A number of years ago a missionary in India was showing a Brahmin a beautiful microscope which he had just received from England. The Brahmin was intensely interested in the wonderful things revealed by the instrument. The missionary took a drop of water, focused it, and asked the Brahmin to examine it. As he did so, to his surprise and horror he beheld numbers of little creatures squirming and disporting themselves in the water. "Does it speak truth?'" he enquired. On being assured that it did so, he exclaimed, "And I destroy life! I break caste, and I a holy man!"
The Brahmin left the missionary compound in an excited state. The microscope had shown him that in every drop of water there is animal life, and each time he drank it he broke his caste. This was, indeed, to him a terrible revelation. What was he to do?' Would he confess to his co-religionists that he had broken caste, and refuse to drink water again? A happy idea struck him, and he decided to carry it out. He would buy the microscope, and get rid of that which had been the occasion of his trouble. Next day he paid the missionary a visit, and inquired if he was willing to sell the microscope. The missionary declined to part with it. Day after day the Brahmin returned, seeking to purchase it. At last the missionary, wearied with his importunity, and knowing that he could easily procure another, consented to sell it.
The price being paid, the Brahmin took it into the compound, the missionary following. To the missionary's .surprise the Brahmin raised it up, and dashing it violently to the ground, stamped upon it. Then the Brahmin confessed he had been wretched and miserable since the day that he saw the animal life in the water, and determined to destroy that which had been the occasion of his unhappiness.
This incident illustrates what is going on amongst us to-day. In the spiritual world the Bible is God's microscope. It reveals the fact that there are only two classes of persons in His sight—saved and unsaved, converted and unconverted. It, shows that high and low, rich and poor, moral and immoral, "religious" and irreligious, need to be "born again" ere they can see the kingdom of God (John 3: 3). It declares that the unregenerate are under condemnation (John 3: 18), with God's wrath abiding on them (John 3: 36), and are hurrying on to the "everlasting burnings" (Isa. 33:14). But the multitudes accept not the revelations of the Divine "microscope," and do their utmost to "break" it. Hence it is common to hear it asserted that the Bible is full of mistakes and contradictions. Such attacks will not, however, injure the "old Book." This Divine "microscope," while showing us man's ruin, reveals God's provision for our deepest need. In Isaiah 53: 6 we read. "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way: and the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all." In spite of our innumerable sins, God loved us with a fond and tender love; he marvelously proved it by giving His only-begotten Son as a sacrifice for sin.
He cannot be mistaken, and it is impossible for Him to lie. What this "microscope" reveals must be true. "Let God be true, but every man a liar" (Rom. 3: 4). Believe His "glad and glorious Gospel," and you will obtain the free and full forgiveness of all your sins,
—From "Faithful Words."
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Extremism in the Defense of Liberty
I always liked Barry Goldwater. It was 1964, and I was voting in my first presidential election - I was 18. Barry Goldwater was my man for president. Several years later, I was an active member of the SDS, a Commie front group. What made the difference? Disappointment that a sensible guy like Goldwater was so mistreated by the media. It turned me against the system. It took a number of years and the Lord Jesus Christ to turn me back to right thinking again.
It can't happen to me again, but the seeds of unrest have been deeply planted in my soul.
Goldwater's acceptance speech at the Republican convention of 1964 featured, among other notable quotables "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue! " His words are still true but many who have claimed to be conservatives in our day have forgotten them.
Col Alan West, a man whom I support and admire, came out publicly sounding as if the recent debt-ceiling compromise, which he voted for, was a victory for fiscal conservatives. This post, written on the 6th of August, the day that the US debt rating was (predictably) down graded to AA+, is exactly what should have been expected as a consequence of such careful incrementalism as my friend Col West has embraced. He might have been attempting to appear "moderate" on the talk shows, but as Senator Goldwater so sagely said "...moderation in the defense of liberty is no virtue."
He, and others who we thought were genuinely committed to a pitched battle on the budget, with a mandate to win it - not just make a noisy show and then fold - should have forced the Senate - in a test of wills - to pass a real spending cut crafted by the House - and forced the President to pass or veto real spending cuts - 5 or 6 trillion immediately. The bill passage should have been charged with the explicit warning that there was no compromise on the spending cuts and no compromise on tax increases. For them to fail to pass the House budget plan would be to step out on their own and in effect proclaim that they, the Senate and the President, would be responsible to precipitate a government shutdown and a default. The House leadership should have made it crystal clear that if the Senate and President failed to pass or agree to the cuts, then there would be no further budget legislation coming out the House - in other words, this is your final chance.
I know the Media portrayed it as if the House would be responsible for a shutdown and a credit default, but think this through - the House passed a responsible budget bill that would have prevented all that. It was the Senate and President who refused to agree. But the Lib/Dem Media turned on the House, telegraphing that it was the House who had to to compromise. But why should they have had to do that? Why not just turn the whole question around and point out that the House had no other choice but to to pass large budget cuts. There could be no compromise on the future of the country. Put the onus back where it belongs: on the Senate and the President.
But the House Republican leadership blinked - and fell for the idea that they were the ones who had to compromise. When Boehner announced that "the House was not going to precipitate a default" on FoxNEws Sunday with Mike Wallace, he gave the whole ball game away. The media pulled off a slight of hand and played the hapless House leadership for a loss. They (again) got manipulated by scare tactics when they held all the cards for a victory, (if played right.)
Victory is all a matter of how the game is played, folks. The Republican "leadership" is still the lame, scared, vacillating, cowardly and calculating - and may I say witless - midgets that they have been for generations. I can honestly see why many independents don't trust them: they are wimps. And much of the time, they deserve the scorn of the voters. Were it not for the desperation of a substantial bloc of frightened and responsible voters (of all political stripes) that see our country going quickly into oblivion, and our liberties with it, there probably would not have been a change in the 2010/11 House composition. But the voters had nowhere else to go. And when they handed the House over to the Republicans, they were asking for bold, dramatic action, not political maneovering to avoid blame and political heat. There is no way to resolve this problem without somebody taking hits. Hurt must be in the lexicon of any leader brave enough to storm the Liberal welfare state bastion. But the reward of victory is none other than life from the dead for our poor hurting nation.
The leadership should have been chosen out of the newer and bolder group, for this battle is not won through knowledge of legislative tactics, but through playing a game of brinkmanship against the Liberal establishment. House rules based on seniority inevitably put the oldest and most senior in line to inherit the leadership role. But since when is seniority the measure of leadership? Here is one case where this seniority principle ill-served the best interests of the people of the United States.
The Republican party possesses the needed leadership in the present composition of the House - but they were never consulted or considered. I consider Alan West to be of that calibre, even though I think he made a mistake in hitching his wagon to Boehner's failing star.
And the battle can be won: I say this without fear of contradiction. There is a huge voting bloc in this country that has been holding its breath and yearning for someone - or for some gutsy group - to come along and take on the Libs, exposing them in their lairs as the planless, clueless, heartless, power-hungry thugs that they are. The Libs have most of the media in their pocket but the Internet is still free. Dramatic and creative action could force even a reluctant and hostile Media to dance to the tune of an aggressive use of power and political theatre. Reagan was really good at this, going over the heads of the reporters and seizing the TV spotlight for his own use. The Media cannot control that, and if they try to shut out one who has caught the public's imagination and admiration - the media itself will be pummelled by the public. All that is lacking is such a leader.
To those who say that the Republicans would have been ceaselessly blamed on every evening TV network broadcast featuring poor grannies whining about their social security check, or the medicare payments being cut - that is no doubt true; however, in 1864 Admiral Farragut had to run the gauntlet of the Confederate guns of Mobile, Alabama to capture the city. He had to suffer a violent cannonade from the shore batteries, and sunken mines. He paid the price of one ship sinking from a mine (called "torpedoes" back then), bravely saying "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead," and he won the city.
So it is with this kind of situation. If the Republicans are so frightened about taking fire from the Media, then they might as well concede defeat right now. The Media is hostile to conservatism in general, and Republicans in particular, and will remain so until it is decisively defeated in public. (Who knows? Some in the media might be publicly critical of Republicans because they have behaved so contemptibly and been so unworthy of support for years. Who knows the allies that might be lurking, hidden and waiting for a hero to come along?) But that will never happen until a brave principled stand is taken - and the violence of the cannonade and the torpedoes damned - until victory is won.
Old Line House and Senatee Republican leaders are particularly unsuited to this kind of fight because they lost the psychological fight years ago: they have been beaten in their minds, and thus are not capable of thinking like an aggressive leadership party. They have been trained to think like losers, and they act like it. When the Media and the dirty Dems pull their strings this gang runs for cover and folds their tents. We need a new generation of leaders who have not been brain-washed.
Back to the what-should-have-beens: If the House had held the line and forced the Senate and President back to the table for large across the board spending cuts now, not spread incredibly over ten years, we would have seen the stock market take off like a rocket, because the government fiscal path would have been reset on a genuine correction, rather than more debt increases, as usual. Instead, the post-compromise stock market voted with it's feet, correctly assessing the “compromise” to be as hollow as its rhetoric.
Had the Republicans won the round, even through a temporary government shutdown, and credit default (Which I absolutely believe would have been averted), then the positive rebound of the Stock and Credit markets would have shoved the MSM criticism off the front page and exposed their manipulation as crass political theater. Nothing succeeds like success.
Sadly, the one big bugaboo the Media threatened the Republicans with - a downgrade in the US Bond rating - happened anyway, so a substantial part of the power and advantage of the constitutional budget hammer that we voters handed the House in November was squandered with the weak-kneed "compromise" that allowed the Libs to preserve their spending, and Obama to be able to campaign without the debt issue hanging over his head daily. He also won’t have to answer for the increased spending as he goes into what should have been a very negative election cycle for him.
Goldwater said "Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice." The word extremism is a pejorative today, but that is only because the Left Media use it to bash those who stand up to their manipulation. Seize the term and reverse it and ram it down their throats. Isn't it really "extreme" to crash the economy through out of control spending? Or is it really "extreme" to balance the budget? If that is being extreme, then this is the time for a little “Extremism in defense of Liberty.”
It can't happen to me again, but the seeds of unrest have been deeply planted in my soul.
Goldwater's acceptance speech at the Republican convention of 1964 featured, among other notable quotables "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue! " His words are still true but many who have claimed to be conservatives in our day have forgotten them.
Col Alan West, a man whom I support and admire, came out publicly sounding as if the recent debt-ceiling compromise, which he voted for, was a victory for fiscal conservatives. This post, written on the 6th of August, the day that the US debt rating was (predictably) down graded to AA+, is exactly what should have been expected as a consequence of such careful incrementalism as my friend Col West has embraced. He might have been attempting to appear "moderate" on the talk shows, but as Senator Goldwater so sagely said "...moderation in the defense of liberty is no virtue."
He, and others who we thought were genuinely committed to a pitched battle on the budget, with a mandate to win it - not just make a noisy show and then fold - should have forced the Senate - in a test of wills - to pass a real spending cut crafted by the House - and forced the President to pass or veto real spending cuts - 5 or 6 trillion immediately. The bill passage should have been charged with the explicit warning that there was no compromise on the spending cuts and no compromise on tax increases. For them to fail to pass the House budget plan would be to step out on their own and in effect proclaim that they, the Senate and the President, would be responsible to precipitate a government shutdown and a default. The House leadership should have made it crystal clear that if the Senate and President failed to pass or agree to the cuts, then there would be no further budget legislation coming out the House - in other words, this is your final chance.
I know the Media portrayed it as if the House would be responsible for a shutdown and a credit default, but think this through - the House passed a responsible budget bill that would have prevented all that. It was the Senate and President who refused to agree. But the Lib/Dem Media turned on the House, telegraphing that it was the House who had to to compromise. But why should they have had to do that? Why not just turn the whole question around and point out that the House had no other choice but to to pass large budget cuts. There could be no compromise on the future of the country. Put the onus back where it belongs: on the Senate and the President.
But the House Republican leadership blinked - and fell for the idea that they were the ones who had to compromise. When Boehner announced that "the House was not going to precipitate a default" on FoxNEws Sunday with Mike Wallace, he gave the whole ball game away. The media pulled off a slight of hand and played the hapless House leadership for a loss. They (again) got manipulated by scare tactics when they held all the cards for a victory, (if played right.)
Victory is all a matter of how the game is played, folks. The Republican "leadership" is still the lame, scared, vacillating, cowardly and calculating - and may I say witless - midgets that they have been for generations. I can honestly see why many independents don't trust them: they are wimps. And much of the time, they deserve the scorn of the voters. Were it not for the desperation of a substantial bloc of frightened and responsible voters (of all political stripes) that see our country going quickly into oblivion, and our liberties with it, there probably would not have been a change in the 2010/11 House composition. But the voters had nowhere else to go. And when they handed the House over to the Republicans, they were asking for bold, dramatic action, not political maneovering to avoid blame and political heat. There is no way to resolve this problem without somebody taking hits. Hurt must be in the lexicon of any leader brave enough to storm the Liberal welfare state bastion. But the reward of victory is none other than life from the dead for our poor hurting nation.
The leadership should have been chosen out of the newer and bolder group, for this battle is not won through knowledge of legislative tactics, but through playing a game of brinkmanship against the Liberal establishment. House rules based on seniority inevitably put the oldest and most senior in line to inherit the leadership role. But since when is seniority the measure of leadership? Here is one case where this seniority principle ill-served the best interests of the people of the United States.
The Republican party possesses the needed leadership in the present composition of the House - but they were never consulted or considered. I consider Alan West to be of that calibre, even though I think he made a mistake in hitching his wagon to Boehner's failing star.
And the battle can be won: I say this without fear of contradiction. There is a huge voting bloc in this country that has been holding its breath and yearning for someone - or for some gutsy group - to come along and take on the Libs, exposing them in their lairs as the planless, clueless, heartless, power-hungry thugs that they are. The Libs have most of the media in their pocket but the Internet is still free. Dramatic and creative action could force even a reluctant and hostile Media to dance to the tune of an aggressive use of power and political theatre. Reagan was really good at this, going over the heads of the reporters and seizing the TV spotlight for his own use. The Media cannot control that, and if they try to shut out one who has caught the public's imagination and admiration - the media itself will be pummelled by the public. All that is lacking is such a leader.
To those who say that the Republicans would have been ceaselessly blamed on every evening TV network broadcast featuring poor grannies whining about their social security check, or the medicare payments being cut - that is no doubt true; however, in 1864 Admiral Farragut had to run the gauntlet of the Confederate guns of Mobile, Alabama to capture the city. He had to suffer a violent cannonade from the shore batteries, and sunken mines. He paid the price of one ship sinking from a mine (called "torpedoes" back then), bravely saying "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead," and he won the city.
So it is with this kind of situation. If the Republicans are so frightened about taking fire from the Media, then they might as well concede defeat right now. The Media is hostile to conservatism in general, and Republicans in particular, and will remain so until it is decisively defeated in public. (Who knows? Some in the media might be publicly critical of Republicans because they have behaved so contemptibly and been so unworthy of support for years. Who knows the allies that might be lurking, hidden and waiting for a hero to come along?) But that will never happen until a brave principled stand is taken - and the violence of the cannonade and the torpedoes damned - until victory is won.
Old Line House and Senatee Republican leaders are particularly unsuited to this kind of fight because they lost the psychological fight years ago: they have been beaten in their minds, and thus are not capable of thinking like an aggressive leadership party. They have been trained to think like losers, and they act like it. When the Media and the dirty Dems pull their strings this gang runs for cover and folds their tents. We need a new generation of leaders who have not been brain-washed.
Back to the what-should-have-beens: If the House had held the line and forced the Senate and President back to the table for large across the board spending cuts now, not spread incredibly over ten years, we would have seen the stock market take off like a rocket, because the government fiscal path would have been reset on a genuine correction, rather than more debt increases, as usual. Instead, the post-compromise stock market voted with it's feet, correctly assessing the “compromise” to be as hollow as its rhetoric.
Had the Republicans won the round, even through a temporary government shutdown, and credit default (Which I absolutely believe would have been averted), then the positive rebound of the Stock and Credit markets would have shoved the MSM criticism off the front page and exposed their manipulation as crass political theater. Nothing succeeds like success.
Sadly, the one big bugaboo the Media threatened the Republicans with - a downgrade in the US Bond rating - happened anyway, so a substantial part of the power and advantage of the constitutional budget hammer that we voters handed the House in November was squandered with the weak-kneed "compromise" that allowed the Libs to preserve their spending, and Obama to be able to campaign without the debt issue hanging over his head daily. He also won’t have to answer for the increased spending as he goes into what should have been a very negative election cycle for him.
Goldwater said "Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice." The word extremism is a pejorative today, but that is only because the Left Media use it to bash those who stand up to their manipulation. Seize the term and reverse it and ram it down their throats. Isn't it really "extreme" to crash the economy through out of control spending? Or is it really "extreme" to balance the budget? If that is being extreme, then this is the time for a little “Extremism in defense of Liberty.”
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Put me in charge
This was in the Waco Tribune Herald, Waco , TX
Put me in charge of food stamps. I'd get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho's, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.
Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I'd do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal ligations. Then, we'll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine and document all tattoos and piercings. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, smoke or get tats and piercings, then get a job.
Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your "home" will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place.
In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a "government" job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the “common good.”
Before you write that I've violated someone's rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules.. Before you say that this would be "demeaning" and ruin their "self esteem," consider that it wasn't that long ago that taking someone else's money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem.
If we are expected to pay for other people's mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.
AND while you are on Government subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will be “voluntarily” removed from voting while you are receiving a Government welfare check. Think E-verify for illegal aliens. If you want to vote, then get a job.
Put me in charge of food stamps. I'd get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho's, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.
Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I'd do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal ligations. Then, we'll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine and document all tattoos and piercings. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, smoke or get tats and piercings, then get a job.
Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your "home" will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place.
In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a "government" job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the “common good.”
Before you write that I've violated someone's rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules.. Before you say that this would be "demeaning" and ruin their "self esteem," consider that it wasn't that long ago that taking someone else's money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem.
If we are expected to pay for other people's mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.
AND while you are on Government subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will be “voluntarily” removed from voting while you are receiving a Government welfare check. Think E-verify for illegal aliens. If you want to vote, then get a job.
Friday, March 4, 2011
The Vashti Democrats of Wisconsin
It is probably necessary to explain the name "Vashti" in these benighted times, when as recently as when I was a kid, every child knew who Vashti was from Sunday School. She was queen of the empire of Media - Persia under King Ahasuerus. That story is told in the book of Esther in the Bible.
The king gave a huge feast for the glory of his kingdom, and during that feast, he summoned Queen Vashti that he might show off her beauty to the assembled multitudes. Putting aside for a moment the disastrous implications of that act if a similar event were to occur in modern America, note that she flatly refused to come when called.
That event would not have much to say to our present day Wisconsin Democrat Senators except for what happened to Vashti, and arguably, what should happen to them also.
When Vashti refused to come at the king's command, furorm ensued. The king called his chief counsellors, who advised him that not only had she given much embarrassment to the king himself, but every husband in the kingdom would be held in contempt by their wives for Vashti's actions if she were allowed to get away with it. In other words, the effects of her refusal were much more wide-ranging than a mere spat between a husband and a wife.
The counsellors recommended removing Vashti from her position - and replacing her with another queen, presumably one which would know not to pull such a stunt herself. That is what happened.
And that brings me to my point. The Wisconsin Dem Senators, by refusing to come when lawfully summoned - not held up by intractable forces so they could not comply or not having some plausible excuse - but simply refusing to do their duty, have brought themselves under the same judgment as Vashti.
I totally dismiss the notion that failing to show up for a quorum call is a legitimate tactic to be used by any group of disaffected legislators whenever the mood strikes them. That deliberate refusal to particpate in debate and voting is an attack on our entire legislative government system and must be met with appropriate action. Slapping down Vashti was the right course of action for the king; so would be slapping down the missing Democrat senators.
The governor of Wisconsin ought to declare that the senators have vacated their seats voluntarily, and therefore are no longer to be regarded as senators. Thus, their absence resets the quorum rules and the remaining legislators who showed up when called can go on with business. It can hardly be argued that the senators have not had ample opportunity - or dutiful incentive to come to quorum. They can only plead that they oppose the legislation that thier plesence will ensure if they return. That is not a legitimate reason to miss a quorum call. They were not hired by the voters to stay away from votes, but precisely to vote - yea or nay - as their representative. To fail to show up is to disenfranchise the voters from their districts. IT is the exact opposite of an elected representatives' job to refuse to represent the voters of his district.
The Dems who have vacated their seats should not be allowed back in. The governor can call a special election to re-fill their seats. They, like the Unionized Boston Police in 1919, who struck and abandoned their positions and their responsibility to protect and defend the public, were fired by Massachusetts Governor Calvin Coolidge and the strike broken. They were never re-hired. His logic was morally impeccable: their sole function was to protect the public, but by refusing to do that prime duty, they had voided their right to hold those jobs. Ronald Reagan dismissed the striking air traffic controllers of PATCO in a similar bold move.
These senators ought to suffer the same fate. If they refuse to do the very thing that they were elected to do - to serve their constituents in the legislature - not hiding out from their responsibilities - then they have abdicated their positions and should be treated as such. They have also attacked the very wellspring of representative government.
How much latitude would any normal employee receive if they refused to come to work because they did not like what they were required to do while at work? What is the normal and expected result of refusing to show up to perform their duties? Yes, they lose their jobs. Same with the Senators.
One can almost anticipate the howling and ranting if he does this. But I'll bet it would get the errant senators scooting back into town, trying to claim their seats. They should be refused, of course. They will sue, and raise a huge ruckus, but their actions, which hitherto have been countenanced, will be a point of national debate. They will have been put firmly on the defensive, attempting to recapture something that they had publicly given up. It would be a great spectacle to watch.
There are plenty of articulate souls who can make this case: quorum busting is not a fair tactic when you know you are on the losing side of an issue because you lack the votes. That is the essence of un-democracy and it ought to proclaimed as such and not allowed to fester in our political system. It might have un-suspected and baneful effects that would crash the system if allowed to go on unchallenged and uncorrected.
I just wonder if Governor Walker has the cahonies to take the initiative. If he continues to dither, he and the new Republican Senate might completely lose the momentum. It is not being right that wins, it is he who takes action. Delay has given the well-financed Dems and Unions, along with Obama, the time to re-shape the debate on public sector unions and collective bargaining. Time is not on the side of reformers who are going after big game. Waiting too long lets the beast escape.
The king gave a huge feast for the glory of his kingdom, and during that feast, he summoned Queen Vashti that he might show off her beauty to the assembled multitudes. Putting aside for a moment the disastrous implications of that act if a similar event were to occur in modern America, note that she flatly refused to come when called.
That event would not have much to say to our present day Wisconsin Democrat Senators except for what happened to Vashti, and arguably, what should happen to them also.
When Vashti refused to come at the king's command, furorm ensued. The king called his chief counsellors, who advised him that not only had she given much embarrassment to the king himself, but every husband in the kingdom would be held in contempt by their wives for Vashti's actions if she were allowed to get away with it. In other words, the effects of her refusal were much more wide-ranging than a mere spat between a husband and a wife.
The counsellors recommended removing Vashti from her position - and replacing her with another queen, presumably one which would know not to pull such a stunt herself. That is what happened.
And that brings me to my point. The Wisconsin Dem Senators, by refusing to come when lawfully summoned - not held up by intractable forces so they could not comply or not having some plausible excuse - but simply refusing to do their duty, have brought themselves under the same judgment as Vashti.
I totally dismiss the notion that failing to show up for a quorum call is a legitimate tactic to be used by any group of disaffected legislators whenever the mood strikes them. That deliberate refusal to particpate in debate and voting is an attack on our entire legislative government system and must be met with appropriate action. Slapping down Vashti was the right course of action for the king; so would be slapping down the missing Democrat senators.
The governor of Wisconsin ought to declare that the senators have vacated their seats voluntarily, and therefore are no longer to be regarded as senators. Thus, their absence resets the quorum rules and the remaining legislators who showed up when called can go on with business. It can hardly be argued that the senators have not had ample opportunity - or dutiful incentive to come to quorum. They can only plead that they oppose the legislation that thier plesence will ensure if they return. That is not a legitimate reason to miss a quorum call. They were not hired by the voters to stay away from votes, but precisely to vote - yea or nay - as their representative. To fail to show up is to disenfranchise the voters from their districts. IT is the exact opposite of an elected representatives' job to refuse to represent the voters of his district.
The Dems who have vacated their seats should not be allowed back in. The governor can call a special election to re-fill their seats. They, like the Unionized Boston Police in 1919, who struck and abandoned their positions and their responsibility to protect and defend the public, were fired by Massachusetts Governor Calvin Coolidge and the strike broken. They were never re-hired. His logic was morally impeccable: their sole function was to protect the public, but by refusing to do that prime duty, they had voided their right to hold those jobs. Ronald Reagan dismissed the striking air traffic controllers of PATCO in a similar bold move.
These senators ought to suffer the same fate. If they refuse to do the very thing that they were elected to do - to serve their constituents in the legislature - not hiding out from their responsibilities - then they have abdicated their positions and should be treated as such. They have also attacked the very wellspring of representative government.
How much latitude would any normal employee receive if they refused to come to work because they did not like what they were required to do while at work? What is the normal and expected result of refusing to show up to perform their duties? Yes, they lose their jobs. Same with the Senators.
One can almost anticipate the howling and ranting if he does this. But I'll bet it would get the errant senators scooting back into town, trying to claim their seats. They should be refused, of course. They will sue, and raise a huge ruckus, but their actions, which hitherto have been countenanced, will be a point of national debate. They will have been put firmly on the defensive, attempting to recapture something that they had publicly given up. It would be a great spectacle to watch.
There are plenty of articulate souls who can make this case: quorum busting is not a fair tactic when you know you are on the losing side of an issue because you lack the votes. That is the essence of un-democracy and it ought to proclaimed as such and not allowed to fester in our political system. It might have un-suspected and baneful effects that would crash the system if allowed to go on unchallenged and uncorrected.
I just wonder if Governor Walker has the cahonies to take the initiative. If he continues to dither, he and the new Republican Senate might completely lose the momentum. It is not being right that wins, it is he who takes action. Delay has given the well-financed Dems and Unions, along with Obama, the time to re-shape the debate on public sector unions and collective bargaining. Time is not on the side of reformers who are going after big game. Waiting too long lets the beast escape.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
The Un-Democratic Democrats
Wisconsin Democrats are acting in a most un-democratic manner. They are throwing up a barrage of rhetoric and threats to cover up their attempt to overthrow our system of government.
Consider the rhetoric - Americans are traditionally attuned to respond favorably to the use of the word "rights', so it is no surprise that the Unions massing their troops in Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan and Illinois should be loudly decrying any attempt to take away their "right" of collective bargaining.
Interestingly, the things we traditionally associate with rights are those enumerated in the Declaration of Independence: the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -and those listed in the Bill of Rights. However, increasingly the word right has been assigned to such notions as a right to a job, or a right to housing, or a right to health care, or a right to collectively bargain.
In the instance of collective bargaining as it applies to public employees unions, it has been historically understood in the US that such unions were not allowed the power to hold the government hostage. The reason is fairly simple and was well-articulated by none other than FDR who said "All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service." This is more fully explained in the excellent article "FDR's Warning: Public Employee's Unions a no-no."
We must careful of the words we use when debating this subject. Public sector unions have no inalienable right to collective bargaining, In fact, allowing them that privilege is a danger to the Republic, as recent events have borne out. Also, since a civil and intelligent discussion must proceed through the use of accurate - not misleading - terminology, then it is dangerous to leave the erroneous rhetoric unchallenged. .
The Democrats and Unions cannot logically or morally claim that their cause is just. They are not disadvantaged workers, downtrodden by politicians or even the taxpayers; rather, they are the recipients of an ever-increasing cornucopia of benefits that has already outstripped the ability of governments at all levels to pay for them.
The public demonstrations are contrived to hold onto a political advantage that the Democratic Party has held for generations virtually unchallenged, but is now being exposed for the danger it presents to the very life of the country. So, in creating chaos and confusion, they are hoping to retain by force and obfuscation what they cannot win through democratic and open debate.
This point is strikingly clear in the case of the Wisconsin legislature in mid February 2011: The Democrat members of the Wisconsin Senate, now in the minority since the November elections of 2010 swept them out of the majority, have recognized that they don't have the votes to prevent the Republican reform-minded majority from unwinding the collective bargaining privilege that public unions have enjoyed for decades, which they have used to pillage and plunder the treasuries of local and State government with impunity. Faced with the prospect of imminent defeat, they walked out -en-masse - and are hiding out in another State, hoping that the Governor or the legislature will cave in and relent on the issue of collective bargaining. They are hoping to win through their absence what they cannot win through their presence.
It is interesting to hear the bleating of union operatives trying to portray themselves as reasonable and responsible - only desiring to "have a dialog" with the Republicans on the wage cuts and benefit costs - when the only position they took - up until the walkout - was a complete stone wall on any changes to the Union's privileges. Fortunately, the governor is hanging tough, as are the Republican legislators.
One thing, of many, is starkly obvious in this contest: it is plainly a partisan fight. It is clearly not about fairness or what is right for the citizens of the State, for if that were primarily the debate, one would see a smattering of support and differences of opinion regardless of Party. But no. The Democrats are starkly the Party of the extravagant Union position, and are willing to use extraordinary and most un-Democratic tactics to try to win. The Republicans are the adults, playing by the rules. The citizens of the state awarded them the majority to implement their policies, and the Democrats are plainly not going to allow the citizens' voices to be heard if they can help it. They want to win, even if they overturn the election. That is what this walkout is all about.
This idea of absenting oneself from an elected seat is dramatic, but to my mind, also fraught with danger. It must be taken as an axiom that when one is elected to "serve" as a legislator, the primary duty is to represent those who elected him, that is, they must "serve." And the only way they can do that is by being part of the body of legislators, taking their place and operating according to the State Constitution and legislative rules. Majorities have legitmate power that derives from the will of the people as expressed in their elected representatives. Majorities are formed through debate and compromise, so it is utterly destructive to our constituted form of government to attempt to redefine the rules by refusing to serve in the very seat that one was elected to occupy. In effect, it is equivalent to hiding the ball and bat if the game is not going the way you like. That ought to get you thrown out of the game.
That tactic is inherently unfair and undemocratic. The implicit agreement underlying our system of government is that we will settle our differences in the legislature, and whichever position wins the majority of the votes after debate, wins. We have forsworn violence and demonstrations threatening violence for reasoned debate.
The seated legislature is certainly not denying any Democrat a voice. On the contrary, the Democrats are refusing to be present and participate unless the Marjority concedes their their position before the Democrats agree to return. That is turning the whole system on its head.: the minority demands its way or will try to stop the majority from proceeding. Yet, that is obviously not how things are to work, and we should not stand for such tactics.
By their behavior, the Democrats clearly are not in favor of representative democracy when they don't think things are going their way. That was not the way the Republicans acted when Pelosi and Reid rammed their legislation through at the federal level. The Republicans stayed engaged and played by the rules even though they were bulldozed out of the way in the most crass manner, and were loudly critical. The Democrats acted like they did not care. They had "won" as Obama so infamously said in one bi-partisan meeting. Lacking the majority now, the Wisconsin Democrats have demonstrated that they have no stomach for democratic principles when they don't produce the results they want.
That is an utterly rebellious attitude toward the solemn responsibilities they have been elected to fulfill.
To remove oneself from the legislature by one's own choice is tantamount to a resignation, and perhaps that is exactly how the present Governor, Court or Legislature ought to regard their absence. The idea that a minority can check the majority by their absence is abhorrent to democratic institutions, and ought to be met with a firm response. They ought to be given a certain amount of time to present themselves for a quorum call, and if after a sufficient time has elapsed, they should be declared to have resigned from their seat - unseated by their own failure to take their seat - and the number of legislators needed to form a quorum reduced by the number of willfully absent members. An election can be called to fill the vacant seats.
That action by the present legislature can hardly be considered unfair. All that one needs to do to take his seat is to present him or her-self at a quorum call. Those who wilfully refuse ought to be dismissed.
I would argue that it is incumbent on the Governor and the legislature to vigorously address this situation and certainly not allow the renegade Democrats to win anything by this tactic. A failure on the part of the duly-constituted majority would be the destruction of the system itself. That must not be allowed to happen. Too much is at stake.
The nation and the world is watching what is happening in the Middle East with protests against un-democratic and unelected dictators, and likewise it is watching the attempt by the Unions and the Democrats to overturn the legitimate and democratic will of the people in Wisconsin and other States. It would be a tragedy to cheer on the oppressed peoples of the Mideast, while at the same time spurning our own functional electoral processe.
The Un-democratic Democrats must not be allowed to win this battle, or this war.
Consider the rhetoric - Americans are traditionally attuned to respond favorably to the use of the word "rights', so it is no surprise that the Unions massing their troops in Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan and Illinois should be loudly decrying any attempt to take away their "right" of collective bargaining.
Interestingly, the things we traditionally associate with rights are those enumerated in the Declaration of Independence: the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -and those listed in the Bill of Rights. However, increasingly the word right has been assigned to such notions as a right to a job, or a right to housing, or a right to health care, or a right to collectively bargain.
In the instance of collective bargaining as it applies to public employees unions, it has been historically understood in the US that such unions were not allowed the power to hold the government hostage. The reason is fairly simple and was well-articulated by none other than FDR who said "All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service." This is more fully explained in the excellent article "FDR's Warning: Public Employee's Unions a no-no."
We must careful of the words we use when debating this subject. Public sector unions have no inalienable right to collective bargaining, In fact, allowing them that privilege is a danger to the Republic, as recent events have borne out. Also, since a civil and intelligent discussion must proceed through the use of accurate - not misleading - terminology, then it is dangerous to leave the erroneous rhetoric unchallenged. .
The Democrats and Unions cannot logically or morally claim that their cause is just. They are not disadvantaged workers, downtrodden by politicians or even the taxpayers; rather, they are the recipients of an ever-increasing cornucopia of benefits that has already outstripped the ability of governments at all levels to pay for them.
The public demonstrations are contrived to hold onto a political advantage that the Democratic Party has held for generations virtually unchallenged, but is now being exposed for the danger it presents to the very life of the country. So, in creating chaos and confusion, they are hoping to retain by force and obfuscation what they cannot win through democratic and open debate.
This point is strikingly clear in the case of the Wisconsin legislature in mid February 2011: The Democrat members of the Wisconsin Senate, now in the minority since the November elections of 2010 swept them out of the majority, have recognized that they don't have the votes to prevent the Republican reform-minded majority from unwinding the collective bargaining privilege that public unions have enjoyed for decades, which they have used to pillage and plunder the treasuries of local and State government with impunity. Faced with the prospect of imminent defeat, they walked out -en-masse - and are hiding out in another State, hoping that the Governor or the legislature will cave in and relent on the issue of collective bargaining. They are hoping to win through their absence what they cannot win through their presence.
It is interesting to hear the bleating of union operatives trying to portray themselves as reasonable and responsible - only desiring to "have a dialog" with the Republicans on the wage cuts and benefit costs - when the only position they took - up until the walkout - was a complete stone wall on any changes to the Union's privileges. Fortunately, the governor is hanging tough, as are the Republican legislators.
One thing, of many, is starkly obvious in this contest: it is plainly a partisan fight. It is clearly not about fairness or what is right for the citizens of the State, for if that were primarily the debate, one would see a smattering of support and differences of opinion regardless of Party. But no. The Democrats are starkly the Party of the extravagant Union position, and are willing to use extraordinary and most un-Democratic tactics to try to win. The Republicans are the adults, playing by the rules. The citizens of the state awarded them the majority to implement their policies, and the Democrats are plainly not going to allow the citizens' voices to be heard if they can help it. They want to win, even if they overturn the election. That is what this walkout is all about.
This idea of absenting oneself from an elected seat is dramatic, but to my mind, also fraught with danger. It must be taken as an axiom that when one is elected to "serve" as a legislator, the primary duty is to represent those who elected him, that is, they must "serve." And the only way they can do that is by being part of the body of legislators, taking their place and operating according to the State Constitution and legislative rules. Majorities have legitmate power that derives from the will of the people as expressed in their elected representatives. Majorities are formed through debate and compromise, so it is utterly destructive to our constituted form of government to attempt to redefine the rules by refusing to serve in the very seat that one was elected to occupy. In effect, it is equivalent to hiding the ball and bat if the game is not going the way you like. That ought to get you thrown out of the game.
That tactic is inherently unfair and undemocratic. The implicit agreement underlying our system of government is that we will settle our differences in the legislature, and whichever position wins the majority of the votes after debate, wins. We have forsworn violence and demonstrations threatening violence for reasoned debate.
The seated legislature is certainly not denying any Democrat a voice. On the contrary, the Democrats are refusing to be present and participate unless the Marjority concedes their their position before the Democrats agree to return. That is turning the whole system on its head.: the minority demands its way or will try to stop the majority from proceeding. Yet, that is obviously not how things are to work, and we should not stand for such tactics.
By their behavior, the Democrats clearly are not in favor of representative democracy when they don't think things are going their way. That was not the way the Republicans acted when Pelosi and Reid rammed their legislation through at the federal level. The Republicans stayed engaged and played by the rules even though they were bulldozed out of the way in the most crass manner, and were loudly critical. The Democrats acted like they did not care. They had "won" as Obama so infamously said in one bi-partisan meeting. Lacking the majority now, the Wisconsin Democrats have demonstrated that they have no stomach for democratic principles when they don't produce the results they want.
That is an utterly rebellious attitude toward the solemn responsibilities they have been elected to fulfill.
To remove oneself from the legislature by one's own choice is tantamount to a resignation, and perhaps that is exactly how the present Governor, Court or Legislature ought to regard their absence. The idea that a minority can check the majority by their absence is abhorrent to democratic institutions, and ought to be met with a firm response. They ought to be given a certain amount of time to present themselves for a quorum call, and if after a sufficient time has elapsed, they should be declared to have resigned from their seat - unseated by their own failure to take their seat - and the number of legislators needed to form a quorum reduced by the number of willfully absent members. An election can be called to fill the vacant seats.
That action by the present legislature can hardly be considered unfair. All that one needs to do to take his seat is to present him or her-self at a quorum call. Those who wilfully refuse ought to be dismissed.
I would argue that it is incumbent on the Governor and the legislature to vigorously address this situation and certainly not allow the renegade Democrats to win anything by this tactic. A failure on the part of the duly-constituted majority would be the destruction of the system itself. That must not be allowed to happen. Too much is at stake.
The nation and the world is watching what is happening in the Middle East with protests against un-democratic and unelected dictators, and likewise it is watching the attempt by the Unions and the Democrats to overturn the legitimate and democratic will of the people in Wisconsin and other States. It would be a tragedy to cheer on the oppressed peoples of the Mideast, while at the same time spurning our own functional electoral processe.
The Un-democratic Democrats must not be allowed to win this battle, or this war.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Giving Credit where Credit is Due
My wife just got out of the hospital, having received several stents, opening up some blocked coronary arteries. While there, we were privileged to view the actual process of injecting the dye into the heart and the obvious blocked areas of several blood vessels. The technology is quite astonishing, and the existence of such techniques got me to thinking.
The modern scientific establishment is downright dismissive of Biblical Christianity. The scientist-priests' scornful attitudes drip with sarcasm and contempt when they compare the modern technology and its wonderful results with the simplicity of faith. It is as if the modern world - especially with reference to the technical achievements of modern civilization - are the product of Atheism marching forward unopposed.
Now I know that the Atheist view is totally incorrect, unfounded and not historically true. Atheism cannot produce anything positive, and if it claims anything as its own, it is a claim based on intellectual theft. The modern scientific establishment would not exist at all unless it were not built on thought and investigation based on a Biblical Judeo-Christian worldview.
The father of the scientific method, Sir Isaac Newton, said "The most beautiful system of the Sun, Planets and Comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent being. All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God."
The practical system of investigation of the world around us and the use of careful observation and experiment, expecting logical results to proceed from logical inquiry, is one of his greatest foundations of the modern scientific world. And what drove Newton was his view of the Universe as an expression of God. He understood that the World of God and the Word of God are both established on the foundation of the Character of God Himself.
The "scientific" establishment of today is historically grounded on a Christian-Biblical worldview. But where God is not honored, blindness and futility set in. No one explores to find anything if everything is just "brute factuality." Without the assumption of an orderly universe, created by a purposeful, orderly God, then there is little point in spending money or effort to "discover" something that everyone knows cannot be there. It is far easier looking for something that is part of a pattern you know already exists. The whole process of discovery rests on an assumption that by following a logical sequence of steps, you know you are going to arrive at a logical conclusion.
If there is no God, there is no reason to believe that the universe is orderly or logical , or purposeful – even in our own lives or existence, no matter what we imagine; we are just the product of randomness – hence, no order. So why expect to find any order when you already know that there is no sense or order to be found? To believe in order is to believe in a giver of order. That is heresy to an Atheist.
Wrong views of God result in blight and blindness in an individual or a culture or an entire civilization.
Atheistic cultures steal the positive results of a culture built on a Christian worldview (tools, hospitals, technology, etc.) and claim it as their own creation, but as I have point out, they cannot possibly be the impetus for it. They really don't have the insight for it: they don't “think right” about the world and thus are blind - willfully blind – to the logical outworking of thought based on a Theo-centric worldview.
The modern scientific culture would never have come about as an outgrowth of Atheistic thought.
Political correctness is the fruit of Atheism – the deliberate rejection of the real world for the hoped-for world without God. Truly He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. There is no wisdom, nor counsel nor understanding against the Lord. In the end, He blinds those who refuse to see.
So we are able to give credit where credit is due - to the Lord God, who is the pillar and ground of the truth, and to His Grace, which granted to men who obey Him insight into His world, so they may "subdue it" and make it bountiful, within the confines of the Fall.
The modern scientific establishment is downright dismissive of Biblical Christianity. The scientist-priests' scornful attitudes drip with sarcasm and contempt when they compare the modern technology and its wonderful results with the simplicity of faith. It is as if the modern world - especially with reference to the technical achievements of modern civilization - are the product of Atheism marching forward unopposed.
Now I know that the Atheist view is totally incorrect, unfounded and not historically true. Atheism cannot produce anything positive, and if it claims anything as its own, it is a claim based on intellectual theft. The modern scientific establishment would not exist at all unless it were not built on thought and investigation based on a Biblical Judeo-Christian worldview.
The father of the scientific method, Sir Isaac Newton, said "The most beautiful system of the Sun, Planets and Comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent being. All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God."
The practical system of investigation of the world around us and the use of careful observation and experiment, expecting logical results to proceed from logical inquiry, is one of his greatest foundations of the modern scientific world. And what drove Newton was his view of the Universe as an expression of God. He understood that the World of God and the Word of God are both established on the foundation of the Character of God Himself.
The "scientific" establishment of today is historically grounded on a Christian-Biblical worldview. But where God is not honored, blindness and futility set in. No one explores to find anything if everything is just "brute factuality." Without the assumption of an orderly universe, created by a purposeful, orderly God, then there is little point in spending money or effort to "discover" something that everyone knows cannot be there. It is far easier looking for something that is part of a pattern you know already exists. The whole process of discovery rests on an assumption that by following a logical sequence of steps, you know you are going to arrive at a logical conclusion.
If there is no God, there is no reason to believe that the universe is orderly or logical , or purposeful – even in our own lives or existence, no matter what we imagine; we are just the product of randomness – hence, no order. So why expect to find any order when you already know that there is no sense or order to be found? To believe in order is to believe in a giver of order. That is heresy to an Atheist.
Wrong views of God result in blight and blindness in an individual or a culture or an entire civilization.
Atheistic cultures steal the positive results of a culture built on a Christian worldview (tools, hospitals, technology, etc.) and claim it as their own creation, but as I have point out, they cannot possibly be the impetus for it. They really don't have the insight for it: they don't “think right” about the world and thus are blind - willfully blind – to the logical outworking of thought based on a Theo-centric worldview.
The modern scientific culture would never have come about as an outgrowth of Atheistic thought.
Political correctness is the fruit of Atheism – the deliberate rejection of the real world for the hoped-for world without God. Truly He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. There is no wisdom, nor counsel nor understanding against the Lord. In the end, He blinds those who refuse to see.
So we are able to give credit where credit is due - to the Lord God, who is the pillar and ground of the truth, and to His Grace, which granted to men who obey Him insight into His world, so they may "subdue it" and make it bountiful, within the confines of the Fall.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
The Frigate of Americanism
Thomas Jefferson, before becoming President, was usually in the party of those who favored a freeman-farmer type of government, where independence and minimal government reigned supreme. Jefferson was our third president, after Washington and John Adams. Adams was a Federalist, favoring a strong central government as opposed to Jefferson's ideal.
This Jeffersonian Propensity - a very worthy ideal - found a most excellent summation in this quote:
“Still one thing more, fellow-citizens--a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned” – Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, 1801.
This tension is to be observed in the very early American government between the Jefferson types who favored very limited government, and the Federalist types who favored a strong central government., showing up in the debate over the building and manning of the US Navy for the defense of our trade. “Six Frigates”, by Ian Toll, traces the back and forth of US Policy that consecutively enabled and then starved the infant navy built to defend American national interests. Jefferson (typically) sponsored the idea of building gunboats in each port that would be manned by volunteers. It was a cheap and simple solution tailored to the early American ideal. It was also a complete flop when tested in actual defense of the harbors and towns. Later, President Jefferson sent the same frigates he had formerly opposed to the Mediterranean to deal with Islamic terrorists and marauders. They were eminently successful.
His “volunteer” force concept was proven to be wrong in the area of defending American interests in the dangerous arena of Maritime policy and national defense, yet in many other areas, his notions of freemen taking care of their own business has become the hallmark of what we used to mean when we said “Americanism.”
The first quarter of the nineteenth century, as witnessed by Alexis Tocqueville in his landmark book "Democracy in America" was marked by American volunteerism in the daily lives of the citizens. It could be fairly said that Jefferson and those who thought like him, expressed something essential about our people and how they viewed government and freedom. Government was not even on the horizon in most people's lives, rather it was Christianity and local community. Quite a contrast with today's in your face political correctness and swarms of inspectors and taxes and regulations harassing and eating out the substance of the ordinary person.
Some degree of government is necessary, and it is the duty and calling of every generation of freemen to attempt to keep the balance. In the last two or three generations I fear we have been so busy living “the good life” that we have sorely neglected that balance. We are perilously close to a point of no return in so many areas of the preservation of our Liberties.
We need a major course correction, or our “frigate” of Americanism will end up on the rocks.
This Jeffersonian Propensity - a very worthy ideal - found a most excellent summation in this quote:
“Still one thing more, fellow-citizens--a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned” – Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, 1801.
This tension is to be observed in the very early American government between the Jefferson types who favored very limited government, and the Federalist types who favored a strong central government., showing up in the debate over the building and manning of the US Navy for the defense of our trade. “Six Frigates”, by Ian Toll, traces the back and forth of US Policy that consecutively enabled and then starved the infant navy built to defend American national interests. Jefferson (typically) sponsored the idea of building gunboats in each port that would be manned by volunteers. It was a cheap and simple solution tailored to the early American ideal. It was also a complete flop when tested in actual defense of the harbors and towns. Later, President Jefferson sent the same frigates he had formerly opposed to the Mediterranean to deal with Islamic terrorists and marauders. They were eminently successful.
His “volunteer” force concept was proven to be wrong in the area of defending American interests in the dangerous arena of Maritime policy and national defense, yet in many other areas, his notions of freemen taking care of their own business has become the hallmark of what we used to mean when we said “Americanism.”
The first quarter of the nineteenth century, as witnessed by Alexis Tocqueville in his landmark book "Democracy in America" was marked by American volunteerism in the daily lives of the citizens. It could be fairly said that Jefferson and those who thought like him, expressed something essential about our people and how they viewed government and freedom. Government was not even on the horizon in most people's lives, rather it was Christianity and local community. Quite a contrast with today's in your face political correctness and swarms of inspectors and taxes and regulations harassing and eating out the substance of the ordinary person.
Some degree of government is necessary, and it is the duty and calling of every generation of freemen to attempt to keep the balance. In the last two or three generations I fear we have been so busy living “the good life” that we have sorely neglected that balance. We are perilously close to a point of no return in so many areas of the preservation of our Liberties.
We need a major course correction, or our “frigate” of Americanism will end up on the rocks.
Friday, November 26, 2010
The Unelected Fourth Branch
Any course in American Government will contain the description of the three branches of our system of government: the Legislative, the Executive and the Judicial. These three represent the division of power that was wisely created by the Founders, in recognition of the inherent nature of those in power to aggregate power to themselves. Thus, by dividing the power into three heads, it was a means to restrain that impulse to dominate.
Yet, because the electorate has grown distracted, it has failed to note the growth of a cancer on our government that even now threatens to destroy that division of power and to swamp all our liberties by serving a non elected interest that is funded by taxpayer dollars. I am referring to the Unions, in particular, public sector unions.
The problem might not have ever come to our attention except that the economy has collapsed like a rapidly- receding tide, exposing the few remaining institutions that are still holding their own and prospering – public sector employees most notably. Almost all sectors of our economy are suffering, except the public unions - they are prospering.
The explanation of that fact is not hard to understand when one sees that public sector unions have no competition. Their source of funds is the public treasury and in theory at least, that source cannot fail. A private sector company bankrupted by private sector unionization kills its union parasite also: they both die, thus checking the union. But who checks a public sector union?
They are funded and protected through the government, which is in turn directed by elected officials who in turn are bankrolled and supported in their campaigns by public sector union bosses. These same bosses have a stranglehold on the dues of their members, who have little or no say how their dues are spent. Thus, when the legislators, who are bought and paid for by the unions, vote for wage increases and benefit increases and long term juicy pension benefits, they are passing on the bill to the taxpayers who cannot readily deflect the higher and higher taxes imposed upon them by the public sector unions. Even more perniciously, every dollar extracted from the hapless taxpayers against their will, provides an even larger war chest for union bosses to reward or punish legislators who vote on union issues.
Even the Democrat’s favorite Democrat – Franklin Roosevelt – was against public sector unions. Yet the present day Democrat Party would disappear if it were not the party of public sector unions. What Roosevelt feared has come to pass.
It is the worst sort of incest: paid for by the taxpayers, yet out of their control through the ballot box. It is bribery at the highest levels.
I have seen the union machine in action through several election cycles – from the Democrat United Mine Workers’ machine opposing conservative political candidates in the coal fields to Florida teacher’s unions threatening and then rewarding Governor Charley Crist in the run-up to the November 2010 elections. Crist vetoed an Education reform bill that the Republican-dominated Florida legislature passed in mid-2010. He was elected as a conservative Republican, but jumped parties when it was obvious that he would not prevail in a runoff for Senator in the Republican primary against Marco Rubio. Showing his true colors, he courted the unions, thus stabbing in the back a much-needed reform of the Florida Education system that the union vigorously opposed. While his election effort eventually failed, it demonstrated how seriously public sector union support is regarded by unscrupulous politicians who are willing to sell their souls for political power.
A number of corrective measures have been proposed: term limits is one longer term solution, which I support. Rescinding (at the federal level) of the Union’s right to organize workers. President John Kennedy signed an executive order in 1962 granting such a right. That order began the ruin of the Democrat Party, converting it into a Pimp machine for political power, eroding any basis for fair handedness or principle that it had in the past.
It has been estimated that public sector pay and benefits are as much as 44% higher than that of the private sector and growing daily. There are different ways of viewing this relationship and it is worth reading more about it. It is inconceivable that our government needs to be as large as it is, and to be involved in so much regulation and intrusion. We need to take dramatic action to cut away whole swaths of the government. I suggest that the cabinet level departments of Energy, Education, Labor, Health and Human Services and TSA be eliminated, and whatever remaining functions are necessary be privatized.
Government bailouts in 2010 have largely served to protect the interests of public sector union members at the expense of the taxpayers. The auto sector interventions served to enrich the UAW enormously and defraud the actual owners, the stock holders, constituting a thinly-veiled thug-like takeover of other people’s property and a bypass of the bankruptcy laws by a Socialist government. All public bailouts are bad policy. States and governments, financial institutions and private and public organizations must be allowed to fail and restructure, just like in the real world.
Congress must take back control of the currency and cut the Federal Reserve out of all monetary policy whatsoever. The Fed is no friend of the American government, and is certainly no friend of American Free Markets. The Fed is not even a government institution. It is a concoction of the multinational banks to protect their interests. Our government should have nothing to do with it. The Constitution places the regulation of the money supply squarely in Congress’s lap, yet many protest any move to restoration of that relationship. Why would they think it proper to abdicate that responsibility to an unelected and basically unaccountable organization that has more in common with unconstitutionalists bent on Global control than our own nation’s self interest? Recent revelations of the incestuous relationship between Wall Street and the Fed ought to cause any sensible person to call for the elimination of the Fed. View this humorous short video for a short course on this phenomenon.
One law that should be passed that would require all union elections to be free and open and uncoerced. Perhaps having union elections policed by such democratic stalwarts as Russia or Somalia would be an improvement over what they have now. Union members should have a right to challenge in court the way their dues are used. Right now, members are practically mute and powerless and their dues are in many cases being used to support causes that are at radical variance with the member’s values. The Unions are legally exempt from racketeering laws (RICO) also, thus putting the leadership in a safe position to actually use racketeering to achieve their ends and bully their members. The undemocratic processes in union elections must be reformed - primarily by the membership, but they need help.
The proposed Card-Check legislation that the Reid-Pelosi-Obama axis are attempting to sneak under the noses of the American People under the radically twisted misnomer of the "Employees Free Choice Act" is an example of exactly the wrong kind of legislation that Congress is considering. The intent of this act - to strip away proposed member’s rights to vote on the unionization of their workforce - is a real tip off to the morals and motives of many in the Democrat Party who are supporting what amounts to thuggery underwritten by the Federal Government on behalf of further unchecked growth of the entire union movement. What Union leaders could never achieve on a level playing field, they propose to ram down the throat of the American public in a lame-duck session of a Congress that been repudiated at the ballot box. This is the Democrat Party in its true colors.
The danger to the Republic shows on many fronts. It is ironic that from its beginnings in the industrial revolution, starting as a movement in which the workers were just pawns in the hands of the industrialists, it has grown so much in power that it now threatens the financial and political viability of the nation that has done more than any other to recognize the right of all citizens to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Unions now want a guarantee of economic happiness at the expense of all else. They must not be allowed to succeed.
Our greatest danger is from the Unelected Fourth Branch of Government - Public Sector Unions.
Yet, because the electorate has grown distracted, it has failed to note the growth of a cancer on our government that even now threatens to destroy that division of power and to swamp all our liberties by serving a non elected interest that is funded by taxpayer dollars. I am referring to the Unions, in particular, public sector unions.
The problem might not have ever come to our attention except that the economy has collapsed like a rapidly- receding tide, exposing the few remaining institutions that are still holding their own and prospering – public sector employees most notably. Almost all sectors of our economy are suffering, except the public unions - they are prospering.
The explanation of that fact is not hard to understand when one sees that public sector unions have no competition. Their source of funds is the public treasury and in theory at least, that source cannot fail. A private sector company bankrupted by private sector unionization kills its union parasite also: they both die, thus checking the union. But who checks a public sector union?
They are funded and protected through the government, which is in turn directed by elected officials who in turn are bankrolled and supported in their campaigns by public sector union bosses. These same bosses have a stranglehold on the dues of their members, who have little or no say how their dues are spent. Thus, when the legislators, who are bought and paid for by the unions, vote for wage increases and benefit increases and long term juicy pension benefits, they are passing on the bill to the taxpayers who cannot readily deflect the higher and higher taxes imposed upon them by the public sector unions. Even more perniciously, every dollar extracted from the hapless taxpayers against their will, provides an even larger war chest for union bosses to reward or punish legislators who vote on union issues.
Even the Democrat’s favorite Democrat – Franklin Roosevelt – was against public sector unions. Yet the present day Democrat Party would disappear if it were not the party of public sector unions. What Roosevelt feared has come to pass.
It is the worst sort of incest: paid for by the taxpayers, yet out of their control through the ballot box. It is bribery at the highest levels.
I have seen the union machine in action through several election cycles – from the Democrat United Mine Workers’ machine opposing conservative political candidates in the coal fields to Florida teacher’s unions threatening and then rewarding Governor Charley Crist in the run-up to the November 2010 elections. Crist vetoed an Education reform bill that the Republican-dominated Florida legislature passed in mid-2010. He was elected as a conservative Republican, but jumped parties when it was obvious that he would not prevail in a runoff for Senator in the Republican primary against Marco Rubio. Showing his true colors, he courted the unions, thus stabbing in the back a much-needed reform of the Florida Education system that the union vigorously opposed. While his election effort eventually failed, it demonstrated how seriously public sector union support is regarded by unscrupulous politicians who are willing to sell their souls for political power.
A number of corrective measures have been proposed: term limits is one longer term solution, which I support. Rescinding (at the federal level) of the Union’s right to organize workers. President John Kennedy signed an executive order in 1962 granting such a right. That order began the ruin of the Democrat Party, converting it into a Pimp machine for political power, eroding any basis for fair handedness or principle that it had in the past.
It has been estimated that public sector pay and benefits are as much as 44% higher than that of the private sector and growing daily. There are different ways of viewing this relationship and it is worth reading more about it. It is inconceivable that our government needs to be as large as it is, and to be involved in so much regulation and intrusion. We need to take dramatic action to cut away whole swaths of the government. I suggest that the cabinet level departments of Energy, Education, Labor, Health and Human Services and TSA be eliminated, and whatever remaining functions are necessary be privatized.
Government bailouts in 2010 have largely served to protect the interests of public sector union members at the expense of the taxpayers. The auto sector interventions served to enrich the UAW enormously and defraud the actual owners, the stock holders, constituting a thinly-veiled thug-like takeover of other people’s property and a bypass of the bankruptcy laws by a Socialist government. All public bailouts are bad policy. States and governments, financial institutions and private and public organizations must be allowed to fail and restructure, just like in the real world.
Congress must take back control of the currency and cut the Federal Reserve out of all monetary policy whatsoever. The Fed is no friend of the American government, and is certainly no friend of American Free Markets. The Fed is not even a government institution. It is a concoction of the multinational banks to protect their interests. Our government should have nothing to do with it. The Constitution places the regulation of the money supply squarely in Congress’s lap, yet many protest any move to restoration of that relationship. Why would they think it proper to abdicate that responsibility to an unelected and basically unaccountable organization that has more in common with unconstitutionalists bent on Global control than our own nation’s self interest? Recent revelations of the incestuous relationship between Wall Street and the Fed ought to cause any sensible person to call for the elimination of the Fed. View this humorous short video for a short course on this phenomenon.
One law that should be passed that would require all union elections to be free and open and uncoerced. Perhaps having union elections policed by such democratic stalwarts as Russia or Somalia would be an improvement over what they have now. Union members should have a right to challenge in court the way their dues are used. Right now, members are practically mute and powerless and their dues are in many cases being used to support causes that are at radical variance with the member’s values. The Unions are legally exempt from racketeering laws (RICO) also, thus putting the leadership in a safe position to actually use racketeering to achieve their ends and bully their members. The undemocratic processes in union elections must be reformed - primarily by the membership, but they need help.
The proposed Card-Check legislation that the Reid-Pelosi-Obama axis are attempting to sneak under the noses of the American People under the radically twisted misnomer of the "Employees Free Choice Act" is an example of exactly the wrong kind of legislation that Congress is considering. The intent of this act - to strip away proposed member’s rights to vote on the unionization of their workforce - is a real tip off to the morals and motives of many in the Democrat Party who are supporting what amounts to thuggery underwritten by the Federal Government on behalf of further unchecked growth of the entire union movement. What Union leaders could never achieve on a level playing field, they propose to ram down the throat of the American public in a lame-duck session of a Congress that been repudiated at the ballot box. This is the Democrat Party in its true colors.
The danger to the Republic shows on many fronts. It is ironic that from its beginnings in the industrial revolution, starting as a movement in which the workers were just pawns in the hands of the industrialists, it has grown so much in power that it now threatens the financial and political viability of the nation that has done more than any other to recognize the right of all citizens to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Unions now want a guarantee of economic happiness at the expense of all else. They must not be allowed to succeed.
Our greatest danger is from the Unelected Fourth Branch of Government - Public Sector Unions.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
The Great Christmas Boil Over
The Holiday Season is in full cry on TV. The Hallmark channel, obviously lacking seasonal movies that have any substance actually related to Christmas, are airing numerous touchy-feely films that clearly have the intention of being "seasonal" without being in any clear way connected with the Christ of Christmas.
Granted that the Season, as it is called, has been in the process of a stove top boil over for a long time. You know what a boil-over is, the pot of spaghetti or some other food frothing up and then boiling over, spilling its contents all over the stove top. What started as a considerable volume of water and food is frothed out and spent.
Same with the Christmas Story to our post-Christian culture. The once-vibrant testimony of a season of remembering that God sent his Only Begotten Son into the world to save the world - and that Jesus came as a baby into a humble family - in a not-ostentatious way into a hard, uncaring but oh-so-needy world - that story seems to have not only been back-benched, but completely taken off the menu of choices.
Rather, a number of spin off themes has emerged: Santa Claus, for instance. First, he was a figure based on a real person who did Christ like deeds at the winter season, showing charity and gift giving behavior. As a reminder of Jesus, who is the ultimate Prototype of such selfless behavior and attitude, the original Santa was not bad. That character quickly morphed into the miracle-working, magical Santa of today who has elves and a magical sleigh and a gift bag that can contain innumerable gifts to children who have been "good" all year. The modern Santa also has god-like powers and the ability to do powerful things for those he favors. "Miracle on 34th street" is an early example of the revisionist theme in the Santa genre. The last scene of the movie makes that point not so subtly.
Take the music for another instance. Up to the late eighties or early nineties, real hymns of Christmas were heard throughout the stores or on the radio and TV in the run up to Christmas Day, but the hard-eyed purveyors of political correctness and "diversity" have frightened most store owners into banning such songs as "Joy to the World" or "God rest ye merry gentlemen." Instead we are regaled with tunes of "Frosty the Snowman" another bit of boil over froth, and "Rudolph the Red-nosed reindeer" and the multiple threads of froth that came from that fictional character.
There is the Grinch also: "The Grinch that stole Christmas." I am sure that a re-make of this old film would jettison the word Christmas if it could find a way to say the same thing without honoring Christ in the word itself. In any case, Whoville had a tree with gifts - another bit of froth - but no real mention of Christ or His birth. The Christ-hating world is even willing to use the general emotions of the Season, but hijack them and attach them to anything but the birth of the Son of God.
Perhaps the idea is: if we can spawn enough froth, the real contents of the pot can be discarded along with the froth that has covered the stove top. Everyone knows the froth is spurious, immaterial, imaginary, so perhaps it all is.
I know there is a growing segment of the culture that is plainly uncomfortable with the story of a Christ Child. They are uncomfortable for the same reason they don't like being reminded that the story of Easter is the story of Resurrection - which reminds them of the claims of a Christ who died for the sins of the whole world on a historical cross. A universal savior smacks of a universal damnation, and that is where the Christ story "quits preaching and goes to meddlin'" in many people's minds.
Emotions without a basis are really what the Atheists charge to the Christians. They believe - or try mightily to convince themselves - that the real Christmas Story - like the boil off from the story - is mythical. Most certainly the boil off is pure mythology, but the real Christmas Story - that is entirely factual, and historical.
Which is kind of tough on the unbelievers. They cannot rest easy in their beds, no matter how much they ignore or morph the story. Even killing the Christians and trying to burn or expunge their words won't work, because that which is true is written on their hearts by the God Who is There.
Let us who know HIM, continue on in faithful witness to the truth of His Word. A wonderful event happened two thousand years ago - in fulfilment of his ages-old promise to send a Savior and Redeemer - God sent his Only Begotten Son into the world, to save His people from their sins. He succeeded in that, for He is God. It is up to us to publish that truth to our generation, and to remain faithful to its message of true hope to a lost and dying world.
Granted that the Season, as it is called, has been in the process of a stove top boil over for a long time. You know what a boil-over is, the pot of spaghetti or some other food frothing up and then boiling over, spilling its contents all over the stove top. What started as a considerable volume of water and food is frothed out and spent.
Same with the Christmas Story to our post-Christian culture. The once-vibrant testimony of a season of remembering that God sent his Only Begotten Son into the world to save the world - and that Jesus came as a baby into a humble family - in a not-ostentatious way into a hard, uncaring but oh-so-needy world - that story seems to have not only been back-benched, but completely taken off the menu of choices.
Rather, a number of spin off themes has emerged: Santa Claus, for instance. First, he was a figure based on a real person who did Christ like deeds at the winter season, showing charity and gift giving behavior. As a reminder of Jesus, who is the ultimate Prototype of such selfless behavior and attitude, the original Santa was not bad. That character quickly morphed into the miracle-working, magical Santa of today who has elves and a magical sleigh and a gift bag that can contain innumerable gifts to children who have been "good" all year. The modern Santa also has god-like powers and the ability to do powerful things for those he favors. "Miracle on 34th street" is an early example of the revisionist theme in the Santa genre. The last scene of the movie makes that point not so subtly.
Take the music for another instance. Up to the late eighties or early nineties, real hymns of Christmas were heard throughout the stores or on the radio and TV in the run up to Christmas Day, but the hard-eyed purveyors of political correctness and "diversity" have frightened most store owners into banning such songs as "Joy to the World" or "God rest ye merry gentlemen." Instead we are regaled with tunes of "Frosty the Snowman" another bit of boil over froth, and "Rudolph the Red-nosed reindeer" and the multiple threads of froth that came from that fictional character.
There is the Grinch also: "The Grinch that stole Christmas." I am sure that a re-make of this old film would jettison the word Christmas if it could find a way to say the same thing without honoring Christ in the word itself. In any case, Whoville had a tree with gifts - another bit of froth - but no real mention of Christ or His birth. The Christ-hating world is even willing to use the general emotions of the Season, but hijack them and attach them to anything but the birth of the Son of God.
Perhaps the idea is: if we can spawn enough froth, the real contents of the pot can be discarded along with the froth that has covered the stove top. Everyone knows the froth is spurious, immaterial, imaginary, so perhaps it all is.
I know there is a growing segment of the culture that is plainly uncomfortable with the story of a Christ Child. They are uncomfortable for the same reason they don't like being reminded that the story of Easter is the story of Resurrection - which reminds them of the claims of a Christ who died for the sins of the whole world on a historical cross. A universal savior smacks of a universal damnation, and that is where the Christ story "quits preaching and goes to meddlin'" in many people's minds.
Emotions without a basis are really what the Atheists charge to the Christians. They believe - or try mightily to convince themselves - that the real Christmas Story - like the boil off from the story - is mythical. Most certainly the boil off is pure mythology, but the real Christmas Story - that is entirely factual, and historical.
Which is kind of tough on the unbelievers. They cannot rest easy in their beds, no matter how much they ignore or morph the story. Even killing the Christians and trying to burn or expunge their words won't work, because that which is true is written on their hearts by the God Who is There.
Let us who know HIM, continue on in faithful witness to the truth of His Word. A wonderful event happened two thousand years ago - in fulfilment of his ages-old promise to send a Savior and Redeemer - God sent his Only Begotten Son into the world, to save His people from their sins. He succeeded in that, for He is God. It is up to us to publish that truth to our generation, and to remain faithful to its message of true hope to a lost and dying world.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
A Well-deserved McCollum Defeat
Once in a while I get to hug myself in glee. Last night's primary election results gave me one of those rare opportunities. Rick Scott defeated Bill McCollum to run for the Florida governorship in November under the Republican banner.
This has been the dirtiest campaign that I have ever seen, and his conservative claims notwithstanding, McCollum proved himself to be an underhanded dirty trickster of the worst sort. Beyond McCollum's very poor ethical performance, many of the establishment Republicans in the Florida Republican Party publicly supported McCollum - something they should not have done.
It was also distressing to see such a herd mentality at work among other national "conservative" voices such as Newt Gingrich, Dick Morris, Foxnews, Newsmax...the list reads like a roster of good guys. Knowing what I know of the McCollum campaign, I can only imagine that they, being at some distance from it, were not able to see what was really going on. I don't like the thought that they would throw principle overboard to support a corrupt career pol who is their pick. Such short-sighted behavior is what ruins political parties.
Normally, I associate the "conservative" logo as meaning that one's behavior is grounded in Godly moral principles, but I am at a loss to discover how McCollum could have garnered such support from so many people without someone blowing the whistle on what he was actually up to.
One staunch Republican friend in Palm Beach county blew the whistle on the unethical behavior by many in the state Republican party who were urging support for McCollum in their official capacity as representatives - insiders in the Party apparatus. No one would deny any person the right to privately support any candidate of their choosing, but to speak on behalf of one of the primary candidates when one occupies a postion in the State Party - and to make it known they are speaking in their official capacity - that goes beyond good ethical behavior. Some of them have quibbled that they did nothing wrong, but the donation of millions of Republican Party dollars to the McCollum primary campaign against Scott is clearly a betrayal of the Party's primary process and an open indication that the Florida Republican establishment is picking winners. Doing that in a party primary is both foolish and wrong.
Fortunately for the people of Florida (and the nation) their plans were derailed by voters who decided they did not like the underhanded campaign McCollum ran, nor the prospects of living under a governorship of such a man.
One can only hope that those same voters don't decide that they need to jettison the Party that so publicly polluted the primary.
I am sure that the right man won. It remains to be seen whether he can deal effectively with the disgruntled Republican pols who might form a barrier to his gubernatorial campaign and inadvertently hand the election to the Democrats. For them to refuse to cooperate with Scott because he is profoundly an "outsider" would, in my opinion, be suicidal for the Republican Party. It would solidify the suspicion in many people's minds that our basic civic problem is career pols who care more for their own things than the things of the people they purport to serve.
Of course it also depends on Scott's leadership skills. The gubernatorial race is now in his hands, and at this point he could presume to hold a lead going into the November elections. How he handles his public persona, and the issues, and the recently-beaten Florida Republican establishment will show us the mettle of the man. My support is with him. We need many more outsiders in our political system to reverse the decades of damage done by the career pols.
This has been the dirtiest campaign that I have ever seen, and his conservative claims notwithstanding, McCollum proved himself to be an underhanded dirty trickster of the worst sort. Beyond McCollum's very poor ethical performance, many of the establishment Republicans in the Florida Republican Party publicly supported McCollum - something they should not have done.
It was also distressing to see such a herd mentality at work among other national "conservative" voices such as Newt Gingrich, Dick Morris, Foxnews, Newsmax...the list reads like a roster of good guys. Knowing what I know of the McCollum campaign, I can only imagine that they, being at some distance from it, were not able to see what was really going on. I don't like the thought that they would throw principle overboard to support a corrupt career pol who is their pick. Such short-sighted behavior is what ruins political parties.
Normally, I associate the "conservative" logo as meaning that one's behavior is grounded in Godly moral principles, but I am at a loss to discover how McCollum could have garnered such support from so many people without someone blowing the whistle on what he was actually up to.
One staunch Republican friend in Palm Beach county blew the whistle on the unethical behavior by many in the state Republican party who were urging support for McCollum in their official capacity as representatives - insiders in the Party apparatus. No one would deny any person the right to privately support any candidate of their choosing, but to speak on behalf of one of the primary candidates when one occupies a postion in the State Party - and to make it known they are speaking in their official capacity - that goes beyond good ethical behavior. Some of them have quibbled that they did nothing wrong, but the donation of millions of Republican Party dollars to the McCollum primary campaign against Scott is clearly a betrayal of the Party's primary process and an open indication that the Florida Republican establishment is picking winners. Doing that in a party primary is both foolish and wrong.
Fortunately for the people of Florida (and the nation) their plans were derailed by voters who decided they did not like the underhanded campaign McCollum ran, nor the prospects of living under a governorship of such a man.
One can only hope that those same voters don't decide that they need to jettison the Party that so publicly polluted the primary.
I am sure that the right man won. It remains to be seen whether he can deal effectively with the disgruntled Republican pols who might form a barrier to his gubernatorial campaign and inadvertently hand the election to the Democrats. For them to refuse to cooperate with Scott because he is profoundly an "outsider" would, in my opinion, be suicidal for the Republican Party. It would solidify the suspicion in many people's minds that our basic civic problem is career pols who care more for their own things than the things of the people they purport to serve.
Of course it also depends on Scott's leadership skills. The gubernatorial race is now in his hands, and at this point he could presume to hold a lead going into the November elections. How he handles his public persona, and the issues, and the recently-beaten Florida Republican establishment will show us the mettle of the man. My support is with him. We need many more outsiders in our political system to reverse the decades of damage done by the career pols.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Scott vs McCollum Race in Fla. - A Friend's Commentary
A man I have grown to respect more and more as I got to know him wrote this email blast. There are other well-reasoned and well-documented thoughts he has shared recently, but I felt his words needed repeating. (His comments are in quotes at the end of this article.)
We are coming down to the wire in this Primary for Governor in Fla. I have observed that all the national Republican voices (Gingrich, Hannity, NewsMax -who recently received a visit from perhaps their new hero Bill Clinton) and the usual suspects.) have gotten on the McCollum bandwagon. Normally, I would have been glad about that, but something is not right about how this primary campaign has been waged by the McCollum people and other supporters. The career pols have circled their wagons and are vigorously attempting to exclude someone not of their career politician group from the governorship.
Often I will get behind someone I know something about, but this time I have learned more than perhaps I wanted to know about McCollum. I now regard him as the dirtiest pol in Florida, even dirtier than Charley Crist, and that is saying something. This primary campaign has solidified my attitude against the State and National Republican party, and some of the so-called conservative voices nationally who have thrown their support behind McCollum. FoxNews has also unwittingly been featuring McCollum, and not Scott at all (to my knowledge). The McCollum campaign has been run on an agenda of dirty tricks and innuendo, using Florida Republican Party funds - in a PRIMARY race. My friend points out that unseemly support from a group who takes party contributions from all Republicans and is not supposed to get involved in backing one primary candidate over another. That is an unforgivable betrayal of those who contributed to that fund.
I think on that point alone they have probably broken their trust with the party loyalists who have hitherto supported it. They Florida Republican Party leadership need to be held to account.
Unfortunately, this is a hard lesson, regardless of which way the race goes. Never trust a career politician, nor the party of career politicians that feed off of the continued election of these types. We have been betrayed on several levels already, and it might mean some more years of betrayal politics in Fla until the business of the state can be set right again.
Here are the comments from George Blumel, my friend whom I trust.
Title of the email: "Win or lose, we must learn this lesson..."
"The lesson here is never give money to the Republican Party directly –it can and will be used against you and your choices. Maybe you like their choice this time but next time they’ll give to the other guy. They have their own agenda. That applies to the RNC, The NRSC, the NRCC and your State Party, in Florida, the RPOF. In Florida’s primary race for governor, Rick Scott, the clean-government, self-financing outsider, is being vilified by the leadership and they are interfering with the primary election in favor of their career politician.
It takes more than money to win an election but at least Scott is spending his own money. "McCollum has raised just $7.7 million in hard money — but benefited from $3.9 million in help from the state Republican Party (RPOF) and another $9 million in special-interest money from Walt Disney, U.S. Sugar, Florida Power & Light, Publix Supermarkets and other companies, used to buy ads. In total, McCollum and his corporate backers hurled $21 million into his primary." That quote from the Orlando Sentinel doesn't even mention the taxpayer money McCollum has taken directly from the State. The special interests are buying their candidate as usual, but the big contributor that bothers me the most is the $millions from the RPOF. This is money contributed by Repubs for promoting the party and our candidates in the general election, NOT for taking sides in the Primary! OUTRAGEOUS!
The lesson here is NEVER CONTRIBUTE TO THE PARTY --these are the professional political establishment types that have given us corruption and bad government. They are scared to death that an outsider successful businessman will run the State efficiently with regard to taxes, regulations and even-handedness which largely leaves them out of their control. They lose their clout, their perks, their favors, their "importance."
Give to the candidate you favor directly or the funds will be used against your choice for the benefit of the insiders and business as usual. Jim Greer, Charlie Crist and the other crooks in our party have done that and continue to do it. Scott is our one chance to reverse that trend here in Florida –McCollum will happily continue his lifelong feeding at the government trough as he honors not his oath but his commitments to those who put him in office –Sugar, Disney, the utilities he is supposed to regulate, and all the others. "
All I can say is "Amen."
We are coming down to the wire in this Primary for Governor in Fla. I have observed that all the national Republican voices (Gingrich, Hannity, NewsMax -who recently received a visit from perhaps their new hero Bill Clinton) and the usual suspects.) have gotten on the McCollum bandwagon. Normally, I would have been glad about that, but something is not right about how this primary campaign has been waged by the McCollum people and other supporters. The career pols have circled their wagons and are vigorously attempting to exclude someone not of their career politician group from the governorship.
Often I will get behind someone I know something about, but this time I have learned more than perhaps I wanted to know about McCollum. I now regard him as the dirtiest pol in Florida, even dirtier than Charley Crist, and that is saying something. This primary campaign has solidified my attitude against the State and National Republican party, and some of the so-called conservative voices nationally who have thrown their support behind McCollum. FoxNews has also unwittingly been featuring McCollum, and not Scott at all (to my knowledge). The McCollum campaign has been run on an agenda of dirty tricks and innuendo, using Florida Republican Party funds - in a PRIMARY race. My friend points out that unseemly support from a group who takes party contributions from all Republicans and is not supposed to get involved in backing one primary candidate over another. That is an unforgivable betrayal of those who contributed to that fund.
I think on that point alone they have probably broken their trust with the party loyalists who have hitherto supported it. They Florida Republican Party leadership need to be held to account.
Unfortunately, this is a hard lesson, regardless of which way the race goes. Never trust a career politician, nor the party of career politicians that feed off of the continued election of these types. We have been betrayed on several levels already, and it might mean some more years of betrayal politics in Fla until the business of the state can be set right again.
Here are the comments from George Blumel, my friend whom I trust.
Title of the email: "Win or lose, we must learn this lesson..."
"The lesson here is never give money to the Republican Party directly –it can and will be used against you and your choices. Maybe you like their choice this time but next time they’ll give to the other guy. They have their own agenda. That applies to the RNC, The NRSC, the NRCC and your State Party, in Florida, the RPOF. In Florida’s primary race for governor, Rick Scott, the clean-government, self-financing outsider, is being vilified by the leadership and they are interfering with the primary election in favor of their career politician.
It takes more than money to win an election but at least Scott is spending his own money. "McCollum has raised just $7.7 million in hard money — but benefited from $3.9 million in help from the state Republican Party (RPOF) and another $9 million in special-interest money from Walt Disney, U.S. Sugar, Florida Power & Light, Publix Supermarkets and other companies, used to buy ads. In total, McCollum and his corporate backers hurled $21 million into his primary." That quote from the Orlando Sentinel doesn't even mention the taxpayer money McCollum has taken directly from the State. The special interests are buying their candidate as usual, but the big contributor that bothers me the most is the $millions from the RPOF. This is money contributed by Repubs for promoting the party and our candidates in the general election, NOT for taking sides in the Primary! OUTRAGEOUS!
The lesson here is NEVER CONTRIBUTE TO THE PARTY --these are the professional political establishment types that have given us corruption and bad government. They are scared to death that an outsider successful businessman will run the State efficiently with regard to taxes, regulations and even-handedness which largely leaves them out of their control. They lose their clout, their perks, their favors, their "importance."
Give to the candidate you favor directly or the funds will be used against your choice for the benefit of the insiders and business as usual. Jim Greer, Charlie Crist and the other crooks in our party have done that and continue to do it. Scott is our one chance to reverse that trend here in Florida –McCollum will happily continue his lifelong feeding at the government trough as he honors not his oath but his commitments to those who put him in office –Sugar, Disney, the utilities he is supposed to regulate, and all the others. "
All I can say is "Amen."
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Theodore Roosevelt's ideas on immigrants and being an AMERICAN in 1907.
In the midst of all the furor regarding illegal aliens stealing across our borders to reap the benefits of an overly indulgent American people, this quote strikes a attitude that is both fundamentally correct and sensible, but also practically unutterable in today's culture of anti-Americanism emanating from the White House.
Interestingly, one ought to read it with Muslims in mind - especially in the light of the furor over the attempt to place a victory mosque at ground zero
Read:
"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
Theodore Roosevelt 1907
In applying the previous sentiment to most Muslims either immigrating to the US or born here, it becomes painfully apparent that many of the more literal Muslims do not assimilate. The ones wanting to build a ground zero mosque certainly don't want to. Their aim is to denigrate our liberties and the basis of our liberties - the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible, and substitute a foreign deity, allah, who is no friend to liberty or kindness.
If Muslims inhabited the early America, there never, never, never would have been a United States of America. Islam spawns thuggery and oppression, not Liberty, especially when it reaches critical mass, as it is doing in France and the Netherlands and other European countries. We will in our own lifetimes witness the takeover of those countries and the complete elimination of what we call Western Democracy.
That cannot be allowed to happen here. Radical Islam is more than a religious idea, it is an oil-financed Jihad bent on destroying and assimilating - like the Borg - the entire world. It has made remarkable progress and has already enlisted many in its cause, most notably, Barack Hussein Obama.
But the struggle is basically about worldviews, and the worldviews in contention are the Judeo-Christian worldview based on the reality of Biblical truth, and Islam, a sixth-century amalgam of militarism and thuggery wrapped in religious garb and enforced by fear and force. The two systems are mutually incompatible.
One of the founders, Samuel Adams, was of the opinion that Muslims could not faithfully discharge the duties of public office in America because they did not accept the core beliefs that established our nation. He was correct.
Interestingly, one ought to read it with Muslims in mind - especially in the light of the furor over the attempt to place a victory mosque at ground zero
Read:
"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
Theodore Roosevelt 1907
In applying the previous sentiment to most Muslims either immigrating to the US or born here, it becomes painfully apparent that many of the more literal Muslims do not assimilate. The ones wanting to build a ground zero mosque certainly don't want to. Their aim is to denigrate our liberties and the basis of our liberties - the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible, and substitute a foreign deity, allah, who is no friend to liberty or kindness.
If Muslims inhabited the early America, there never, never, never would have been a United States of America. Islam spawns thuggery and oppression, not Liberty, especially when it reaches critical mass, as it is doing in France and the Netherlands and other European countries. We will in our own lifetimes witness the takeover of those countries and the complete elimination of what we call Western Democracy.
That cannot be allowed to happen here. Radical Islam is more than a religious idea, it is an oil-financed Jihad bent on destroying and assimilating - like the Borg - the entire world. It has made remarkable progress and has already enlisted many in its cause, most notably, Barack Hussein Obama.
But the struggle is basically about worldviews, and the worldviews in contention are the Judeo-Christian worldview based on the reality of Biblical truth, and Islam, a sixth-century amalgam of militarism and thuggery wrapped in religious garb and enforced by fear and force. The two systems are mutually incompatible.
One of the founders, Samuel Adams, was of the opinion that Muslims could not faithfully discharge the duties of public office in America because they did not accept the core beliefs that established our nation. He was correct.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Sinister Politics and the Gulf Oil Spill
The actions of the Obama regime don't fit the pattern of an American administration bent on growing the economy or preventing loss of jobs or income for millions of Americans affected by the oil leak. In fact, as I think we can demonstrate, the regime's actions are at direct odds with sensible and obvious strategies to achieve those goals.
Of course, they are not saying it that way. If you would believe their rhetoric, you would think that Obama himself and his whole regime is personally committed to stopping the leak and remediating the effects of the spill. But what has he and his minions in the Federal government agencies actually done? You have to stop your ears - shut off the sound - and just watch their actions:
They have obstructed the use of non-US firms and effective technology from being employed in the cleanup and the staunching of the leak.
They have banned fishing or harvesting in a huge area of the Gulf, thus killing any chance of finding healthy fishery grounds.
They have refused to let the States affected by the oil take any actions to dam or buttress the shoreline from the oil coming ashore, absurdly citing environmental concerns.
They have taken charge of the Oil spill cleanup but then obstructed the cleanup by withholding critically-needed vessels and devices on flimsy pretexts.
They have refused to let the news media close enough to see what is going on in the Gulf by declaring the whole area off limits to over flights or surface vessel reconnoitering with reporters on board.
They have refused to allow the use of oil dispersant, then reluctantly agreed, but only after long delays, and "investigations" to assure the environment was not going to be "harmed".
They have contributed to a welfare-mentality by strong-arming BP to put up a "down payment" of $20Bil to be passed out as a bonanza to practically anyone claiming damage. The claims won't be limited to actual damage - but consequential damage, which is impossible to determine with any certainty. It is already turning into a free-for all, with even churches claiming damages due to "lost contributions."
The Obama department of Justice issued a six-month "moratorium" on new drilling, effectively shutting down all oil exploration in the Gulf. After being slapped back into their corner by a Federal District Judge for rule-making without merit, they scurried around to re-issue the moratorium in a revised form. Their actions are putting the economies of all the Gulf Coast States in jeopardy due to the over the top action by the regime.
They have appointed a commission, ostensibly to "study" the oil spill "accident" and make recommendations to prevent a future occurrence. The commission is packed with environmentalists (who haven't a clue as to how to prevent another blowout - except to stop all offshore oil exploration.), but contains no one from the oil industry, who just might have a word or two of guidance concerning how to prevent another disaster. But perhaps that is the plan without it being stated: hurt the Oil drilling industry. The commission will likely take its entire six months and then declare they need more time, thus providing an excuse to extend the moratorium even further - and thus extending the agony of the US Gulf oil industry. Such a moratorium for such a misguided reason is criminally absurd.
The entire affair is a case study in deliberate delay, covering up sinister motives.
One thing is certain: this regime is not acting like they really care about the main goals of the nation: to get the economy going again, to prevent more job losses, to reduce government obligations, to reduce regulatory barriers to business, and to come up with a practical and expeditious plan to stop the oil spill and heal its attendant environmental issues.
But do not imagine that Obama is without a plan. The idea that he is incompetent is a non-starter. He has had plenty of good advice and there is no lack of talent to deal with the real problems of the Gulf. It is just that he turns a deaf ear to practical solutions and instead implements rules that achieve the opposite effect.
There is only one explanation that fits all we know: he does not want the economy to recover. He wants it to fail, but to do so in a way that his regime can both blame the energy sector (or the sector du-jour that is next in the pillory) and to enact draconian measures to put it firmly under the hand of his ruling junta. All in the name of "preventing another disaster." Rahm Emanuel famously said: "Never waste a good crisis." Obama is certainly not wasting this one.
Just like the Depression of the 1930's, this economic disaster is the product of, and is being prolonged and deepened by, the Federal government's interference in the US economy. The present ruling junta regard the free enterprise system as the problem, and are seeking to subjugate it - if not outright stamp it out. Perhaps they view it like a milk-cow of benefits they can siphon off and use to reward their welfare constituencies. Socialist Progressives to a man, they cannot wait to get a tighter grip on the companies that have successfully met the needs of this country in the past - and those of the rest of the world - and subjugate them to their control.
So in a perverse kind of way, the Obama regime is acting in perfect sync with their philosophy - except that they have not been speaking publicly in full candor about what those goals actually are.
Were it not that the media - with a certain few foxy exceptions - is totally controlled and serving this regime, this strange behavior of saying one thing and doing another would have been in the headlines, and the topic at every dinner table. The silence of the media is thundering in our ears. Why no protest? Why is no one connecting the dots?
But we are a people who have experienced liberty. We won't submit to slavery - or oppression. A hard knot of us won't. Maybe the regime will end up with all the control and weapons, and we will be silenced; but they will not be able to hold the lid on forever. They will eventually fall like the old Soviet Empire. Even without Reagan, it would have collapsed under the weight of its own colossal human failure: it was a regime without a heart.
Obama's regime has no heart either. No government with a heart would issue an order snuffing out the livelihoods of millions of oil drilling workers just to stop a hypothetical oil spill from occurring again. Only an ideologue could do that - a radical one; one who believes that the goal of Socialism is worth the lives of innumerable people. Josef Stalin starved millions of Ukrainians when he took their crops and sold them to obtain foreign exchange. He called it "collectivization," but it was confiscation of the food and produce of a thrifty people - and a heartless murder. We are being led by a heartless murderer today also.
Despite all Obama's finger wagging and denials that Federally-funded abortion was in Obamacare, even obtaining the votes of the "moral" Blue Dog Democrats by signing a worthless executive order forbidding Federal funding for abortions - despite all that, the Federal government just authorized $160 million in funding
for abortions in the State of Pennsylvania. In order to achieve the goal of Obamacare, he heartlessly lied about this and so many other issues.
His political and ideological ends will justify any means. And therefore his present actions versus his words in regard to the Oil Spill events so perfectly fit this pattern. He will trash our economy, our liberties, our traditions, and our country, to achieve his Marxist goals.
But we the people have not forgotten Liberty; we have not forgotten our birthright; we have not forgotten that our rights to live free of government oppression is not something granted to us by a government but by the Living God who will hold anyone or any government accountable for trampling those rights.
This regime is doomed.
Of course, they are not saying it that way. If you would believe their rhetoric, you would think that Obama himself and his whole regime is personally committed to stopping the leak and remediating the effects of the spill. But what has he and his minions in the Federal government agencies actually done? You have to stop your ears - shut off the sound - and just watch their actions:
They have obstructed the use of non-US firms and effective technology from being employed in the cleanup and the staunching of the leak.
They have banned fishing or harvesting in a huge area of the Gulf, thus killing any chance of finding healthy fishery grounds.
They have refused to let the States affected by the oil take any actions to dam or buttress the shoreline from the oil coming ashore, absurdly citing environmental concerns.
They have taken charge of the Oil spill cleanup but then obstructed the cleanup by withholding critically-needed vessels and devices on flimsy pretexts.
They have refused to let the news media close enough to see what is going on in the Gulf by declaring the whole area off limits to over flights or surface vessel reconnoitering with reporters on board.
They have refused to allow the use of oil dispersant, then reluctantly agreed, but only after long delays, and "investigations" to assure the environment was not going to be "harmed".
They have contributed to a welfare-mentality by strong-arming BP to put up a "down payment" of $20Bil to be passed out as a bonanza to practically anyone claiming damage. The claims won't be limited to actual damage - but consequential damage, which is impossible to determine with any certainty. It is already turning into a free-for all, with even churches claiming damages due to "lost contributions."
The Obama department of Justice issued a six-month "moratorium" on new drilling, effectively shutting down all oil exploration in the Gulf. After being slapped back into their corner by a Federal District Judge for rule-making without merit, they scurried around to re-issue the moratorium in a revised form. Their actions are putting the economies of all the Gulf Coast States in jeopardy due to the over the top action by the regime.
They have appointed a commission, ostensibly to "study" the oil spill "accident" and make recommendations to prevent a future occurrence. The commission is packed with environmentalists (who haven't a clue as to how to prevent another blowout - except to stop all offshore oil exploration.), but contains no one from the oil industry, who just might have a word or two of guidance concerning how to prevent another disaster. But perhaps that is the plan without it being stated: hurt the Oil drilling industry. The commission will likely take its entire six months and then declare they need more time, thus providing an excuse to extend the moratorium even further - and thus extending the agony of the US Gulf oil industry. Such a moratorium for such a misguided reason is criminally absurd.
The entire affair is a case study in deliberate delay, covering up sinister motives.
One thing is certain: this regime is not acting like they really care about the main goals of the nation: to get the economy going again, to prevent more job losses, to reduce government obligations, to reduce regulatory barriers to business, and to come up with a practical and expeditious plan to stop the oil spill and heal its attendant environmental issues.
But do not imagine that Obama is without a plan. The idea that he is incompetent is a non-starter. He has had plenty of good advice and there is no lack of talent to deal with the real problems of the Gulf. It is just that he turns a deaf ear to practical solutions and instead implements rules that achieve the opposite effect.
There is only one explanation that fits all we know: he does not want the economy to recover. He wants it to fail, but to do so in a way that his regime can both blame the energy sector (or the sector du-jour that is next in the pillory) and to enact draconian measures to put it firmly under the hand of his ruling junta. All in the name of "preventing another disaster." Rahm Emanuel famously said: "Never waste a good crisis." Obama is certainly not wasting this one.
Just like the Depression of the 1930's, this economic disaster is the product of, and is being prolonged and deepened by, the Federal government's interference in the US economy. The present ruling junta regard the free enterprise system as the problem, and are seeking to subjugate it - if not outright stamp it out. Perhaps they view it like a milk-cow of benefits they can siphon off and use to reward their welfare constituencies. Socialist Progressives to a man, they cannot wait to get a tighter grip on the companies that have successfully met the needs of this country in the past - and those of the rest of the world - and subjugate them to their control.
So in a perverse kind of way, the Obama regime is acting in perfect sync with their philosophy - except that they have not been speaking publicly in full candor about what those goals actually are.
Were it not that the media - with a certain few foxy exceptions - is totally controlled and serving this regime, this strange behavior of saying one thing and doing another would have been in the headlines, and the topic at every dinner table. The silence of the media is thundering in our ears. Why no protest? Why is no one connecting the dots?
But we are a people who have experienced liberty. We won't submit to slavery - or oppression. A hard knot of us won't. Maybe the regime will end up with all the control and weapons, and we will be silenced; but they will not be able to hold the lid on forever. They will eventually fall like the old Soviet Empire. Even without Reagan, it would have collapsed under the weight of its own colossal human failure: it was a regime without a heart.
Obama's regime has no heart either. No government with a heart would issue an order snuffing out the livelihoods of millions of oil drilling workers just to stop a hypothetical oil spill from occurring again. Only an ideologue could do that - a radical one; one who believes that the goal of Socialism is worth the lives of innumerable people. Josef Stalin starved millions of Ukrainians when he took their crops and sold them to obtain foreign exchange. He called it "collectivization," but it was confiscation of the food and produce of a thrifty people - and a heartless murder. We are being led by a heartless murderer today also.
Despite all Obama's finger wagging and denials that Federally-funded abortion was in Obamacare, even obtaining the votes of the "moral" Blue Dog Democrats by signing a worthless executive order forbidding Federal funding for abortions - despite all that, the Federal government just authorized $160 million in funding
for abortions in the State of Pennsylvania. In order to achieve the goal of Obamacare, he heartlessly lied about this and so many other issues.
His political and ideological ends will justify any means. And therefore his present actions versus his words in regard to the Oil Spill events so perfectly fit this pattern. He will trash our economy, our liberties, our traditions, and our country, to achieve his Marxist goals.
But we the people have not forgotten Liberty; we have not forgotten our birthright; we have not forgotten that our rights to live free of government oppression is not something granted to us by a government but by the Living God who will hold anyone or any government accountable for trampling those rights.
This regime is doomed.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
The Next Reichstag Fire?
Glen Beck, that ever-thinking voice of conservatism, just opined that the stage may be set for an "emergency" event, involving "civil disorder" that will give Obama the pretext of suspending the Constitution and taking over the country. His latest book, "The Overton Window" is themed around that idea.
Frankly, I think he is dead right.
I am already of the opinion that the Gulf Oil spill initiated by an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon, was probably sabotage. I base that opinion on the extremely convenient timing of the event, and how well it has played into Obama's hands. It could not have been contrived more perfectly to harm the Energy Industry. The political damage he has sustained during Federal obstructionism, inaction and dithering since the oil spill occurred is quickly wiped out if he manages to take over the country. It won't matter then at all. There will be no effective opposition.
Regarding who is helping him, I cannot imagine a more sinister gang of thugs that could have been gathered to help him do it than those he has already put in place as "czars" and heads of bureaus and departments. Eric Holder has already shown himself to be a defender of this administration, not at all interested in genuine law-breaking, but only in targetting those who oppose or embarass this regime.
Historians still debate whether the Nazis set the Reichstag fire, or it was the actions of the communists. It certainly occurred at a very convenient time for Hitler to grab power and suspend the old Weimar Republic. I think we are on the cusp of that time again.
Consider that Obama is likely to suffer servere damage in the Mid-term elections in November. His own party might even rebel against him although I don't see many signs of that yet. Yet he does not seem to be very concerned. Maybe I am reading too much into his demeanor, but he might just have a joker up his sleeve.
I know that Rahm Emanuel famously joked that "one should never waste a good crisis", which could have been a good quote from every dictator's playbook. Of course the Alinsky gang believe not only in using events as they occur, but also creating them to make things happen the way you want.
Read Glen Becks' interview about the Overton Window to see some more detail on this theory. I sincerely hope it will turn out to be just a theory. The USA as a dictatorship is an awful thing to ponder. Imagine Drone aircraft patrolling troubled (read WASP) neighborhoods for signs of unrest.
Frankly, I think he is dead right.
I am already of the opinion that the Gulf Oil spill initiated by an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon, was probably sabotage. I base that opinion on the extremely convenient timing of the event, and how well it has played into Obama's hands. It could not have been contrived more perfectly to harm the Energy Industry. The political damage he has sustained during Federal obstructionism, inaction and dithering since the oil spill occurred is quickly wiped out if he manages to take over the country. It won't matter then at all. There will be no effective opposition.
Regarding who is helping him, I cannot imagine a more sinister gang of thugs that could have been gathered to help him do it than those he has already put in place as "czars" and heads of bureaus and departments. Eric Holder has already shown himself to be a defender of this administration, not at all interested in genuine law-breaking, but only in targetting those who oppose or embarass this regime.
Historians still debate whether the Nazis set the Reichstag fire, or it was the actions of the communists. It certainly occurred at a very convenient time for Hitler to grab power and suspend the old Weimar Republic. I think we are on the cusp of that time again.
Consider that Obama is likely to suffer servere damage in the Mid-term elections in November. His own party might even rebel against him although I don't see many signs of that yet. Yet he does not seem to be very concerned. Maybe I am reading too much into his demeanor, but he might just have a joker up his sleeve.
I know that Rahm Emanuel famously joked that "one should never waste a good crisis", which could have been a good quote from every dictator's playbook. Of course the Alinsky gang believe not only in using events as they occur, but also creating them to make things happen the way you want.
Read Glen Becks' interview about the Overton Window to see some more detail on this theory. I sincerely hope it will turn out to be just a theory. The USA as a dictatorship is an awful thing to ponder. Imagine Drone aircraft patrolling troubled (read WASP) neighborhoods for signs of unrest.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Getting McChrystal All Wrong
The media, both Liberal and Conservative, have taken the position that General McChrystal made a big mistake in letting Rolling Stone interview him and his staff, resulting in a series of criticisms of the Obama administration and its chief oversight personnel regarding the Afghan war that were particularly embarassing to the administration. The published comments, few of which are directly attributable to McChrystal himself, have caused an uproar in political circles. Almost the entire media establishment has charged McChrystal with bad judgment to even agree to the series of "in country" inteviews, or to make - or allow his staff to make - unguarded comments about the civilian oversight.
I believe the whole interview affair, intended by Rolling Stone as a sly hit job against McChrystal and the entire war effort (which they carried off to perfection) was in fact planned by McChrystal and his aids as a very powerful criticism of the Obama administration and its subversion of the US war effort.
If my premise is correct, instead of the General being rolled by the Stone, the Liberal Rolling Stone was used as a tool by the General to stir a debate about the deliberate losing of the war effort by the Obama administration. In its glee at an opportunity to hurt the military, Rolling Stone might have unwittingly dealt a very powerful blow against the entire Liberal establishment and Obama's credibility in particular.
I think the General should be congratulated.
He is not a fool, nor unwitting to the potential consequences of inviting anti-war rag Rolling Stone into his inner councils. The first - huge - mistake is to so misjudge this man. No, I believe he knew exactly what he was doing, and it was a form of policy insubordination, but done very subtly.
He probably understood that it would perfectly fit the negative concept news anchors have of the military to assume that he and his staff are just a bunch of credulous, unsophisticated klutzes when it comes to PR, kind of like General Patton during WW2. The Rolling Stone people certainly would think that way about the military. And news anchors, by and large, are not known as deep thinkers either, nor apparently capable of imagining this being done deliberately and craftily. Even FoxNews, normally a bit more perspicatious about events making news, missed this one.
Think about it: what would you, a real patriot, do if you were forced to fight a counter insurgent group who knew you would be out of there next year sometime? That makes all your efforts null and void. You become a convenient target, but nothing more. The insurgents have already won: all they have to do is sit back and wait you out. Therefore every American death is totally wasted because the outcome is predetermined by the traitor in the White House.
If I were a commander who took my responsibility seriously - as a sacred mission to accomplish the nation's goals while shepherding my men's lives, not treating them like pawns in some kind of political game but as comrades and buddies - I would be furious at Obama's sellout of the military and his subversion of the very idea of winning.
What would you do to prevent the betrayal of the troops whom you loved and who would do anything for you? Would you march yourself and the rest of your command over the side of a cliff for such an one as Obama? When we have a Manchurian Candidate in the White House, it is insane to think that we owe a usurper any obedience and loyalty. To many minds, acknowledging Obama as commander in chief of the military is equivalent to appointing Jack the Ripper as head doctor over an abused women's recovery ward.
Nothing will change unless Obama gets backed into a corner by circumstances - public opinion - energized by the perception that he and his home-team are betraying America's interests, and a solid view that the administration is proven to be held in deep contempt by practically the entire military establishment, and especially his hand-picked army-guy in Afghanistan.
What better way to do that than though the pen of one of the publications that loathes the US Military? And done in such a way that it appears to be a mistake in judgment by the top military people to disclose their real feelings? That might change the rules enough to save the war effort, or derail Obama and his strategy of surrender.
As long as McChrystal played by the rule book, the troops will continue to lose, the Nation will lose, and our strategic interests will lose. So he had to go outside the rule book.
Douglas MacArthur did it with Truman, and for arguably similar reasons. The only difference is that McChrystal might actually succeed in changing policy, whereas MacArthur did not.
Contrary to all the cluck-clucking about "bad judgment," I think that he acted with deep wisdom, even managing to extricate himself from political and military oversight so as to be able to become an advocate for America's true interests. He certainly could not do that as the commanding General in Afghanistan.
The sacking of a Theater commander is a big deal. It makes a lot of ripples and causes people to think about the reasons for the war, and the wisdom of the political leadership. McChrystal did not choose the path of direct insubordination that MacArthur did; he was more subtle about it, and thus, he might have served the best interests of his troops and his country far more effectively than any direct assault on Obama might have done.
I am betting that we have not heard the last of McChrystal on the war effort and the Obama administration.
I believe the whole interview affair, intended by Rolling Stone as a sly hit job against McChrystal and the entire war effort (which they carried off to perfection) was in fact planned by McChrystal and his aids as a very powerful criticism of the Obama administration and its subversion of the US war effort.
If my premise is correct, instead of the General being rolled by the Stone, the Liberal Rolling Stone was used as a tool by the General to stir a debate about the deliberate losing of the war effort by the Obama administration. In its glee at an opportunity to hurt the military, Rolling Stone might have unwittingly dealt a very powerful blow against the entire Liberal establishment and Obama's credibility in particular.
I think the General should be congratulated.
He is not a fool, nor unwitting to the potential consequences of inviting anti-war rag Rolling Stone into his inner councils. The first - huge - mistake is to so misjudge this man. No, I believe he knew exactly what he was doing, and it was a form of policy insubordination, but done very subtly.
He probably understood that it would perfectly fit the negative concept news anchors have of the military to assume that he and his staff are just a bunch of credulous, unsophisticated klutzes when it comes to PR, kind of like General Patton during WW2. The Rolling Stone people certainly would think that way about the military. And news anchors, by and large, are not known as deep thinkers either, nor apparently capable of imagining this being done deliberately and craftily. Even FoxNews, normally a bit more perspicatious about events making news, missed this one.
Think about it: what would you, a real patriot, do if you were forced to fight a counter insurgent group who knew you would be out of there next year sometime? That makes all your efforts null and void. You become a convenient target, but nothing more. The insurgents have already won: all they have to do is sit back and wait you out. Therefore every American death is totally wasted because the outcome is predetermined by the traitor in the White House.
If I were a commander who took my responsibility seriously - as a sacred mission to accomplish the nation's goals while shepherding my men's lives, not treating them like pawns in some kind of political game but as comrades and buddies - I would be furious at Obama's sellout of the military and his subversion of the very idea of winning.
What would you do to prevent the betrayal of the troops whom you loved and who would do anything for you? Would you march yourself and the rest of your command over the side of a cliff for such an one as Obama? When we have a Manchurian Candidate in the White House, it is insane to think that we owe a usurper any obedience and loyalty. To many minds, acknowledging Obama as commander in chief of the military is equivalent to appointing Jack the Ripper as head doctor over an abused women's recovery ward.
Nothing will change unless Obama gets backed into a corner by circumstances - public opinion - energized by the perception that he and his home-team are betraying America's interests, and a solid view that the administration is proven to be held in deep contempt by practically the entire military establishment, and especially his hand-picked army-guy in Afghanistan.
What better way to do that than though the pen of one of the publications that loathes the US Military? And done in such a way that it appears to be a mistake in judgment by the top military people to disclose their real feelings? That might change the rules enough to save the war effort, or derail Obama and his strategy of surrender.
As long as McChrystal played by the rule book, the troops will continue to lose, the Nation will lose, and our strategic interests will lose. So he had to go outside the rule book.
Douglas MacArthur did it with Truman, and for arguably similar reasons. The only difference is that McChrystal might actually succeed in changing policy, whereas MacArthur did not.
Contrary to all the cluck-clucking about "bad judgment," I think that he acted with deep wisdom, even managing to extricate himself from political and military oversight so as to be able to become an advocate for America's true interests. He certainly could not do that as the commanding General in Afghanistan.
The sacking of a Theater commander is a big deal. It makes a lot of ripples and causes people to think about the reasons for the war, and the wisdom of the political leadership. McChrystal did not choose the path of direct insubordination that MacArthur did; he was more subtle about it, and thus, he might have served the best interests of his troops and his country far more effectively than any direct assault on Obama might have done.
I am betting that we have not heard the last of McChrystal on the war effort and the Obama administration.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
"Anchor Babies" and Automatic Citizenship - Is it really Constitutional?
I have recently been drawn into a very interesting and informative discussion on the question of whether the "anchor baby" phenomenon is in fact a loophole in the U.S. Constitution, or a mistake created by a flawed or possibly artificially contrived understanding of the text of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
To be sure, the plain language of the Amendment seems to be pretty clear: that is, until one begins to read it carefully and to question one of the less-than-obvious phrases which is typically passed over in discussions of the applicability of the amendment to foreigners' children born here.
Here is a partial text of the Amendment:
"Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "
The first phrase would seem to be a slam dunk for the "anchor crowd" - "All person born" would seem to take in even illegals. But the catch is in the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," The "subject to" phrase is an integral part of the sentence and cannot be parsed out as applying to another context. Therefore the phrase "all persons born" must be understood in the context of the modifying phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." A foreigner (and his or her children born) is not "subject to the jurisdiction of "the United States" in the sense of the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore is excluded from the application of this Amendment.
I would argue that the language of the Amendment is easy to misunderstand at this point because it is not obvious what the jurisdiction phrase refers to. After all, aren't all persons who are physically in the territory of the United States, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" whether they are citizens or not? In one sense that is true. If they commit a crime, they will be tried because they violated the laws of the U.S. and will be tried under the jurisdiction of the government. However, taking the phrase in that way robs it of any meaningful application: it is then entirely unnecessary to the understanding of the sentence. However, its true meaning if found in understanding the context of the ratifying debate in the Senate, and specifically with reference to the words of the author of this phrase in the Amendment.
To quote a commentator in the posts following the article cited above from The East Valley Tribune: "who would know the meaning better than the person that wrote the amendment? Senator Jacob M. Howard.
During Reconstruction Howard participated in debate over the intent of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, arguing for including the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
Howard said "[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person." 1868
Clearly, in the historical context of the day, following the Civil War, the Amendment was crafted to correct the basic text of the US Constitution which gave blacks only partial representation and a questionable status as citizens. This Amendment sought to settle the issue of the citizenship of blacks once and for all. And it did so effectively.
But it created another issue due to the poor phrasing, or rather the later practice of ignoring the exact text of the Amendment and its originally stated intent. The author of that portion of the amendment makes that intent very clear. He says the meaning of the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means that only parents who are already citizens can give birth to children who automatically become citizens. He plainly meant to exclude all others.
Under the existing text and legislative intent of the 14th Amendment, foreigners were never intended to be able to travel here in order to have their babies automatically become citizens.
The present situation in which there is some judicial precedent establishing the opposite meaning and application to illegals is unfortunate, but like many things that have grown up in the interpretation of the Constitution which can be demonstrated to have turned the meaning and intent on its head, this is another instance that needs correction.
It is worth asking when did the present interpretation that illegal foreigners' babies automatically acquire citizenship begin? Was it from the very ratification of the Amendment? That clearly is not the case. I will hazard a guess that it was an outgrowth of the late twentieth century activist Judiciary. I have not researched it, and possibly I am wrong, but my instinct tells me that it wasn't always this way. Perhaps that is a question to be answered in a subsequent article.
Again, I reiterate: foreigners should not be allowed to camp out here to have their children so as to mooch off our country. If they want to become citizens, let them go through the front door, otherwise, go home, or register on a visitor visa and follow the rules. Breaking our laws is a criminal act, and no foreigner has a presumptive "right" to American citizenship - especially if they sneak into our country with larcenous intent to defraud our American political system.
I am now convinced that the 14th amendment was never intended to create the predicate for "anchor babies". The AZ political figure (Az Senator Russell Pierce) championing that cause is right on to challenge conventional "lawyer's opinion" on that matter. I appreciate him having the courage to bring up such a sensitive matter in a state over-populated with illegals. Read up on him. He is the kind of brave citizen-legislator we need in public office.
To be sure, the plain language of the Amendment seems to be pretty clear: that is, until one begins to read it carefully and to question one of the less-than-obvious phrases which is typically passed over in discussions of the applicability of the amendment to foreigners' children born here.
Here is a partial text of the Amendment:
"Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "
The first phrase would seem to be a slam dunk for the "anchor crowd" - "All person born" would seem to take in even illegals. But the catch is in the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," The "subject to" phrase is an integral part of the sentence and cannot be parsed out as applying to another context. Therefore the phrase "all persons born" must be understood in the context of the modifying phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." A foreigner (and his or her children born) is not "subject to the jurisdiction of "the United States" in the sense of the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore is excluded from the application of this Amendment.
I would argue that the language of the Amendment is easy to misunderstand at this point because it is not obvious what the jurisdiction phrase refers to. After all, aren't all persons who are physically in the territory of the United States, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" whether they are citizens or not? In one sense that is true. If they commit a crime, they will be tried because they violated the laws of the U.S. and will be tried under the jurisdiction of the government. However, taking the phrase in that way robs it of any meaningful application: it is then entirely unnecessary to the understanding of the sentence. However, its true meaning if found in understanding the context of the ratifying debate in the Senate, and specifically with reference to the words of the author of this phrase in the Amendment.
To quote a commentator in the posts following the article cited above from The East Valley Tribune: "who would know the meaning better than the person that wrote the amendment? Senator Jacob M. Howard.
During Reconstruction Howard participated in debate over the intent of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, arguing for including the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
Howard said "[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person." 1868
Clearly, in the historical context of the day, following the Civil War, the Amendment was crafted to correct the basic text of the US Constitution which gave blacks only partial representation and a questionable status as citizens. This Amendment sought to settle the issue of the citizenship of blacks once and for all. And it did so effectively.
But it created another issue due to the poor phrasing, or rather the later practice of ignoring the exact text of the Amendment and its originally stated intent. The author of that portion of the amendment makes that intent very clear. He says the meaning of the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means that only parents who are already citizens can give birth to children who automatically become citizens. He plainly meant to exclude all others.
Under the existing text and legislative intent of the 14th Amendment, foreigners were never intended to be able to travel here in order to have their babies automatically become citizens.
The present situation in which there is some judicial precedent establishing the opposite meaning and application to illegals is unfortunate, but like many things that have grown up in the interpretation of the Constitution which can be demonstrated to have turned the meaning and intent on its head, this is another instance that needs correction.
It is worth asking when did the present interpretation that illegal foreigners' babies automatically acquire citizenship begin? Was it from the very ratification of the Amendment? That clearly is not the case. I will hazard a guess that it was an outgrowth of the late twentieth century activist Judiciary. I have not researched it, and possibly I am wrong, but my instinct tells me that it wasn't always this way. Perhaps that is a question to be answered in a subsequent article.
Again, I reiterate: foreigners should not be allowed to camp out here to have their children so as to mooch off our country. If they want to become citizens, let them go through the front door, otherwise, go home, or register on a visitor visa and follow the rules. Breaking our laws is a criminal act, and no foreigner has a presumptive "right" to American citizenship - especially if they sneak into our country with larcenous intent to defraud our American political system.
I am now convinced that the 14th amendment was never intended to create the predicate for "anchor babies". The AZ political figure (Az Senator Russell Pierce) championing that cause is right on to challenge conventional "lawyer's opinion" on that matter. I appreciate him having the courage to bring up such a sensitive matter in a state over-populated with illegals. Read up on him. He is the kind of brave citizen-legislator we need in public office.
Friday, June 18, 2010
'Shakedown' remark causes uproar - Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com
'Shakedown' remark causes uproar - Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com
Another uproar in Congress over a truthful, but politically-incorrect remark made in absolute candor, and even indignation by a senior Republican Representative. The uproar has been remarkable.
What is really remarkable about this "uproar" is the failure of will or imagination of even seasoned Congressional Republicans to take this pass in for a touchdown, instead of fumbling the ball and helping the Democrats run it back toward their own goal. The hapless Republicans jumped on the Democrat bankwagon in denouncing Joe Barton's (R-Tex) remarks opening the BP congressional hearing on 6/16/2010. He charged the White House with a "shakedown" of BP for 20 $Billion to create a political "slush fund."
Right on, Joe. I could not have said it better myself.
But the hapless Republican leadership, never able to execute deftly, continue to drop it give the ball back into the hands of the quick-thinking Demagogues who portray themselves as the saviors of the common people in the Gulf oil spill. They are emphatically not the saviors of anyone but their own partisan power-seeking interests.
Consider: if the government really wanted to do something constructive about the oil spill, they would immediately remove the government environmental restrictions on the cleanup. They would immediately exempt foreign vessels and companies from participating in the oil cleanup. They would immediately get out of the way of the States' efforts to conduct their own cleanups as they see fit in their own waters and shores which they know far better than any government bureaucrat stuck in his desk chair in Washington, DC. And as the final act of the Obamites - repeal any moratorium on the exploration and drilling in the Gulf.
That one act alone will destroy the oil industry in the Gulf, perhaps permanently, and wreck the economies of the Gulf States, especially the oil producing ones. I am surprised that no one has thought of this consequence yet, but a six month moratorium might as well be a six year moratorium. The oil exploration rigs that are operating there now will not sit idle for six months: they will migrate to where oil exploration is still going on - off the west coast of South America, for instance, in the new Soros-influenced oil fields bankrolled by US taxpayers. Production will ramp up there, benefitting the Chinese (and Soros) rather than the US taxpayers. To discover how this all makes more sense than mere speculation, just connect the dots.
But these hearings are just another tired, sad, debacle - covering up and distracting from the main issue, which is the government's gross ineptitude (or could we call it criminal mischief and high crimes and misdemeanors?) demonstrated during this event. The Federal government ought to be the big story rather than BP.
I am persuaded that the oil spill is probably an orchestrated event, the explosion being the result of sabotage of the oil rig - possibly done under deep cover by some agents of the Soros-Obama axis. The timing is just too exquisitely convenient for Obama, and the spinning of the event just too handy in playing into the hands of this regime, intent on controlling every aspect of the US economy and turning our country into some version of Cuba or Venezuela. I have written on this in my blog previously.
I am glad Joe said what he said. I am saddened by the inept way the Republicans handled this matter. It is so typical of them. I call them the "Charley Brown Republicans" after the way the comic strip character Charley Brown is incessantly snookered by his friend Lucy when she pulls the football out of the way as he runs to kick it. He always ends up on his back, as she shakes her head in disbelief at his naiveté in never being on guard against her tactics. She gets him every time. So do the Democrats get the Republicans every time. It makes me wonder whether there really ought to be a third party of quick-thinking and conservative Americans (I don't classify the Democratic Party any more as "American") to truly represent the best interests of our citizens.
Joe Barton just said what everybody was thinking. Good for Him. Bad that no one had the courage to "amen" what he said and rejoin the debate, taking it to the Democrats and corrupt Obama Regime.
Another uproar in Congress over a truthful, but politically-incorrect remark made in absolute candor, and even indignation by a senior Republican Representative. The uproar has been remarkable.
What is really remarkable about this "uproar" is the failure of will or imagination of even seasoned Congressional Republicans to take this pass in for a touchdown, instead of fumbling the ball and helping the Democrats run it back toward their own goal. The hapless Republicans jumped on the Democrat bankwagon in denouncing Joe Barton's (R-Tex) remarks opening the BP congressional hearing on 6/16/2010. He charged the White House with a "shakedown" of BP for 20 $Billion to create a political "slush fund."
Right on, Joe. I could not have said it better myself.
But the hapless Republican leadership, never able to execute deftly, continue to drop it give the ball back into the hands of the quick-thinking Demagogues who portray themselves as the saviors of the common people in the Gulf oil spill. They are emphatically not the saviors of anyone but their own partisan power-seeking interests.
Consider: if the government really wanted to do something constructive about the oil spill, they would immediately remove the government environmental restrictions on the cleanup. They would immediately exempt foreign vessels and companies from participating in the oil cleanup. They would immediately get out of the way of the States' efforts to conduct their own cleanups as they see fit in their own waters and shores which they know far better than any government bureaucrat stuck in his desk chair in Washington, DC. And as the final act of the Obamites - repeal any moratorium on the exploration and drilling in the Gulf.
That one act alone will destroy the oil industry in the Gulf, perhaps permanently, and wreck the economies of the Gulf States, especially the oil producing ones. I am surprised that no one has thought of this consequence yet, but a six month moratorium might as well be a six year moratorium. The oil exploration rigs that are operating there now will not sit idle for six months: they will migrate to where oil exploration is still going on - off the west coast of South America, for instance, in the new Soros-influenced oil fields bankrolled by US taxpayers. Production will ramp up there, benefitting the Chinese (and Soros) rather than the US taxpayers. To discover how this all makes more sense than mere speculation, just connect the dots.
But these hearings are just another tired, sad, debacle - covering up and distracting from the main issue, which is the government's gross ineptitude (or could we call it criminal mischief and high crimes and misdemeanors?) demonstrated during this event. The Federal government ought to be the big story rather than BP.
I am persuaded that the oil spill is probably an orchestrated event, the explosion being the result of sabotage of the oil rig - possibly done under deep cover by some agents of the Soros-Obama axis. The timing is just too exquisitely convenient for Obama, and the spinning of the event just too handy in playing into the hands of this regime, intent on controlling every aspect of the US economy and turning our country into some version of Cuba or Venezuela. I have written on this in my blog previously.
I am glad Joe said what he said. I am saddened by the inept way the Republicans handled this matter. It is so typical of them. I call them the "Charley Brown Republicans" after the way the comic strip character Charley Brown is incessantly snookered by his friend Lucy when she pulls the football out of the way as he runs to kick it. He always ends up on his back, as she shakes her head in disbelief at his naiveté in never being on guard against her tactics. She gets him every time. So do the Democrats get the Republicans every time. It makes me wonder whether there really ought to be a third party of quick-thinking and conservative Americans (I don't classify the Democratic Party any more as "American") to truly represent the best interests of our citizens.
Joe Barton just said what everybody was thinking. Good for Him. Bad that no one had the courage to "amen" what he said and rejoin the debate, taking it to the Democrats and corrupt Obama Regime.
A VAT-full of Taxes
Early in June 2010 a proposed one-cent sales tax increase for the Fire Fighters in Palm Beach County, Fl was successfully beaten back by a host of groups who saw it as bad public policy. At a time when property values have fallen more than forty percent in some cases from 2007, any talk of new taxes is not popular.
How would things have turned out if that same tax increase was done by a bureaucrat in Washington, and spread over the whole state or nation, and no one was none the wiser? Maybe we would eventually sense that things were continuing to get more and more expensive, but we couldn’t put our finger on what was going wrong. Prices on items from bubble gum to bus tickets; from gasoline to hotel rooms would continue to increase but no one would be able to identify which taxes were responsible. The politically-favored fire fighters union would be congratulating themselves, however, on another victory, while the rest of us would carry a heavier tax burden and not be able to do anything about it.
What is the VAT? It is a tax placed on a product at every level of its creation. Every sales transaction is taxed, unlike our existing sales tax system which only taxes the final sale to the consumer . With VAT, the percent of tax at each level is small, but the accumulated tax adds up to as much as twenty-five per cent overall. Compare that to our 6.5 percent sales tax in Palm Beach County, Florida.
The VAT is a kind of sales tax on steroids.
With the VAT, there never would have been a hearing with the county commissioners. It just would have become another line item in a county budget that received funds from the state and Federal government, apportioned according to some esoteric formula that was decided “on high,” far from the teeming masses of the unwashed (that’s you and me.)
The Federal Government is going to propose a VAT as a way (they say) to “balance the budget”. It will totally transform our national system of tax collection and be a god-send to the tax and spend politicians who never saw a tax increase they didn’t like – except those that embarrassed them. But in European countries, which have had the VAT for decades, there is no serious thought of balancing the budget. They always find spending that is more “necessary” than leaving money in the pockets of the producers. So they get nation-level defaults like in Greece, and Portugal, and Spain, and next, the US.
If you think this Recession has been fun, wait until they impose a VAT on the US. But we still have a chance to dodge the bullet – ask where each political candidate stands on a VAT, and if they favor cutting spending at all levels of government. If they think the answer is more taxes and spending – scratch them off your list. The money you save will be your own.
How would things have turned out if that same tax increase was done by a bureaucrat in Washington, and spread over the whole state or nation, and no one was none the wiser? Maybe we would eventually sense that things were continuing to get more and more expensive, but we couldn’t put our finger on what was going wrong. Prices on items from bubble gum to bus tickets; from gasoline to hotel rooms would continue to increase but no one would be able to identify which taxes were responsible. The politically-favored fire fighters union would be congratulating themselves, however, on another victory, while the rest of us would carry a heavier tax burden and not be able to do anything about it.
What is the VAT? It is a tax placed on a product at every level of its creation. Every sales transaction is taxed, unlike our existing sales tax system which only taxes the final sale to the consumer . With VAT, the percent of tax at each level is small, but the accumulated tax adds up to as much as twenty-five per cent overall. Compare that to our 6.5 percent sales tax in Palm Beach County, Florida.
The VAT is a kind of sales tax on steroids.
With the VAT, there never would have been a hearing with the county commissioners. It just would have become another line item in a county budget that received funds from the state and Federal government, apportioned according to some esoteric formula that was decided “on high,” far from the teeming masses of the unwashed (that’s you and me.)
The Federal Government is going to propose a VAT as a way (they say) to “balance the budget”. It will totally transform our national system of tax collection and be a god-send to the tax and spend politicians who never saw a tax increase they didn’t like – except those that embarrassed them. But in European countries, which have had the VAT for decades, there is no serious thought of balancing the budget. They always find spending that is more “necessary” than leaving money in the pockets of the producers. So they get nation-level defaults like in Greece, and Portugal, and Spain, and next, the US.
If you think this Recession has been fun, wait until they impose a VAT on the US. But we still have a chance to dodge the bullet – ask where each political candidate stands on a VAT, and if they favor cutting spending at all levels of government. If they think the answer is more taxes and spending – scratch them off your list. The money you save will be your own.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Oh, Those Beautiful Sunsets
Sunsets have a way of reminding us, sometimes by their beauty, and sometimes by their thunder and lightning, that all days come to an end.
In the midst of an ever-increasing financial burden on all levels of government, we are somewhat belatedly becoming aware that our public sector - the government employees - have somehow contrived to get themselves immunized from real world economics with state and federal laws that guarantee some very good salaries and some out of this world pension and medical plans.
Perhaps part of the reason there was not quite enough opposition to Obamacare to derail it was that the public sector employees, who now number more than private sector employees nationally, couldn't care less about that issue because they are immune from the effects of practically all economic stress - in particular healthcare stress.
At our Republican club meeting last night we were discussing with some State Senate candidates their approach to solving the public sector employee "problem" just mentioned. I made the point that the unions for the fire workers and police had the legislature conveniently vote in some regulations that establish rules for compensation and retirement which, as I said, are out of this world. Local municipalities are groaning under the weight of burdensome retirement and medical plans that are even now at the point of unsustainability and promise in just a few years to totally consume the entire budgets of some cities. California, that poster child for big government run amok, is virtually in that situation today, as is New Jersey and a number of other states. It obviously is not a local problem; it is epidemic.
In our discussion, one of the candidates who has served in the state legislature for about ten years, made the point that we cannot abrogate the pensions that we promised to workers - all state workers too - when we hired them. That statement sounded balanced and fair to me at the time. She suggested that we ought to draw a line in the sand now, though, and begin to plan and budget our way out of the dead end street we find ourselves on.
Reflecting on that statement about "promises", I began to suspect that at the time the "promises" of rich, luxurious benefits were enacted into law, there were already some people who were promising lush support for the legislators who would vote in such largesse. In other words, the promises were on the order of bribes for campaign funds. Now of course we cannot prove that, but knowing human nature, and especially the corruptibility that resides in all human hearts, including mine, I would not be surprised that I have hit the nail on the head. Campaign support from public sector unions at a certain point in time, before the benefit costs began to run away, might have seemed like a simple thing to vote for - a kind of "no-brainer", and no one was thinking of the future effects of such legislation. And after all, don't public workers, especially those involved in safety, deserve to receive good compensation and benefits?
So the "promises" made were made at best unwise, and at worse, made as a quid pro quo for some political support. Perhaps that is "politics as usual" but it is bad public policy at any time to benefit one special group at the expense of all the taxpayers.
The Police and Fire workers' unions have gotten themselves a deal that is much better than the free marketplace would pay them and they are not about to let it slip. Any candidate that is unwise enough to stand against them is sure to find him or her-self on the receiving end of a vitriolic negative campaign come re-election time. And woe unto those who are running against the unions for their first office.
But something has to give.
The liabilities are already consuming more than fifty percent of some municipal budgets, and those expenditures are non-discretionary: the cities must pay or be in legal default. Why? Because the State legislature passed a law mandating it that way.
So what is the solution? For one, the law needs to be repealed or modified so that the workers have to negotiate with the municipalities in good faith, not with the legislative gun to their heads.
The candidates' suggestion of drawing a line in the sand and curtailing further entitlements is a great idea too, and would be something that reasonable people of all party stripes could agree upon.
Also, I suggest that a general principle be adopted that all regulations - across the board - have sunset provisions embedded into them. That would cause a lot of scurrilous legislation and regulation to simply die a natural death. We all die some time; why not government laws and regulations too?
As for sun-setting special privileges and exemptions from market forces, who says that commitments made unwisely are not subject to being re-opened and examined in the light of new circumstances? When was it ever wise to vote for lush pension plans for privileged state employees? How can that ever have been good public policy?
And that is why I favor creating a good sunset on unbridled benefits to certain privileged job categories. They never should have had it so good, and those who voted for those laws did not represent the best interests of all our citizens. We all desire to see a good sunset to our fiscal problems. We just have to have the courage and wisdom to see it done.
In the midst of an ever-increasing financial burden on all levels of government, we are somewhat belatedly becoming aware that our public sector - the government employees - have somehow contrived to get themselves immunized from real world economics with state and federal laws that guarantee some very good salaries and some out of this world pension and medical plans.
Perhaps part of the reason there was not quite enough opposition to Obamacare to derail it was that the public sector employees, who now number more than private sector employees nationally, couldn't care less about that issue because they are immune from the effects of practically all economic stress - in particular healthcare stress.
At our Republican club meeting last night we were discussing with some State Senate candidates their approach to solving the public sector employee "problem" just mentioned. I made the point that the unions for the fire workers and police had the legislature conveniently vote in some regulations that establish rules for compensation and retirement which, as I said, are out of this world. Local municipalities are groaning under the weight of burdensome retirement and medical plans that are even now at the point of unsustainability and promise in just a few years to totally consume the entire budgets of some cities. California, that poster child for big government run amok, is virtually in that situation today, as is New Jersey and a number of other states. It obviously is not a local problem; it is epidemic.
In our discussion, one of the candidates who has served in the state legislature for about ten years, made the point that we cannot abrogate the pensions that we promised to workers - all state workers too - when we hired them. That statement sounded balanced and fair to me at the time. She suggested that we ought to draw a line in the sand now, though, and begin to plan and budget our way out of the dead end street we find ourselves on.
Reflecting on that statement about "promises", I began to suspect that at the time the "promises" of rich, luxurious benefits were enacted into law, there were already some people who were promising lush support for the legislators who would vote in such largesse. In other words, the promises were on the order of bribes for campaign funds. Now of course we cannot prove that, but knowing human nature, and especially the corruptibility that resides in all human hearts, including mine, I would not be surprised that I have hit the nail on the head. Campaign support from public sector unions at a certain point in time, before the benefit costs began to run away, might have seemed like a simple thing to vote for - a kind of "no-brainer", and no one was thinking of the future effects of such legislation. And after all, don't public workers, especially those involved in safety, deserve to receive good compensation and benefits?
So the "promises" made were made at best unwise, and at worse, made as a quid pro quo for some political support. Perhaps that is "politics as usual" but it is bad public policy at any time to benefit one special group at the expense of all the taxpayers.
The Police and Fire workers' unions have gotten themselves a deal that is much better than the free marketplace would pay them and they are not about to let it slip. Any candidate that is unwise enough to stand against them is sure to find him or her-self on the receiving end of a vitriolic negative campaign come re-election time. And woe unto those who are running against the unions for their first office.
But something has to give.
The liabilities are already consuming more than fifty percent of some municipal budgets, and those expenditures are non-discretionary: the cities must pay or be in legal default. Why? Because the State legislature passed a law mandating it that way.
So what is the solution? For one, the law needs to be repealed or modified so that the workers have to negotiate with the municipalities in good faith, not with the legislative gun to their heads.
The candidates' suggestion of drawing a line in the sand and curtailing further entitlements is a great idea too, and would be something that reasonable people of all party stripes could agree upon.
Also, I suggest that a general principle be adopted that all regulations - across the board - have sunset provisions embedded into them. That would cause a lot of scurrilous legislation and regulation to simply die a natural death. We all die some time; why not government laws and regulations too?
As for sun-setting special privileges and exemptions from market forces, who says that commitments made unwisely are not subject to being re-opened and examined in the light of new circumstances? When was it ever wise to vote for lush pension plans for privileged state employees? How can that ever have been good public policy?
And that is why I favor creating a good sunset on unbridled benefits to certain privileged job categories. They never should have had it so good, and those who voted for those laws did not represent the best interests of all our citizens. We all desire to see a good sunset to our fiscal problems. We just have to have the courage and wisdom to see it done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)