right to express opinions.
Starting with property, in a socialist system all property is owned by all people but is "fairly" controlled by the government. If you posess property that the government deems necessary for public use then you will be forced to surrender it. If you live in a home that the government considers unsafe then you will be forced to leave it and live in provided dormatories, like it or not.
Going further, if you have developed a product or proposed an idea, it will become public property and any expense you've incurred will be your own responsibility. All of these things are happening here in America (on some level) today, thanks to social programs. We have given our government the power to decide which companies fail and which companies should be controlled by "the people". I could prove this to you but I think you are all honest enough to admit that I'm right.
Prosperity is tied to personal property, after all, one cannot sell what one does not own. Our banks, power and automotive industries are a great example of this. When the TARP bill was passed many of us expressed serious concern that acceptance of the funds would be equal to a government takeover. To that we were told that "it is only a loan, the government would play NO active roll". Now our great wise trustworthy government is dictating the salaries of those companies which accepted the money. That seems like a pretty active roll to me... liars.
The right to an opinion... That's a fun one. It's a universal fact that those in power wish to remain in power. When the republicans were in power (in the past) they were well known for stifling free expression in the name of "forced morality". That was as wrong then as it would be now. These days, the left owns the monopoly on stifling free expression. These controls are in place to show favor to the majority in order to keep votes coming in and thus retain power.
We are now afraid of losing our jobs, homes and personal property if we utter anything that could be defined (by the left) as offensive. We are not allowed to smoke on private property, we are not allowed to speak about the Bible in public places and if the left gets their way, there will be no more Tv or radio shows that do not fit the government provided mold of "fair". These are not the rules of society but of the government.
Seriously? How can the government punish people for being biggots? What the Hell kind of freedom is that. You see, the basic design of capitalism is that if one is offensive towards people then those people could choose not to support his product and thus he would be forced to either fail, change or find a market (however small) among people who agree with him. This prevents people who disagree with him from preventing him from having an opinion. In a socialist society the majority can create laws that allow the government to punish him for his thought. This happens today in the form of "Hate Crimes". We are no longer punishing people for their actions, we are punishing them for what they were thinking during that action.
Adversly, we are punishing people for success as well. If the majority of people lack the courage to cross the river then the few that do will gain nothing for doing so. If the other bank has an abundance of food and shelter but many of those who attempt to cross the river drown then those who are afraid will make it illegal to attempt. They are using the fear of the majority to impose restrictions on the minority... in the name of "safety". It was the courage and willingness to cross that river that made America what it is today (or what it could have been without the wimps on the left). To "change" in the name of safety would be about as un-American as it gets.
It is not the place of government to dictate morals, punish thoughts or choose who is "too big to fail". That is, unless you live in a socialist society. In a socialist society you have the right to believe whatever the majority says you can believe, sell whatever the majority says you can sell and own whatever the majority says you can own... that is, until they want it back.
Be sure to go back and read Moral capital vs moral authority ( http://freedomfront.blogspot.com/2009/08/moral-capital-vs-moral-authority.html )
Friday, October 30, 2009
What's Wrong With Socialism: Part II
OUR CANCER
As I've pointed out in the past, socialism around the world is totally dependent on our free market. Those who are dis-allowed to partake in our system (like Cuba) suffer greatly in terms of quality of life. The only reason Cubans survive at all is because they are helped by other nations who do take part in our economy.
According to the Canadian governments trade statistics, roughly 80% of Canada's economy revolves around the export of goods to the United States and of all of the countries which they import from we are responsible for 75% (ish) of their imports. If you start looking around the world you will find this to be a universal constant, after all, why do you think the dollar is the single most accepted currency in the world.
We (Americans) have been providing the world with the technology as well as an open market to keep their economies going for over 150 years, what happens when we stop being us and start being them?
Back in the turn of the century (around 1900) we saw a huge influx of immigrants from almost every nation in the world. It was almost as if everyone in the world wanted to live in our free market in stead of their closed market for some strange reason.
The pain of that growth was evident through our political strife. Suddenly the majority of Americans had no education and little or no knowledge of what being American was all about. They brought in their own ideas of how government should be run and were dead set on rebuilding that with which they were familiar. This is what gave us the "Progressive Republicans", "socialists" and "Democratic" parties of that era.
With more democratic power than brains they started several social programs... some of which are stuck with us today. Things like the minimum wage, social security and labor unions were the foundation for unregulated regulation. Even the Supreme Court was filled with idiots that applied their ideals to their interpretation of our Constitution. (Does any of this sound familiar)
Once these leftists gained power (through the promise of Robin Hood economics) they made quick work of overturning certain parts of the bill of rights with new amendments. Now the government would have a little wiggle room to start taxing in ways that would have made our founders take up arms. That was where our economy became forever tied to our politics, that was the socialist cancer on the hide of an otherwise healthy steed.
We have learned that the free market is much stronger than socialism because we have survived, but are severely wounded by, the Cancer on our hide. It seems that, with the turn of the new century, our cancer has begun to spread again. This is due to the same lack of understanding and knowledge that led to the birth of said cancer so many years ago. Hopefully we can force this cancer back into remission and regain our place as the greatest Nation in the world.
As I've pointed out in the past, socialism around the world is totally dependent on our free market. Those who are dis-allowed to partake in our system (like Cuba) suffer greatly in terms of quality of life. The only reason Cubans survive at all is because they are helped by other nations who do take part in our economy.
According to the Canadian governments trade statistics, roughly 80% of Canada's economy revolves around the export of goods to the United States and of all of the countries which they import from we are responsible for 75% (ish) of their imports. If you start looking around the world you will find this to be a universal constant, after all, why do you think the dollar is the single most accepted currency in the world.
We (Americans) have been providing the world with the technology as well as an open market to keep their economies going for over 150 years, what happens when we stop being us and start being them?
Back in the turn of the century (around 1900) we saw a huge influx of immigrants from almost every nation in the world. It was almost as if everyone in the world wanted to live in our free market in stead of their closed market for some strange reason.
The pain of that growth was evident through our political strife. Suddenly the majority of Americans had no education and little or no knowledge of what being American was all about. They brought in their own ideas of how government should be run and were dead set on rebuilding that with which they were familiar. This is what gave us the "Progressive Republicans", "socialists" and "Democratic" parties of that era.
With more democratic power than brains they started several social programs... some of which are stuck with us today. Things like the minimum wage, social security and labor unions were the foundation for unregulated regulation. Even the Supreme Court was filled with idiots that applied their ideals to their interpretation of our Constitution. (Does any of this sound familiar)
Once these leftists gained power (through the promise of Robin Hood economics) they made quick work of overturning certain parts of the bill of rights with new amendments. Now the government would have a little wiggle room to start taxing in ways that would have made our founders take up arms. That was where our economy became forever tied to our politics, that was the socialist cancer on the hide of an otherwise healthy steed.
We have learned that the free market is much stronger than socialism because we have survived, but are severely wounded by, the Cancer on our hide. It seems that, with the turn of the new century, our cancer has begun to spread again. This is due to the same lack of understanding and knowledge that led to the birth of said cancer so many years ago. Hopefully we can force this cancer back into remission and regain our place as the greatest Nation in the world.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
What's Wrong With Socialism: Part one
Before I get to the meat of the topic, let's clear some things up. There is a distinct difference between socialism and communism. Communism is a socio-economic system in which all participants share ownership of all things. That is, it can be very democratic because the majority can establish the rules regardless of its impact on the minority. This is where the evil lies. If the "popular movement" is towards laziness then the minority can be forced to carry the load.
Imagine a business, lets say a pet shop, where there is no boss. All employees have an equal stake in the company and thus equal power. The only way to set any agenda is for all parties to vote on it. Obviously everyone would vote for high wages but would want to do minimum work. The result would be that the majority would "pick" a small group to carry the load in order to pay the payroll and the bills.
Eventually those who were picked as the workers would grow tired of doing IN-equal work for an equal share of the profit and would either try to quit or be forced to carry that load under threat of violence. This is why communist countries do not allow their citizenry to leave the country, nobody would be left to carry the load.
In a socialist system, there is a single party leadership which is "chosen" to divide the task of maintaining profitability throughout the citizenry. This means that everyone in the pet shop would be held accountable for their part. The problem is that it will be the boss (the ruling party) that chooses who does what.
So if the boss favors one person then that person will be placed in charge of collecting the money for the pets (the easy job with much opportunity for corruption) while those whom he perceives as his enemies or a threat to his leadership would be responsible for cleaning the cages. It should be rather obvious where this can end.
Both systems carry a certain degree of "sacrifice" on the part of the individual in order to "provide for the greater good" of the nation. This is admitted in the constitutions of nearly every self proclaimed socialist and communist nation in the world. Some even admit that these "sacrifices" are in the form of potential for prosperity and personal liberty. These are the sacrificial lambs of every system of government ever implemented, including socialism, communism, democracy, monarchy and a host of variables therein... that is, except for the little experiment known as the U.S.A.
Imagine a business, lets say a pet shop, where there is no boss. All employees have an equal stake in the company and thus equal power. The only way to set any agenda is for all parties to vote on it. Obviously everyone would vote for high wages but would want to do minimum work. The result would be that the majority would "pick" a small group to carry the load in order to pay the payroll and the bills.
Eventually those who were picked as the workers would grow tired of doing IN-equal work for an equal share of the profit and would either try to quit or be forced to carry that load under threat of violence. This is why communist countries do not allow their citizenry to leave the country, nobody would be left to carry the load.
In a socialist system, there is a single party leadership which is "chosen" to divide the task of maintaining profitability throughout the citizenry. This means that everyone in the pet shop would be held accountable for their part. The problem is that it will be the boss (the ruling party) that chooses who does what.
So if the boss favors one person then that person will be placed in charge of collecting the money for the pets (the easy job with much opportunity for corruption) while those whom he perceives as his enemies or a threat to his leadership would be responsible for cleaning the cages. It should be rather obvious where this can end.
Both systems carry a certain degree of "sacrifice" on the part of the individual in order to "provide for the greater good" of the nation. This is admitted in the constitutions of nearly every self proclaimed socialist and communist nation in the world. Some even admit that these "sacrifices" are in the form of potential for prosperity and personal liberty. These are the sacrificial lambs of every system of government ever implemented, including socialism, communism, democracy, monarchy and a host of variables therein... that is, except for the little experiment known as the U.S.A.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
My Brothers Keeper
You may have noticed that I have moved away from hard facts and figures that support my philosophy and focused on the philosophy itself. Don't worry, the facts will return... I am in the throws of some tremendous research and I refuse to enter the details of that research until the logical (objective) conclusion has been established.
The reason that I have been pushing philosophy over substance is related to some conversations that I've engaged in recently. Primarily, but not exclusively, the debates with my brother. He is an intelligent man but perhaps too educated, regardless, he is a good measure of what the bulk of self proclaimed "independents" are thinking.
You see, he is in the video production industry and has spent countless years in school followed by a long term career surrounded by leftists. He has resisted the worst part of the natural indoctrination but has fallen prey to just enough of it to cloud his judgement.
Several years ago my father and I were debating with my brother, about what I really don't remember, and my father brought up that we must always be prepared to fight off a potential communist/socialist takeover. I remember the laugh to this day, it was that condescending, arrogant, sarcastic laugh, as he claimed that we "were living in the 1950s". We could not convince him that our country could ever be turned socialist, he simply wrote that suggestion off as absurd.
So fast forward to a couple of weeks ago. In a similar debate, my father and I against my self proclaimed independent brother, We were able to convince him that the current political climate is in favor of socialism. It was not easy, but through facts and audio/video evidence we laid out an iron clad case for our claims.
Once convinced that the previously inconceivable march towards socialism was becoming a dark reality, he said something that shook me to the core. He said "good, it's better than capitalist greed". It was at that moment that I realized that my argument would have to take a dramatic change. Instead of trying to prove that Obama and company were socialists, I'd now be forced to defend capitalism over socialism. Something that I can't believe I could have to do.
So in my recent posts I've been trying to help people define who they really are, to make them think through their own philosophy and to better understand that of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Thomas Paine and me. Once people are in touch with their own beliefs I intend to provide information that will, like polarized sunglasses, help them look past the reflections of blue Sky and puffy clouds on the surface of the water, and into the depths where the sharks circle in anticipation of an effortless meal.
We are the generation that will either go down as the one that voted away our own freedom or the one that stood fast against the socialist tsunami that has building beneath the surface for a hundred years and is finally reaching the shore. You, the single person, have infinite power to protect that which is being attacked. You need only to acquire and spread knowledge, it is knowledge that will keep us free and the children of those who oppose you the most, will someday thank you.
The reason that I have been pushing philosophy over substance is related to some conversations that I've engaged in recently. Primarily, but not exclusively, the debates with my brother. He is an intelligent man but perhaps too educated, regardless, he is a good measure of what the bulk of self proclaimed "independents" are thinking.
You see, he is in the video production industry and has spent countless years in school followed by a long term career surrounded by leftists. He has resisted the worst part of the natural indoctrination but has fallen prey to just enough of it to cloud his judgement.
Several years ago my father and I were debating with my brother, about what I really don't remember, and my father brought up that we must always be prepared to fight off a potential communist/socialist takeover. I remember the laugh to this day, it was that condescending, arrogant, sarcastic laugh, as he claimed that we "were living in the 1950s". We could not convince him that our country could ever be turned socialist, he simply wrote that suggestion off as absurd.
So fast forward to a couple of weeks ago. In a similar debate, my father and I against my self proclaimed independent brother, We were able to convince him that the current political climate is in favor of socialism. It was not easy, but through facts and audio/video evidence we laid out an iron clad case for our claims.
Once convinced that the previously inconceivable march towards socialism was becoming a dark reality, he said something that shook me to the core. He said "good, it's better than capitalist greed". It was at that moment that I realized that my argument would have to take a dramatic change. Instead of trying to prove that Obama and company were socialists, I'd now be forced to defend capitalism over socialism. Something that I can't believe I could have to do.
So in my recent posts I've been trying to help people define who they really are, to make them think through their own philosophy and to better understand that of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Thomas Paine and me. Once people are in touch with their own beliefs I intend to provide information that will, like polarized sunglasses, help them look past the reflections of blue Sky and puffy clouds on the surface of the water, and into the depths where the sharks circle in anticipation of an effortless meal.
We are the generation that will either go down as the one that voted away our own freedom or the one that stood fast against the socialist tsunami that has building beneath the surface for a hundred years and is finally reaching the shore. You, the single person, have infinite power to protect that which is being attacked. You need only to acquire and spread knowledge, it is knowledge that will keep us free and the children of those who oppose you the most, will someday thank you.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Progressives Against Progress
Something is seriously missing from the health care debate. While the left is trying to pretend that they do NOT intend to use this as a gateway to socialized medicine and the right is trying to pretend that they are not using words like "death panel" to dissuade people from supporting it, I am looking at the lost dog in this fight.
The left likes to tell us how great the government health care is in socialist countries. They claim that they have access to all of the same technology as we do in our private system and that the only thing that will change is who is paying for it.
I know from experience that all of that is nonsense but for the sake of argument, let's pretend that the left is mostly right. The one other thing that will change is who gets paid.. and how much. So far the left should be with me, after all, even they admit that the government must be in charge of wages in order to control costs.
So now that the government has capped income potential and has forced an increase in the number of general practice physicians while raising their work load, the research end will suffer greatly. This is an effect that has been realized in every socialist country in the world... to some degree. So how is it that the small number of medical breakthroughs that originate from socialist countries are able to reach fruition despite their limited resources?
The answer brings us to the real trouble with the new American movement towards socialism. You see, medical breakthroughs (not unlike all other advancements) around the world are financed by the Private industry here in the good ol' USA.
Try to process this. If a Chinese company has an idea for research they must go to their government for the money. That government would be forced to deny that grant because the funds just do not exist to pay money, which is needed for basic health care, into research based on an idea. Enter the United States. The Chinese government will see the vast profit potential in developing a needed advancement and selling it in our free market which, in turn, will allow them to provide it to their own citizenry.
The proof is in the pudding, rather, history books. Prior to the creation of the free market capitalist system which is historically unique to our nation, technological advancements were moving at a snails pace. The risk/reward ratio exists, universally, within every decision we make. In the past (as well as in socialist societies today) there was very little opportunity for reward. Any popular development would just be absorbed by the monarch or spread back into the system leaving its inventor responsible for reproducing this product with little more than a thank you. In effect, one who advances society is only making more work for himself.
Our system put a stop to this idiocy. We were offered the promise of infinite rewards that only grew with risk. Even other countries have prospered through our freedom. They have produced things that could not have existed if not for our prosperity. This is why, as I've pointed out in the past, we moved from the 15,000 year reliance on the horse to today's incredible machinery within 3 generations of American free market prosperity.
So what if that promise of reward is taken away? What will happen to the world medical industry when there are no free markets to lean on for research money? What the left is proposing is putting a cap on the potential reward for those who would have been willing to take the necessary risks. By doing so, they will be putting a cap on the risk that people would be willing to take in pushing the envelope of advancement. The net result will be the same lack of progress that brought us from the bloodlettings of ancient Egypt, over 10,000 years ago, to the bloodlettings of the 18 century.
This is the unintended effect of progressivism. This is the house with no doors that they intend to build for us in order to protect us from what might be outside. This is today's Democratic monarchy, voted in by those who have no ambition in order to impede those who have it.
This principle applies to a lot more than health care. Please, think this through.
The left likes to tell us how great the government health care is in socialist countries. They claim that they have access to all of the same technology as we do in our private system and that the only thing that will change is who is paying for it.
I know from experience that all of that is nonsense but for the sake of argument, let's pretend that the left is mostly right. The one other thing that will change is who gets paid.. and how much. So far the left should be with me, after all, even they admit that the government must be in charge of wages in order to control costs.
So now that the government has capped income potential and has forced an increase in the number of general practice physicians while raising their work load, the research end will suffer greatly. This is an effect that has been realized in every socialist country in the world... to some degree. So how is it that the small number of medical breakthroughs that originate from socialist countries are able to reach fruition despite their limited resources?
The answer brings us to the real trouble with the new American movement towards socialism. You see, medical breakthroughs (not unlike all other advancements) around the world are financed by the Private industry here in the good ol' USA.
Try to process this. If a Chinese company has an idea for research they must go to their government for the money. That government would be forced to deny that grant because the funds just do not exist to pay money, which is needed for basic health care, into research based on an idea. Enter the United States. The Chinese government will see the vast profit potential in developing a needed advancement and selling it in our free market which, in turn, will allow them to provide it to their own citizenry.
The proof is in the pudding, rather, history books. Prior to the creation of the free market capitalist system which is historically unique to our nation, technological advancements were moving at a snails pace. The risk/reward ratio exists, universally, within every decision we make. In the past (as well as in socialist societies today) there was very little opportunity for reward. Any popular development would just be absorbed by the monarch or spread back into the system leaving its inventor responsible for reproducing this product with little more than a thank you. In effect, one who advances society is only making more work for himself.
Our system put a stop to this idiocy. We were offered the promise of infinite rewards that only grew with risk. Even other countries have prospered through our freedom. They have produced things that could not have existed if not for our prosperity. This is why, as I've pointed out in the past, we moved from the 15,000 year reliance on the horse to today's incredible machinery within 3 generations of American free market prosperity.
So what if that promise of reward is taken away? What will happen to the world medical industry when there are no free markets to lean on for research money? What the left is proposing is putting a cap on the potential reward for those who would have been willing to take the necessary risks. By doing so, they will be putting a cap on the risk that people would be willing to take in pushing the envelope of advancement. The net result will be the same lack of progress that brought us from the bloodlettings of ancient Egypt, over 10,000 years ago, to the bloodlettings of the 18 century.
This is the unintended effect of progressivism. This is the house with no doors that they intend to build for us in order to protect us from what might be outside. This is today's Democratic monarchy, voted in by those who have no ambition in order to impede those who have it.
This principle applies to a lot more than health care. Please, think this through.
Spoiled Rotten Brats
No matter what your political inclination is one thing always rings true... nobody likes a spoiled rotten brat. You know the one, mommy and daddy always threatened to punish him but never did. They told him he couldn't have it but he took it anyway. When he got himself in trouble he could be sure that his parents would bail him out so he made no effort to avoid that trouble.
Once he grew up his daddy got him a cushy job at the office where he had few responsibilities and did even less work while you had to pick up the slack. You couldn't do anything about it either, if you reported his lack of production you became the bad guy and would suffer for it.
Today that guy is all around us. The number of spoiled brats has increased and those who have to pick up their slack are suffering more than ever. Even if you are a tree hugging, bleeding heart liberal you must admit that you have no love for these jackasses, that is.. unless you are one of them.
So if these guys, who have never been required to earn anything and have been rewarded greatly for doing nothing, are such a thorn to everybody else then why is the left trying to turn us all into those people?
Think about it... They want to lower the wages of the most productive people on earth while raising the wages for those who simply show up. They want to tax those who have earned money in order to pay for those who earn nothing. They want to bail out everyone who bought more than they could pay for while offering nothing to those who showed discipline. They want to offer property, transportation and a health care package to the least productive guy in the office, because he's the guy that voted for them, while taking those things away from those who have been forced to shoulder an increasing amount of the load. Then, after all of that, they call those overburdened hard workers who start to complain all kinds of names like heartless death eaters and suggest that they, because of their opposition, are being paid by "big insurance" and are merely greedy.
Frankly, I don't know how these tyrants can sleep at night. I guess they are so wrapped up in the idea of being "liberal" or "progressive" that they refuse to look at the reality of their actions. They have been taught by Hollywood as well as our socialist education system that becoming rich makes you greedy and therefore EVIL! What was once the very American dream, that propelled global society light years beyond any previous civilization, is now taboo. You must assimilate or become assimilated, I feel like I fell into one of those windows from the old TV show Sliders and landed in an alternate universe.
So, lefty, who are you? Are you the tyrannical moral authority that feels that all people should be rewarded for the work of those who choose to provide? Or, are you the proud but ignorant soldier of socialism because you actually think that it's ok to spoil your kids rotten, even if it bankrupts you?
Once he grew up his daddy got him a cushy job at the office where he had few responsibilities and did even less work while you had to pick up the slack. You couldn't do anything about it either, if you reported his lack of production you became the bad guy and would suffer for it.
Today that guy is all around us. The number of spoiled brats has increased and those who have to pick up their slack are suffering more than ever. Even if you are a tree hugging, bleeding heart liberal you must admit that you have no love for these jackasses, that is.. unless you are one of them.
So if these guys, who have never been required to earn anything and have been rewarded greatly for doing nothing, are such a thorn to everybody else then why is the left trying to turn us all into those people?
Think about it... They want to lower the wages of the most productive people on earth while raising the wages for those who simply show up. They want to tax those who have earned money in order to pay for those who earn nothing. They want to bail out everyone who bought more than they could pay for while offering nothing to those who showed discipline. They want to offer property, transportation and a health care package to the least productive guy in the office, because he's the guy that voted for them, while taking those things away from those who have been forced to shoulder an increasing amount of the load. Then, after all of that, they call those overburdened hard workers who start to complain all kinds of names like heartless death eaters and suggest that they, because of their opposition, are being paid by "big insurance" and are merely greedy.
Frankly, I don't know how these tyrants can sleep at night. I guess they are so wrapped up in the idea of being "liberal" or "progressive" that they refuse to look at the reality of their actions. They have been taught by Hollywood as well as our socialist education system that becoming rich makes you greedy and therefore EVIL! What was once the very American dream, that propelled global society light years beyond any previous civilization, is now taboo. You must assimilate or become assimilated, I feel like I fell into one of those windows from the old TV show Sliders and landed in an alternate universe.
So, lefty, who are you? Are you the tyrannical moral authority that feels that all people should be rewarded for the work of those who choose to provide? Or, are you the proud but ignorant soldier of socialism because you actually think that it's ok to spoil your kids rotten, even if it bankrupts you?
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Good Debate, Good Beer, Good Times
First I'd like to thank my new friends from Bradenton for a great night of debate (among other things). It was a shining example of how this nation is going to progress, free and open debate in a public tavern.
Between the sips of good beer and the distraction of the countless sporting events being displayed on the array of flat screen TVs there was an inspirational conversation taking place. A friendly debate between total strangers who both wanted only one thing... A better future for their children.
The means could not have been more distantly divided but the goal was the same. The informaton was fair and honest and the passion was deep and consuming. With all of this, there was no anger, hate or even disrespect between the small group of patriots who entered the arena of ideas with the strength of their own convictions.
I was so proud, I've always been taught to avoid politics and religion in public forums but on this night we had broken through the taboo and made it work. We debated both. A hand full of guys with as many differing opinions were able to sit and discuss while remaining friendly because we all adhered to the facts and never got personal.
I bet you want to know who won the debate... The answer is.... You! That's right, we each put in our two cents and we each left with something that we hadn't come with. Now we can share our honed philosophy with the next group at the next tavern. The long term result of this pattern is a stronger citizenship full of people who have been forced, through piblic debate, to question their own facts and find better understanding of their own values in order to help others understand them.
The key to the success of this debate was the fact that none of us were bound to any party affiliation. We simply had a set of principles and ideas that lead us to our idiologies.
Now it is your turn. Go out and talk to everyone about the right answers. Don't attack what others are doing and don't defend anothers attack. Just share your own Ideas and consider the ideas of others. Be friendly and keep it impersonal. It can work but you have to keep it safe.
On that note, I am still waiting for one of you (on the left) to come and explain exactly what it is that you stand for. I do not want to pick a fight but I want a reasonable debate. I have explained most of My beliefs in "the jimmy Strawn plan" which is linked on the right side of the blog.
Between the sips of good beer and the distraction of the countless sporting events being displayed on the array of flat screen TVs there was an inspirational conversation taking place. A friendly debate between total strangers who both wanted only one thing... A better future for their children.
The means could not have been more distantly divided but the goal was the same. The informaton was fair and honest and the passion was deep and consuming. With all of this, there was no anger, hate or even disrespect between the small group of patriots who entered the arena of ideas with the strength of their own convictions.
I was so proud, I've always been taught to avoid politics and religion in public forums but on this night we had broken through the taboo and made it work. We debated both. A hand full of guys with as many differing opinions were able to sit and discuss while remaining friendly because we all adhered to the facts and never got personal.
I bet you want to know who won the debate... The answer is.... You! That's right, we each put in our two cents and we each left with something that we hadn't come with. Now we can share our honed philosophy with the next group at the next tavern. The long term result of this pattern is a stronger citizenship full of people who have been forced, through piblic debate, to question their own facts and find better understanding of their own values in order to help others understand them.
The key to the success of this debate was the fact that none of us were bound to any party affiliation. We simply had a set of principles and ideas that lead us to our idiologies.
Now it is your turn. Go out and talk to everyone about the right answers. Don't attack what others are doing and don't defend anothers attack. Just share your own Ideas and consider the ideas of others. Be friendly and keep it impersonal. It can work but you have to keep it safe.
On that note, I am still waiting for one of you (on the left) to come and explain exactly what it is that you stand for. I do not want to pick a fight but I want a reasonable debate. I have explained most of My beliefs in "the jimmy Strawn plan" which is linked on the right side of the blog.
The Emporer's New Prize
Really? The Nobel Peace Prize?
Not much for me to say about that, that doesn't say it for itself!
Not much for me to say about that, that doesn't say it for itself!
Thursday, October 1, 2009
"There are no necessary evils in government"
So as I flip through the channels of my basic cable system and, for some God awful reason, I stop to hear a few minutes ofeach of the talking heads that I intend to pass something struck a chord. I realized something that I knew but was not sure if I was the only one who knew it.
This realization (far from an epiphany) drove me to look at some of my historical notes and data and you would be completely unamazed with what I found. It turns out that the left is wrong about almost everything that they believe... Or maybe just everything they say that they believe!
Here's how I got here... Going back and moving forward there has been one constant throughout time. Democrats always stand for change. On March 26, 1834 Andrew Jackson (our first Democratic president) became the first president to be censured by the Senate for "exceeding his Constitutional powers".
Yes, the nation was young and still forming but he went over the edge and changed the Presidency forever. He fought, tooth and nail, for a broad and powerful federal government which would be controlled mostly by the President himself. "There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils only exist in its abuses" (Jackson to Congress, 7/10/1832). He moved abruptly to make sweeping changes in the powers of the President over the states, while making enemies of all of our previous founders.
It was his claim of a mandate (winning the election of 1828 with 647,286 votes against the 508,064 votes for J.Q. Adams) which he used as his reasoning for the rapid change. He felt that he was representing what was fair and right and that he was put there for that reason only, not to listen to the conservative minority. He would become the "Godfather" of the Democratic party.
Now, looking at the Constitution, there is another anomolie. The first 10 Amendments to the Constitution were ratified in late 1791. The 11th was ratified in 1795 and the 12th in 1804. This means that the first 12 amendments became law within just about thirteen years...It would be more than 60 years before anyone felt the need to change anything.
So, now that all of our "Founders" were either passed or to old to be a factor, it was time to start adding things and screwing with the original Constitution. Granted, times change and things come up but most of what was added was already pretty clear for the conservatives as an understanding of the original paperwork.
Since that time our Constitution has more than doubled and of those 14 new amendments, only 5 were ratified by Republicans. Here's the sad part, of those 5 republicans, 3 (Grant, Taft and Hoover) had already been voted out of office and had signed under serious political pressure. This leaves the only two Republican presidents to add to the Constitution as Nixon and Bush Sr. Not exactly the pride of the conservative movement.
I know that some amendments were great and others.. well, you know.. But the point is that the Dems (and generally the left) have always been in a hurry to make drastic changes in our government. From Jackson to FDR, Clinton to Obama, these guys always come in with a whirlwind of new programs and Ideas and cram them down our throats the second they have the majority with which to do so.
Hmmmm, why is it that they are always in a hurry? Well, last night I got my answer (which I had already suspected). I heard the audio clip of a Liberal saying that "we need to hurry up and pass these things while we still have the power" and then went on to say "this might be our last chance for a long time".
WOW! Can you read between the lines? What they are saying is that what they are donig is not popular but it is the right thing so we have to do it all before anyone can stop us. You see, when a conservative gets into office they don't run around trying to force new laws in before anyone can see what they are. They might have to undo some ridiculous mess made by the overzealous Dem that they proceeded but generally they are very methodical.
When is the last time a Conservative Republican took office and said that they needed to hurry a bunch of laws through "while they still have the power". They don't! It's because they have nothing to hide. We conservatives do not hide behind a new label every time the populous figures out what the old one means (Liberal..Leftist..Independent..Progressive..) we have always simply been conservative and proud of it. Even Michael Moore said in an interview that he was impressed by the rights "convictions" in that we never back down from what we believe.
The point is that the left always runs around like a chicken.. blah blah... everytime they get a little power because they know that they will be voted out and generally disgraced once the majority of people see what they've done. This is how it is now and this is how it's always been. The left is just plain wrong!
This realization (far from an epiphany) drove me to look at some of my historical notes and data and you would be completely unamazed with what I found. It turns out that the left is wrong about almost everything that they believe... Or maybe just everything they say that they believe!
Here's how I got here... Going back and moving forward there has been one constant throughout time. Democrats always stand for change. On March 26, 1834 Andrew Jackson (our first Democratic president) became the first president to be censured by the Senate for "exceeding his Constitutional powers".
Yes, the nation was young and still forming but he went over the edge and changed the Presidency forever. He fought, tooth and nail, for a broad and powerful federal government which would be controlled mostly by the President himself. "There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils only exist in its abuses" (Jackson to Congress, 7/10/1832). He moved abruptly to make sweeping changes in the powers of the President over the states, while making enemies of all of our previous founders.
It was his claim of a mandate (winning the election of 1828 with 647,286 votes against the 508,064 votes for J.Q. Adams) which he used as his reasoning for the rapid change. He felt that he was representing what was fair and right and that he was put there for that reason only, not to listen to the conservative minority. He would become the "Godfather" of the Democratic party.
Now, looking at the Constitution, there is another anomolie. The first 10 Amendments to the Constitution were ratified in late 1791. The 11th was ratified in 1795 and the 12th in 1804. This means that the first 12 amendments became law within just about thirteen years...It would be more than 60 years before anyone felt the need to change anything.
So, now that all of our "Founders" were either passed or to old to be a factor, it was time to start adding things and screwing with the original Constitution. Granted, times change and things come up but most of what was added was already pretty clear for the conservatives as an understanding of the original paperwork.
Since that time our Constitution has more than doubled and of those 14 new amendments, only 5 were ratified by Republicans. Here's the sad part, of those 5 republicans, 3 (Grant, Taft and Hoover) had already been voted out of office and had signed under serious political pressure. This leaves the only two Republican presidents to add to the Constitution as Nixon and Bush Sr. Not exactly the pride of the conservative movement.
I know that some amendments were great and others.. well, you know.. But the point is that the Dems (and generally the left) have always been in a hurry to make drastic changes in our government. From Jackson to FDR, Clinton to Obama, these guys always come in with a whirlwind of new programs and Ideas and cram them down our throats the second they have the majority with which to do so.
Hmmmm, why is it that they are always in a hurry? Well, last night I got my answer (which I had already suspected). I heard the audio clip of a Liberal saying that "we need to hurry up and pass these things while we still have the power" and then went on to say "this might be our last chance for a long time".
WOW! Can you read between the lines? What they are saying is that what they are donig is not popular but it is the right thing so we have to do it all before anyone can stop us. You see, when a conservative gets into office they don't run around trying to force new laws in before anyone can see what they are. They might have to undo some ridiculous mess made by the overzealous Dem that they proceeded but generally they are very methodical.
When is the last time a Conservative Republican took office and said that they needed to hurry a bunch of laws through "while they still have the power". They don't! It's because they have nothing to hide. We conservatives do not hide behind a new label every time the populous figures out what the old one means (Liberal..Leftist..Independent..Progressive..) we have always simply been conservative and proud of it. Even Michael Moore said in an interview that he was impressed by the rights "convictions" in that we never back down from what we believe.
The point is that the left always runs around like a chicken.. blah blah... everytime they get a little power because they know that they will be voted out and generally disgraced once the majority of people see what they've done. This is how it is now and this is how it's always been. The left is just plain wrong!
Monday, September 28, 2009
The Snooze Button
Is it me or is the argument moving to the left. During the campaign we, the right wingers, were trying to convince people that Obama was a socialist. The response from those who were backing Obama was that we were just trying to scare people into voting for a republican. They denied any socialist inclination on behalf of Obama and refused to look at the facts.
Then the government take over of the banking industry as well as the automotive industry took place. We pointed to that as the evidence of Obama's attempt at moving our nation towards socialism. Those who voted for him felt as if we were attacking them and came to his defense. They claimed that it was necessary to take over those industries in order to save the economy and the many jobs that were at stake. They swore that there was no tie to socialism, that it would be a short term fix but those entities would be returned to the market once Obama saves the economy.
Then the truth about Obama's appointments was exposed. We pointed to the admitted communists and proud radicals as proof that Obama was on the road to socialism. We saw video of his czars telling us that they had to quiet their own intents in order to push through their socialist agenda. We heard Obama tell us to judge him by those who he surrounds himself with, yet, his supporters just claimed that we were claiming guilt by association. They said that we were engaged in a "smear campaign" against everyone around Obama while we only pointed to what came from their own mouths as the proof of their intentions, but still, they insisted that socialism was not the goal.
By this point they were beginning to really trash capitalism. They were beginning to hate the free market while looking to other nations as a guide to a more "fair" system. They refused to acknowledge that those model countries were socialist and denied that we could ever become a socialist society.
Now we are slowly seeing a shift in our debates. We are watching as the ignorant masses start to admit that they would accept socialism and rather than denying that Obama is pushing socialism. Now we are actually forced to defend free market capitalism as a philosophy against the overwhelming push toward socialism. How is it possible that people who, a year ago, got angry with us for suggesting that we were headed towards socialism are now defending that very system.
Seriously, if I hear one more indoctrinated nitwit say "what's wrong with socialism" I'm going to blow a gasket. I mean... really? Do I really have to answer that question? How the heck did we get here? I know the answer to that question but I still refuse to believe that people are that ignorant. To look at the rest of the world and not be able to see that all of their advances, all of their successes and all of their freedoms are a direct result of our free market is evidence that the majority of our populous has just given up looking for answers and simply accepted the "common sense" as reality.
Most people think of us (people who actually follow politics) as geeks. We need to "get a life" as they would say. Meanwhile they get any and all political opinion through marketing. They see a 30 second news clip and assume that it represents the entirety of the story so they then feel confident in their own conclusions. So much so that they are willing to fight against anyone who would challenge them to look deeper into a subject and refuse to hear any new information.
This indoctrination is nothing new. Even during the days of the revolution there was a constant battering from the media about how radical our forefathers were. It is accepted that more than 70% of Americans opposed the Revolution, yet, these free thinkers pushed through the nonsense and brought a change toward freedom, far from the kind of change that we face now.
If you call yourself a "progressive" or think of yourself as a "liberal" and still refuse to see that we are rolling down the hill towards socialism then please wake up! This is your alarm, this is your chance to beak the trance. If, on the other hand, you consider yourself all of these things and are accepting, even excited about socialism then please explain to me why you like this idea. Please leave a comment so that we can understand how you've come to this acceptance and give me the chance to engage you in a reasonable debate.
If you are with me then stop letting people mash the snooze button and start dragging them out of their slumber. It is information that brought us our freedom two hundred years ago and it is information that will help us keep that freedom today.
Then the government take over of the banking industry as well as the automotive industry took place. We pointed to that as the evidence of Obama's attempt at moving our nation towards socialism. Those who voted for him felt as if we were attacking them and came to his defense. They claimed that it was necessary to take over those industries in order to save the economy and the many jobs that were at stake. They swore that there was no tie to socialism, that it would be a short term fix but those entities would be returned to the market once Obama saves the economy.
Then the truth about Obama's appointments was exposed. We pointed to the admitted communists and proud radicals as proof that Obama was on the road to socialism. We saw video of his czars telling us that they had to quiet their own intents in order to push through their socialist agenda. We heard Obama tell us to judge him by those who he surrounds himself with, yet, his supporters just claimed that we were claiming guilt by association. They said that we were engaged in a "smear campaign" against everyone around Obama while we only pointed to what came from their own mouths as the proof of their intentions, but still, they insisted that socialism was not the goal.
By this point they were beginning to really trash capitalism. They were beginning to hate the free market while looking to other nations as a guide to a more "fair" system. They refused to acknowledge that those model countries were socialist and denied that we could ever become a socialist society.
Now we are slowly seeing a shift in our debates. We are watching as the ignorant masses start to admit that they would accept socialism and rather than denying that Obama is pushing socialism. Now we are actually forced to defend free market capitalism as a philosophy against the overwhelming push toward socialism. How is it possible that people who, a year ago, got angry with us for suggesting that we were headed towards socialism are now defending that very system.
Seriously, if I hear one more indoctrinated nitwit say "what's wrong with socialism" I'm going to blow a gasket. I mean... really? Do I really have to answer that question? How the heck did we get here? I know the answer to that question but I still refuse to believe that people are that ignorant. To look at the rest of the world and not be able to see that all of their advances, all of their successes and all of their freedoms are a direct result of our free market is evidence that the majority of our populous has just given up looking for answers and simply accepted the "common sense" as reality.
Most people think of us (people who actually follow politics) as geeks. We need to "get a life" as they would say. Meanwhile they get any and all political opinion through marketing. They see a 30 second news clip and assume that it represents the entirety of the story so they then feel confident in their own conclusions. So much so that they are willing to fight against anyone who would challenge them to look deeper into a subject and refuse to hear any new information.
This indoctrination is nothing new. Even during the days of the revolution there was a constant battering from the media about how radical our forefathers were. It is accepted that more than 70% of Americans opposed the Revolution, yet, these free thinkers pushed through the nonsense and brought a change toward freedom, far from the kind of change that we face now.
If you call yourself a "progressive" or think of yourself as a "liberal" and still refuse to see that we are rolling down the hill towards socialism then please wake up! This is your alarm, this is your chance to beak the trance. If, on the other hand, you consider yourself all of these things and are accepting, even excited about socialism then please explain to me why you like this idea. Please leave a comment so that we can understand how you've come to this acceptance and give me the chance to engage you in a reasonable debate.
If you are with me then stop letting people mash the snooze button and start dragging them out of their slumber. It is information that brought us our freedom two hundred years ago and it is information that will help us keep that freedom today.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Thank God for Beck
Last night all of the liberal television stations were interviewing the two anti-American producers who have new releases coming up. The first of which was Ken burns, the documentary film genius who has shown outstanding skill in producing some of the most moving films I've ever seen. I really do mean it, regardless of his communist/socialist slant, he is a great producer.
His new mini-series about national parks is showing throughout the week on your local PBS station. In it, he highlights the creation of our national parks as the best idea ever, both in terms of saving land and providing jobs.
For me, the jury is still out on that premise. The fact that FDR "created jobs" for millions of unemployed people and thus created (printed) the money to pay them, was not such a great idea. We are still paying that back today.
I am, however, pretty sure that I like that certain landmarks belong to everyone. If the stated fact that those parks only consume 1% of our taxes is true then I think I can live with that as well. I just can't stand that he has so much hatred for capitalism. After all, capitalism is what pays for him to spend months filming some of the most beautiful places on earth.
Then there is the nemesis of freedom himself. This clown started out by attacking our right to own guns, then moved on to defacing America after 9/11, then tried to sell us a socialist health care system and is now admitting that he hates capitalism in and of itself.
No, I'm not talking about Obama, though I could be, I'm talking about the jelly donut himself, Mr Moore. He seemed to enjoy trashing capitalism with all of his buddies at MSNBC and Comedy Central while trying to sell us his new propaganda film. I find it funny that those who have supported Obama the most are the ones preaching socialism while God... I mean Obama, tries to say that he is opposed to socialism. But then Obama has trashed capitalism, the military, the Constitution and pretty much everything else that has made America the greatest place on earth as well.
If you want to learn more about Obama, watch Mike Moore make a fool of himself with this new movie and see what the underlying philosophy of the left really is. He is not a fringe lunatic who even upsets the left, he is a perfect representation of the lunacy that is the foundation of the left. Moore, Olberman, Maddow and the Democratic party are all in lockstep in the march of socialism that is attacking the very soul of our freedom.
I know you've seen the video of the classroom singing praise to Obama, I know you've heard the enemies of our way of life throw their support behind Obama during the UN competition of "pat yourself on the backers", I also know that you hear idiots preaching the word of Obama on nearly every media outlet in the nation. I know how nervous you are right now... Don't worry, our voices are being heard. We do have a hero, in fact, we have many of them.
In all of the noise and the pounding propaganda that consumes us and our children every day there is one hero that is giving up every semblance of life in order to save our great nation. All I can say is... Thank God for Glenn Beck!
This man is taking on the most powerful predator we've seen since FDR and Hitler. He is exposing the levels of corruption within our government that would make Attila the Hun blush. I'm not blaming Obama for all of it but he does put a face on our terror. He is every bit as guilty as the other scumbags, of both parties, that are stealing our freedom from underneath of us.
I do not know Mr Beck (if that is his real name), other than listening to him since he first hit the air on 970 WFLA here in Tampa, but I do have faith in him. He has earned my trust and with that he has also earned a place in history. Maybe not in the school books but in my family, from generation to generation, his great deeds WILL be remembered and if you have any honor... You will do the same.
I'm not a follower of a radio talk show host, but a companion of a great man. I walk the same path because our philosophy and faith take us to the same place. If you are like me then we must work to defend him together. He is under attack, both figuratively and literally, we must make sure that anyone who would strike him is aware that they are striking us and that we are NOT weak. Glenn Beck must know that we have his back, so that he can continue his crusade against "soft tyranny" without fear of reprisal.
His new mini-series about national parks is showing throughout the week on your local PBS station. In it, he highlights the creation of our national parks as the best idea ever, both in terms of saving land and providing jobs.
For me, the jury is still out on that premise. The fact that FDR "created jobs" for millions of unemployed people and thus created (printed) the money to pay them, was not such a great idea. We are still paying that back today.
I am, however, pretty sure that I like that certain landmarks belong to everyone. If the stated fact that those parks only consume 1% of our taxes is true then I think I can live with that as well. I just can't stand that he has so much hatred for capitalism. After all, capitalism is what pays for him to spend months filming some of the most beautiful places on earth.
Then there is the nemesis of freedom himself. This clown started out by attacking our right to own guns, then moved on to defacing America after 9/11, then tried to sell us a socialist health care system and is now admitting that he hates capitalism in and of itself.
No, I'm not talking about Obama, though I could be, I'm talking about the jelly donut himself, Mr Moore. He seemed to enjoy trashing capitalism with all of his buddies at MSNBC and Comedy Central while trying to sell us his new propaganda film. I find it funny that those who have supported Obama the most are the ones preaching socialism while God... I mean Obama, tries to say that he is opposed to socialism. But then Obama has trashed capitalism, the military, the Constitution and pretty much everything else that has made America the greatest place on earth as well.
If you want to learn more about Obama, watch Mike Moore make a fool of himself with this new movie and see what the underlying philosophy of the left really is. He is not a fringe lunatic who even upsets the left, he is a perfect representation of the lunacy that is the foundation of the left. Moore, Olberman, Maddow and the Democratic party are all in lockstep in the march of socialism that is attacking the very soul of our freedom.
I know you've seen the video of the classroom singing praise to Obama, I know you've heard the enemies of our way of life throw their support behind Obama during the UN competition of "pat yourself on the backers", I also know that you hear idiots preaching the word of Obama on nearly every media outlet in the nation. I know how nervous you are right now... Don't worry, our voices are being heard. We do have a hero, in fact, we have many of them.
In all of the noise and the pounding propaganda that consumes us and our children every day there is one hero that is giving up every semblance of life in order to save our great nation. All I can say is... Thank God for Glenn Beck!
This man is taking on the most powerful predator we've seen since FDR and Hitler. He is exposing the levels of corruption within our government that would make Attila the Hun blush. I'm not blaming Obama for all of it but he does put a face on our terror. He is every bit as guilty as the other scumbags, of both parties, that are stealing our freedom from underneath of us.
I do not know Mr Beck (if that is his real name), other than listening to him since he first hit the air on 970 WFLA here in Tampa, but I do have faith in him. He has earned my trust and with that he has also earned a place in history. Maybe not in the school books but in my family, from generation to generation, his great deeds WILL be remembered and if you have any honor... You will do the same.
I'm not a follower of a radio talk show host, but a companion of a great man. I walk the same path because our philosophy and faith take us to the same place. If you are like me then we must work to defend him together. He is under attack, both figuratively and literally, we must make sure that anyone who would strike him is aware that they are striking us and that we are NOT weak. Glenn Beck must know that we have his back, so that he can continue his crusade against "soft tyranny" without fear of reprisal.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Middle Class Warfare
One of the guiding principals of the modern democratic party is the "strengthening of the middle class". By this they mean the expansion of the middle class. They have gained much political ground by promising to favor the middle class and helping the poor achieve that beloved level of mediocrity. So, have you ever questioned why the right never wants to talk about their programs to help the middle class?
The fact is that the Dems support the lower and middle class while the Rebublicans support the rich. I guess if you are a shallow minded moron with no faith in humanity you might think that this makes the Republicans evil while escalating the Dems to a high level of moral greatness. If you think this way then please run up to the local Wal-Mart, buy some personal lubricant and start spreading it LIBERALLY around your neck... Because... I'm about to force your head back out of your rectum.
You see, over the last few decades I have had to listen to the left complain about how, during Republican administrations, the middle class shrinks while the rich get richer. The facts that they show us only prove that the upper middle class break through the economic barrier and move into the rich column which lowers the number of "middle class" by that percentage.
The facts that they do not show us relate to the ever climbing divorce rate within the U.S.. You see, if a couple who claims a household income of $45k (well within the middle class) gets a divorce, they have now split into two single people who report about $20k which places them into the catagory of "poor". This takes 1 point from the middle class average but adds 2 points to the lower class average, completely skewing the integrity of the results.
So now on to the important stuff. I do not want a leader who needs me to either stay poor or not ever get rich in order to win elections. I am working on getting rich some day and I do not wish to be punished should I reach that goal. The conservatives, however, support, and are supported by, the rich. Therefore, they will only gain if their voters gain. They need more people to get rich in order to get the number of votes needed to stay in office.
You tell me, which person is the real hero? The guy who wants a broader middle class or the guy who wants everyone to be wealthy. I know what you're thinking, "the rich get there on the backs of the workers so there will be as many poor as rich". It seems that way but the economy is not a zero sum game.
I know how hard it is for you to comprehend but we can all be wealthy. Okay, maybe not all of us but we can all be paid according to what we are willing to put in to it. There will always be those who either will not or cannot work. For them there is charity, not government handouts.
The final question is how to define the middle class. For centuries, before we came along, the middle class were those who had food and shelter. Then came cars and boats and second homes and big screen televisions.....
The middle class today is infinatly more wealthy than that of 60 years ago and lets be honest, the poor aint doing too bad neither. I have been to the welfare office and seen the kids sitting in the SUVs playing their video games on their multiple monitors. I watch Cops, I see the worst part of the ghetto and the nasty homes with the 65" flat screens on the wall. For the most part, your economical class is directly related to your lifestyle decisions and not the great government handouts or corporate oppression.
The fact is that the Dems support the lower and middle class while the Rebublicans support the rich. I guess if you are a shallow minded moron with no faith in humanity you might think that this makes the Republicans evil while escalating the Dems to a high level of moral greatness. If you think this way then please run up to the local Wal-Mart, buy some personal lubricant and start spreading it LIBERALLY around your neck... Because... I'm about to force your head back out of your rectum.
You see, over the last few decades I have had to listen to the left complain about how, during Republican administrations, the middle class shrinks while the rich get richer. The facts that they show us only prove that the upper middle class break through the economic barrier and move into the rich column which lowers the number of "middle class" by that percentage.
The facts that they do not show us relate to the ever climbing divorce rate within the U.S.. You see, if a couple who claims a household income of $45k (well within the middle class) gets a divorce, they have now split into two single people who report about $20k which places them into the catagory of "poor". This takes 1 point from the middle class average but adds 2 points to the lower class average, completely skewing the integrity of the results.
So now on to the important stuff. I do not want a leader who needs me to either stay poor or not ever get rich in order to win elections. I am working on getting rich some day and I do not wish to be punished should I reach that goal. The conservatives, however, support, and are supported by, the rich. Therefore, they will only gain if their voters gain. They need more people to get rich in order to get the number of votes needed to stay in office.
You tell me, which person is the real hero? The guy who wants a broader middle class or the guy who wants everyone to be wealthy. I know what you're thinking, "the rich get there on the backs of the workers so there will be as many poor as rich". It seems that way but the economy is not a zero sum game.
I know how hard it is for you to comprehend but we can all be wealthy. Okay, maybe not all of us but we can all be paid according to what we are willing to put in to it. There will always be those who either will not or cannot work. For them there is charity, not government handouts.
The final question is how to define the middle class. For centuries, before we came along, the middle class were those who had food and shelter. Then came cars and boats and second homes and big screen televisions.....
The middle class today is infinatly more wealthy than that of 60 years ago and lets be honest, the poor aint doing too bad neither. I have been to the welfare office and seen the kids sitting in the SUVs playing their video games on their multiple monitors. I watch Cops, I see the worst part of the ghetto and the nasty homes with the 65" flat screens on the wall. For the most part, your economical class is directly related to your lifestyle decisions and not the great government handouts or corporate oppression.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
The Unthinkable
It seems inevitable that we are headed for a major event in our nations history. The question at hand is what type of an event it will be.
Will it be strictly political or will there be an Arch Duke Ferdinand moment that tips the balance and causes a flood of violence and civil unrest. Maybe, God forbid, this whole thing could lead to a civil war or a revolution.
The left is already calling it a political revolution. That is to say that they are proud that they have turned our country on its ear and they are now aggressively working on (as Obama said) "fundamentally changing America".
So with that in mind I think I should help you understand the difference between a revolution and a civil war. Simply put... it's the winner.
If the standing nation is challenged and defeated then we have experienced a "revolution". On the other hand, if the standing nation is able to crush or even resist the opposition then it would have been a "civil war".
So, for now, we have a political entity that has gained power and is beginning to challenge the basic foundation of America as we've known it and a grass roots effort to stand up against that change. At some point somebody will have to give in and say uncle or it WILL escalate to an all out war.
Looking at the two groups involved are you willing to place a bet on which side that will be? I promise you that the resistance will never lie down and just accept the "Change" that is being forced down our throats. That just leaves one possibility... somehow I just don't see the left (who has invested sooo much into this takeover) giving up the fight either. But then.. maybe they realize that it is the right that has been buying all of the ammo for the past 9 months.
I do not hope for this kind of battle but I can see it coming. Just stew on it for a while, you know I'm right. This is why we need to get the information out there to as many people as possible. If everyone chooses to work this out the right way (through discussion and understanding) then those who are behind this takeover will feel so small that they will slither back into the darkness, alone and defeated!
If we cannot accomplish this then we may find out, the hard way, if this is a new revolution or just another civil war.
Will it be strictly political or will there be an Arch Duke Ferdinand moment that tips the balance and causes a flood of violence and civil unrest. Maybe, God forbid, this whole thing could lead to a civil war or a revolution.
The left is already calling it a political revolution. That is to say that they are proud that they have turned our country on its ear and they are now aggressively working on (as Obama said) "fundamentally changing America".
So with that in mind I think I should help you understand the difference between a revolution and a civil war. Simply put... it's the winner.
If the standing nation is challenged and defeated then we have experienced a "revolution". On the other hand, if the standing nation is able to crush or even resist the opposition then it would have been a "civil war".
So, for now, we have a political entity that has gained power and is beginning to challenge the basic foundation of America as we've known it and a grass roots effort to stand up against that change. At some point somebody will have to give in and say uncle or it WILL escalate to an all out war.
Looking at the two groups involved are you willing to place a bet on which side that will be? I promise you that the resistance will never lie down and just accept the "Change" that is being forced down our throats. That just leaves one possibility... somehow I just don't see the left (who has invested sooo much into this takeover) giving up the fight either. But then.. maybe they realize that it is the right that has been buying all of the ammo for the past 9 months.
I do not hope for this kind of battle but I can see it coming. Just stew on it for a while, you know I'm right. This is why we need to get the information out there to as many people as possible. If everyone chooses to work this out the right way (through discussion and understanding) then those who are behind this takeover will feel so small that they will slither back into the darkness, alone and defeated!
If we cannot accomplish this then we may find out, the hard way, if this is a new revolution or just another civil war.
Friday, September 11, 2009
See, Obama's corrupt, just like the rest
So that I don't insult anyone whom I did not intend to insult, I feel I must clarify something. When I speak of Liberals and conservatives I am not speaking of Republicans or Democrats. The battle between liberal (left) and conservative (right) Ideals is just that, a pair of opposing theories on the way to govern a nation. Democrats and Republicans, as previously described, are a pair of slick talking heads that allow us to choose the mouth to enter only to end up rotting together in the belly of the same snake.
Now that that is clear... The right is finally starting to move away from the two party system but the left, on the other hand, seems firmly attached to partisan politics.
The proof!... Starting with the recent speech to congress regarding health care. When Obama mentioned that "defensive medicine may raise the cost of care", every Democrat in congress looked as if he just shot their dog. The Republican scumbags applauded (as did I) but the Democratic scumbags just sat with an angry look on their collective face.
COME ON! First of all, Obama came far short of facing the reality that the legal system is MOSTLY responsible for high insurance premiums but at least he acknowledged the possibility. The rest of his supporting cast wants us to believe that they are only interested in helping the poor and being just, but, they are so disconnected that they think that outragious law suits are no factor at all. Somehow, I just don't believe that.
More likely, they are in the pockets of "big lawyers" (as they would put it) and are only paving the road for much greater trouble in our nations courtrooms. They want everyone to be insured so that law suits can continue to line their pockets... Don't believe me? look up how much money the Dems have and where they got it. The proof is in the pudding.
Now we have the ACORN thing. The vast evidence of corruption within that organization seems to keep flowing out while Obama keeps pumping money back in. For all of the crap that I heard from the left and the Dems about Halliburtin (however you spell it), I don't remember them ever actually breaking any laws, not to mention confessing to election fraud on a massive scale!
Perhapse with this information we should reconsider Obamas right to preside, wait, nevermind... God forbid they kick him out and put McCain in his place. That would truly be a disaster.
The point is.. We now know for a FACT that Obama and the majority of Dems are corrupt. We can also be quite sure that the vast majority of republicans are equally corrupt. Can we finally stop blindly marching behind these scumbags and start digging decent people out of our society to help represent the good people of this great nation?
I, for one, am willing to run for office if you think I'm fit. Just let me know so we can get this thing started.
Now that that is clear... The right is finally starting to move away from the two party system but the left, on the other hand, seems firmly attached to partisan politics.
The proof!... Starting with the recent speech to congress regarding health care. When Obama mentioned that "defensive medicine may raise the cost of care", every Democrat in congress looked as if he just shot their dog. The Republican scumbags applauded (as did I) but the Democratic scumbags just sat with an angry look on their collective face.
COME ON! First of all, Obama came far short of facing the reality that the legal system is MOSTLY responsible for high insurance premiums but at least he acknowledged the possibility. The rest of his supporting cast wants us to believe that they are only interested in helping the poor and being just, but, they are so disconnected that they think that outragious law suits are no factor at all. Somehow, I just don't believe that.
More likely, they are in the pockets of "big lawyers" (as they would put it) and are only paving the road for much greater trouble in our nations courtrooms. They want everyone to be insured so that law suits can continue to line their pockets... Don't believe me? look up how much money the Dems have and where they got it. The proof is in the pudding.
Now we have the ACORN thing. The vast evidence of corruption within that organization seems to keep flowing out while Obama keeps pumping money back in. For all of the crap that I heard from the left and the Dems about Halliburtin (however you spell it), I don't remember them ever actually breaking any laws, not to mention confessing to election fraud on a massive scale!
Perhapse with this information we should reconsider Obamas right to preside, wait, nevermind... God forbid they kick him out and put McCain in his place. That would truly be a disaster.
The point is.. We now know for a FACT that Obama and the majority of Dems are corrupt. We can also be quite sure that the vast majority of republicans are equally corrupt. Can we finally stop blindly marching behind these scumbags and start digging decent people out of our society to help represent the good people of this great nation?
I, for one, am willing to run for office if you think I'm fit. Just let me know so we can get this thing started.
Homage to Jefferson
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the Atmosphere." Thomas Jefferson, Feb 22 1787.
As a conservative, I admit to practically worship at the alter of Jefferson. I have a great deal of respect for the whole of our founding fathers but I see T.J. as a true "free thinker".
I spend my down time reading his letters, thousands of them, to his friends, families and even political assotiates. He often reminded those who were working with him on writing our founding documents that they were reacting from a natural instinct to repeat the mistakes of the Monarchy because that was all that they had know. He respectfully encouraged others to think outside the box and to resist their first impulse.
In a letter titled "THE HOMAGE OF REASON" To Peter Carr, Paris, Aug. 10, 1787, he laid out some personal beliefs. It was interesting to read this and consider the way things were during those historical times. Below are some of his writings...
"Spanish. Bestow great attention on this, & endeavor to acquire an accurate knowlege of it. Our future connections with Spain & Spanish America will render that language a valuable acquisition. The antient history of a great part of America, too, is written in that language. I send you a dictionary."
"Moral philosophy. I think it lost time to attend lectures in this branch. He who made us would have been a pitiful bungler if he had made the rules of our moral conduct a matter of science. For one man of science, there are thousands who are not. What would have become of them? Man was destined for society. His morality therefore was to be formed to this object. He was endowed with a sense of right & wrong merely relative to this."
"Religion. Your reason is now mature enough to examine this object. In the first place divest yourself of all bias in favour of novelty & singularity of opinion. Indulge them in any other subject rather than that of religion. It is too important, & the consequences of error may be too serious. On the other hand shake off all the fears & servile prejudices under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."... "you must lay aside all prejudice on both sides, & neither believe nor reject anything because any other persons, or description of persons have rejected or believed it. Your own reason is the only oracle given you by heaven, and you are answerable not for the rightness but uprightness of the decision."
He was clearly an intuitive man with great patience and insight. Just for those of you who have had little exposure to his writings, here are some exerpts...
"The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.".."what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them.".."The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure." To William S. Smith, Nov. 13, 1787.
" How do you like our new constitution? I confess there are things in it which stagger all my dispositions to subscribe to what such an assembly has proposed. The house of federal representatives will not be adequate to the management of affairs either foreign or federal. Their President seems a bad edition of a Polish king. He may be reelected from 4. years to 4. years for life. Reason and experience prove to us that a chief magistrate, so continuable, is an officer for life. When one or two generations shall have proved that this is an office for life, it becomes on every succession worthy of intrigue, of bribery, of force, and even of foreign interference. It will be of great consequence to France and England to have America governed by a Galloman or Angloman. Once in office, and possessing the military force of the union, without either the aid or check of a council, he would not be easily dethroned, even if the people could be induced to withdraw their votes from him. I wish that at the end of the 4. years they had made him for ever ineligible a second time. Indeed I think all the good of this new constitution might have been couched in three or four new articles to be added to the good, old, and venerable fabrick, which should have been preserved even as a religious relique." To John Adams, Nov. 13, 1787.
" Let me add that a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, & what no just government should refuse, or rest on inferences."
"The inconveniences of the Declaration are that it may cramp government in it's useful exertions. But the evil of this is short-lived, trivial & reparable. The inconveniences of the want of a Declaration are permanent, afflicting & irreparable. They are in constant progression from bad to worse." To James Madison, Mar 15, 1789
"No body wishes more than I do to see such proofs as you exhibit, that nature has given to our black brethren, talents equal to those of the other colors of men, and that the appearance of a want of them is owing merely to the degraded condition of their existence, both in Africa & America. I can add with truth, that no body wishes more ardently to see a good system commenced for raising the condition both of their body & mind to what it ought to be, as fast as the imbecility of their present existence, and other circumstances which cannot be neglected, will admit." To Benjamin Banneker, Aug. 30, 1791.
These are just some of the thoughts of our greatest forefather. I hope that someday you will get the time and take the innitiative to read some of his writings. He provides a great amount of insight for those who intend to keep our nation as he (and his friends) built it. In my doing so, I feel as if I have become friends with him and I am bound by that friendship to stand in his honor.
Sorry if this post was boring but I felt that people needed to know that Thomas Jefferson was more than the guy on the money. He was a brave and wise man who risked his life and lost any chance to be really close to his family, so that you and I can have a debate over whose ideas were the best... his or Marx.
As a conservative, I admit to practically worship at the alter of Jefferson. I have a great deal of respect for the whole of our founding fathers but I see T.J. as a true "free thinker".
I spend my down time reading his letters, thousands of them, to his friends, families and even political assotiates. He often reminded those who were working with him on writing our founding documents that they were reacting from a natural instinct to repeat the mistakes of the Monarchy because that was all that they had know. He respectfully encouraged others to think outside the box and to resist their first impulse.
In a letter titled "THE HOMAGE OF REASON" To Peter Carr, Paris, Aug. 10, 1787, he laid out some personal beliefs. It was interesting to read this and consider the way things were during those historical times. Below are some of his writings...
"Spanish. Bestow great attention on this, & endeavor to acquire an accurate knowlege of it. Our future connections with Spain & Spanish America will render that language a valuable acquisition. The antient history of a great part of America, too, is written in that language. I send you a dictionary."
"Moral philosophy. I think it lost time to attend lectures in this branch. He who made us would have been a pitiful bungler if he had made the rules of our moral conduct a matter of science. For one man of science, there are thousands who are not. What would have become of them? Man was destined for society. His morality therefore was to be formed to this object. He was endowed with a sense of right & wrong merely relative to this."
"Religion. Your reason is now mature enough to examine this object. In the first place divest yourself of all bias in favour of novelty & singularity of opinion. Indulge them in any other subject rather than that of religion. It is too important, & the consequences of error may be too serious. On the other hand shake off all the fears & servile prejudices under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."... "you must lay aside all prejudice on both sides, & neither believe nor reject anything because any other persons, or description of persons have rejected or believed it. Your own reason is the only oracle given you by heaven, and you are answerable not for the rightness but uprightness of the decision."
He was clearly an intuitive man with great patience and insight. Just for those of you who have had little exposure to his writings, here are some exerpts...
"The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.".."what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them.".."The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure." To William S. Smith, Nov. 13, 1787.
" How do you like our new constitution? I confess there are things in it which stagger all my dispositions to subscribe to what such an assembly has proposed. The house of federal representatives will not be adequate to the management of affairs either foreign or federal. Their President seems a bad edition of a Polish king. He may be reelected from 4. years to 4. years for life. Reason and experience prove to us that a chief magistrate, so continuable, is an officer for life. When one or two generations shall have proved that this is an office for life, it becomes on every succession worthy of intrigue, of bribery, of force, and even of foreign interference. It will be of great consequence to France and England to have America governed by a Galloman or Angloman. Once in office, and possessing the military force of the union, without either the aid or check of a council, he would not be easily dethroned, even if the people could be induced to withdraw their votes from him. I wish that at the end of the 4. years they had made him for ever ineligible a second time. Indeed I think all the good of this new constitution might have been couched in three or four new articles to be added to the good, old, and venerable fabrick, which should have been preserved even as a religious relique." To John Adams, Nov. 13, 1787.
" Let me add that a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, & what no just government should refuse, or rest on inferences."
"The inconveniences of the Declaration are that it may cramp government in it's useful exertions. But the evil of this is short-lived, trivial & reparable. The inconveniences of the want of a Declaration are permanent, afflicting & irreparable. They are in constant progression from bad to worse." To James Madison, Mar 15, 1789
"No body wishes more than I do to see such proofs as you exhibit, that nature has given to our black brethren, talents equal to those of the other colors of men, and that the appearance of a want of them is owing merely to the degraded condition of their existence, both in Africa & America. I can add with truth, that no body wishes more ardently to see a good system commenced for raising the condition both of their body & mind to what it ought to be, as fast as the imbecility of their present existence, and other circumstances which cannot be neglected, will admit." To Benjamin Banneker, Aug. 30, 1791.
These are just some of the thoughts of our greatest forefather. I hope that someday you will get the time and take the innitiative to read some of his writings. He provides a great amount of insight for those who intend to keep our nation as he (and his friends) built it. In my doing so, I feel as if I have become friends with him and I am bound by that friendship to stand in his honor.
Sorry if this post was boring but I felt that people needed to know that Thomas Jefferson was more than the guy on the money. He was a brave and wise man who risked his life and lost any chance to be really close to his family, so that you and I can have a debate over whose ideas were the best... his or Marx.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
