Throughout this great country there are a thousand different ways to serve tea. In Boston, they serve it either hot or cold with a twist of cranberry, and in Texas it is served brewed by the sun and with a half of bag of refined sugar. Anywhere you go you can find a refreshing embibement made with Great Britain's national beverage. However, not everyone was enthused by the direction a group of concerned citizens decided to serve their T.E.A.
On April 15, 2009 over 750,000 Americans joined together under the title of a "T.E.A. party", and protested the tax and spend policies of the United States Government. Unlike what is being reported by the main stream media, both parties were the subject of the protester's ire. Ordinary Americans gathered with their fellow citizens, and with one voice demanded to be heard. How much more American can you get? Yet, those in both parties, embarrassed by the message behind the T.E.A. Parties, have lashed out at these patriots and have demeaned them every chance they get.
They have attacked the genuineness of the tea parties by claiming that they were organized by the GOP, and that these were anything but spontaneous. Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi called the "Astro-turf" representing that the Tea Parties were fake grassroots movements. If there was real organization, sponsored by the GOP, then why were there so many signs expressing frustration with the GOP? These protests were the real deal!
I was loosely part of the organization of the San Antonio T.E.A. Party, where Glenn Beck help orchestrate the entertainment, but the organization was completely grassroots. The people there were so paranoid of the appearance of not being grassroots, that anyone affiliated with a party or organization was kept at arms length. I know I was one of them. I did not attend because of financial reasons, but I did attend the Fort Worth T.E.A. Party.
The FW party was sponsored by the Tarrant County GOP, and going into it I thought I was going to a pep rally for the GOP; however, I was greatly surprised. Yes, Governor Perry and Rep. Joe Barton (TX-6) came and spoke, but neither of them talked about the GOP. They discussed Conservative principles, and rallied the crowd around these principles. The FW T.E.A. Party was a great experience!
Those on the left and right, who wish to disparage American citizens who speak out against them do themselves a disservice. They reveal their elitist and statist tendencies, and set themselves up to be taken out of the debate. They reveal through their vitriol and consternation that they support government that hinders freedom. They show that their ambition for greater power takes precedence over the will of the people. They also show their fear, that should this movement take root and spread, that they may be out of a job. I'm glad their scared, because scared people do two things: 1. Listen or 2. Make a mistake that takes them out of the equation.
The sentiments of April 15, 2009 are not a fleeting craze! Come November 2010, we may choose to demonstrate this by making a few changes of our own at the ballot box. Those in power or the media, who wish to ridicule and cast us aside, I believe, do so at their own risk.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Friday, April 10, 2009
Where Have All the Cowboys Gone?
As a young man in Texas, you grow up with icons like Wyatt Earp, The Texas Rangers, Col. William Barret Travis (Commander of the Alamo) and David Crockett. You learn what it means to stand up when no one else will, and look adversity in the eye knowing full well it could lead to your death. You're taught that being a Texan means having the courage of your convictions and standing up for them. Sure, some who are raised in Texas have a more metropolitan upbringing, where your taught that compromise is the way, and that your convictions are fine as long as they don't cost you anything. Thank God, I was raised away from this thinking and taught what it meant to have real courage, by a man who knew what courage was. That being said, I can't say this for the current crop of would be GOP leaders, Governors Mike Sanford (S.C.), Bobby Jindal (L.A.), and Sarah Palin(Alaska) (not a man, but courage respects no sex).
Today in an article in the Politico, we find out that Gov. Sandford, Gov. Jindal and Gov. Palin have all backed away from their stance that they will not take any federal stimulus funds. All three have submitted letters to the federal government asking to be eligible for federal aid. This is a complete 180 degree turn from their stalwart positions made a few months ago. What happened?
The answer: All three have claimed that it is the stiff political pressure from home that has led them to acquiesce to the demands of the political powers that be. Notice it is the political powers that be, and not the people of their state that they are giving into. In other words, it is becoming to politically difficult for them to stand up for their convictions!
The people of their great states demand that they be men and women of action, and to also be men and women of their word. If these individuals hope to run for the highest office in the land, the American people expect the same, and yet, when given a chance to show real leadership they took the most politically expedient way out. This kind of cowardice reminds me of a story all Texan youths are told.
On the twenty-third day of February 1836, Col. William Barrett Travis was faced with a predicament. His troops and the troops of Col Jim Bowie's militia saw the force that Mexican General Santa Anna amassed around the small mission, the Alamo (where Travis and Bowie agreed to fortify themselves), and the Texas troops begin to formulate plans to run. Col. Travis sensing this revolt in the ranks assembles the troops for an announcement in the main yard.
There Col. Travis begins to inform those who have gathered of the worthiness of their cause, and what it means to fight for freedom and to be free. He then informs those who wish to leave that they will not be charged with desertion and are free to go, but he makes one last bold move to get them to join him. Col. Travis draws is sword and cuts a line in the sand before him and asks "Who will join me? Who will join me for Texas?" Not everyone stayed but many did, and thirteen days later they were all dead and the Alamo was lost. However, their bravery became the battle cry for Texas Independence, and became the motivation that led to the successful fight for freedom.
We need more men today like Col. Travis. Yes, he was indebted dandy from South Carolina - hint, hint Gov. Sandford- who took more time designing his uniform than training his troops, but when the time came for him to stand for what he knew was right, he was not afraid and he led his troops valiantly. This gallantry should be ingrained in the leader the GOP chooses to be its standard bearer in 2012. Otherwise, we deserve the scorn that the American people hurl at us, and we do not deserve to have a Republican occupy the White House. America deserves a real leader, not a political hack.
I am proud of my State's heritage, and I am even more proud that my family is now a part of that heritage through my wife. I will now be able to raise my children with these stories, and they will no longer be in the abstract, because the blood of Davey Crockett will flow through their veins. They will now have an ancestral model in which to measure their actions.
On April 15th, all across this great country there will be mini-Alamoes taking place in the form of "Tea Parties". I recommend that you join me and your fellow Americans in their demands that Washington listen. Step across the figurative line in the sand, and join me in standing up for what we believe in, even if our leadership will not!
Today in an article in the Politico, we find out that Gov. Sandford, Gov. Jindal and Gov. Palin have all backed away from their stance that they will not take any federal stimulus funds. All three have submitted letters to the federal government asking to be eligible for federal aid. This is a complete 180 degree turn from their stalwart positions made a few months ago. What happened?
The answer: All three have claimed that it is the stiff political pressure from home that has led them to acquiesce to the demands of the political powers that be. Notice it is the political powers that be, and not the people of their state that they are giving into. In other words, it is becoming to politically difficult for them to stand up for their convictions!
The people of their great states demand that they be men and women of action, and to also be men and women of their word. If these individuals hope to run for the highest office in the land, the American people expect the same, and yet, when given a chance to show real leadership they took the most politically expedient way out. This kind of cowardice reminds me of a story all Texan youths are told.
On the twenty-third day of February 1836, Col. William Barrett Travis was faced with a predicament. His troops and the troops of Col Jim Bowie's militia saw the force that Mexican General Santa Anna amassed around the small mission, the Alamo (where Travis and Bowie agreed to fortify themselves), and the Texas troops begin to formulate plans to run. Col. Travis sensing this revolt in the ranks assembles the troops for an announcement in the main yard.
There Col. Travis begins to inform those who have gathered of the worthiness of their cause, and what it means to fight for freedom and to be free. He then informs those who wish to leave that they will not be charged with desertion and are free to go, but he makes one last bold move to get them to join him. Col. Travis draws is sword and cuts a line in the sand before him and asks "Who will join me? Who will join me for Texas?" Not everyone stayed but many did, and thirteen days later they were all dead and the Alamo was lost. However, their bravery became the battle cry for Texas Independence, and became the motivation that led to the successful fight for freedom.
We need more men today like Col. Travis. Yes, he was indebted dandy from South Carolina - hint, hint Gov. Sandford- who took more time designing his uniform than training his troops, but when the time came for him to stand for what he knew was right, he was not afraid and he led his troops valiantly. This gallantry should be ingrained in the leader the GOP chooses to be its standard bearer in 2012. Otherwise, we deserve the scorn that the American people hurl at us, and we do not deserve to have a Republican occupy the White House. America deserves a real leader, not a political hack.
I am proud of my State's heritage, and I am even more proud that my family is now a part of that heritage through my wife. I will now be able to raise my children with these stories, and they will no longer be in the abstract, because the blood of Davey Crockett will flow through their veins. They will now have an ancestral model in which to measure their actions.
On April 15th, all across this great country there will be mini-Alamoes taking place in the form of "Tea Parties". I recommend that you join me and your fellow Americans in their demands that Washington listen. Step across the figurative line in the sand, and join me in standing up for what we believe in, even if our leadership will not!
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Game Plan #1: Taking Back the Debate
Now that the GOP seems to be gaining some momentum in the polls, and are showing some real desire to get their platform out there to the American people, it is is time to start working on strategies to take back the debate. For years we have allowed those on the left to dictate the terms of the debate. We sit back and allow the leftist or statist accuse us of any number of horrible acts simply because we disagree with their policies. We spend way to much time trying to convince the American people that we are not these horrible things. Our time would be much better spent explaining to the American people the merits of our policies, and showing them the real effects of those policies. By doing this we will effectively take back the debate.
One sure fire way that we can be sure that our message is heard, is to completely ignore the left when it goes into ad hoc attack mode. The left will call anyone who advocates reducing welfare as a racist with no heart, but they won't ever talk about the facts. Instead of taking the bait and discussing why our policies are not racist, we should ignore the accuser and continue discussing the benefits of our programs and policy. The American people will listen to the person who is offering real solutions and will ignore those hurling insults.
Mary Spaeth, Communications Aide to President Reagan and Modern Communications Guru, says that "you should never repeat a negative." If someone accuses you of something you should acknowledge the comment, with out repeating it, and then go back to your message. Mary says you should never repeat the accusation. If you do the accusation will be the only thing people will remember. Example: If someone says "you are a racist", you should never say "I am not a racist." If you do this the only thing people will remember is the word "racist'. Instead simply acknowledge their remark by saying, "my opponent through their accusation is simply trying to distract from the truth of the matter, and that is that we need welfare reform." Now the people will remember that "welfare reform" is the "truth". By taking the wind out of their accusation you take back the debate.
The left is not afraid of hurling irrational accusations at the rational policy proposals that our side will propose. They are not afraid of attacking you personally instead debating the merits of the issue. To our opponents, personal attacks and accusations are how you debate, and by trying to refute these accusations and defending ourselves against these attacks we lower ourselves and the level of debate in this country. This is what the American public are finding harder and harder to swallow, and why more and more Americans are getting frustrated with their government. The best way to show how the GOP is different from the DNC, is by raising the level of debate in this country, and by refusing to debate personal attacks by simply brushing them off and staying on message. If we do this, then we will take back the debate and force the left to actually come clean about their real motives.
One sure fire way that we can be sure that our message is heard, is to completely ignore the left when it goes into ad hoc attack mode. The left will call anyone who advocates reducing welfare as a racist with no heart, but they won't ever talk about the facts. Instead of taking the bait and discussing why our policies are not racist, we should ignore the accuser and continue discussing the benefits of our programs and policy. The American people will listen to the person who is offering real solutions and will ignore those hurling insults.
Mary Spaeth, Communications Aide to President Reagan and Modern Communications Guru, says that "you should never repeat a negative." If someone accuses you of something you should acknowledge the comment, with out repeating it, and then go back to your message. Mary says you should never repeat the accusation. If you do the accusation will be the only thing people will remember. Example: If someone says "you are a racist", you should never say "I am not a racist." If you do this the only thing people will remember is the word "racist'. Instead simply acknowledge their remark by saying, "my opponent through their accusation is simply trying to distract from the truth of the matter, and that is that we need welfare reform." Now the people will remember that "welfare reform" is the "truth". By taking the wind out of their accusation you take back the debate.
The left is not afraid of hurling irrational accusations at the rational policy proposals that our side will propose. They are not afraid of attacking you personally instead debating the merits of the issue. To our opponents, personal attacks and accusations are how you debate, and by trying to refute these accusations and defending ourselves against these attacks we lower ourselves and the level of debate in this country. This is what the American public are finding harder and harder to swallow, and why more and more Americans are getting frustrated with their government. The best way to show how the GOP is different from the DNC, is by raising the level of debate in this country, and by refusing to debate personal attacks by simply brushing them off and staying on message. If we do this, then we will take back the debate and force the left to actually come clean about their real motives.
Friday, March 13, 2009
The Game Plan: How to win the GOP can win its support back.
Sorry for the long lull in between blog posts, but I wanted to take some time and do some deep reflexion about the current state of my party and the direction I believe the Republican Party needs to go. Unfortunately, the GOP is splitting further every day into two camps: The Conservative Camp and the Moderation Camp. I believe this internal bickering is not beneficial for our party, and is moving us towards a leaderless vaccuum of indecision and confusion. This is the reason why I developed a game plan for the GOP this election cycle.
1. Take back the debate!
Stop letting the Leftists in this country frame the debate. When they do, they paint conservatives in a corner, in which the conservative spends most of their time refuting instead of talking about their solutions. If you can't shut them down in debate, do what they do to us and ignore them. Instead of refuting their claims, don't even acknowledge them, make some claims of your own, and then talk solutions. This is the only way to get your message out and take back the debate. STOP FALLING FOR THE RHETORICAL TRAPS OF THE LEFT!
2. Throw an elbow when they throw a jab!
Stop playing nice! Our opponents are shameless in their name calling and hystrionics. Don't be afraid to call a spade a spade. Look at the response towards Ari Fleischer's appearance on MSNBC's Hardball on Wednesday. Ari called Chris Matthews out on all of his hyberbolic accusations, and made Matthews acknowledge his sensationalistic twisting of the facts. It was awesome, and at the same time Ari was respectful, but he was not afraid to call Matthews out. This is what it takes. The facts and the truth on our side, start using it to throw an elbow from time to time. The American people will respect that. They want us to fight for them, not suck up to them.
3. Approach and reveal the heart in Conservatism.
Instead being completely focused on numbers and statistics in our arguments, we need to start appealing to heart of the American people. We need to celebrate the American spirit, and brag on the individual who succeeds on their own without the government being their savior. We need to champion people like Star Parker, who pulled herself out of the trap of welfare and became successful. We need to put more heart and less brain in our arguments. We need to show that conservatism puts the individual above government, and that our policies are about empowerment and not enslavement. This is the approach of every successful political talk radio host, and it is a strategy we need to adopt.
4. We need real Pro-Life policies, not wedge issues.
The GOP needs to get away from divisive issues like gay marriage and abortion, and begin to show a willingness to compromise to take back certain ground in issues like the above. We need to say that we could be fore civil unions, so long as there are protections for churches who do not wish to perform gay ceremonies. We should say that we would be willing to allow abortions for four key situations: Rape, Incest, Viability of the fetus and health of the mother. If we could get abortion limited to these four areas it would be a huge success and would show compassion towards hard situations.
That being said these issues should not be our sole focus during elections. Yes, they are great for ralling the troops, but we have to show the American people that we care about what they care about, and that is putting food on the table and gas in their car, keeping their children safe and being able to save for retirement and the future. This is what they care about, not whether Adam and Steve are wanting to tie the knot. Moral issues ARE important, but we must not be singular in our efforts, nor be portrayed as such.
5. A moderate who votes with you 80% of the time is still 20% a leftist.
Senator John Cornyn (R- TX) chairman of the Republican Senatorial Election Committee said several weeks ago that the GOP should consider recruiting more moderate candidates to run in more liberal areas in the country if we wanted to win in 2010. He said as his reasoning that he would "rather serve with a Republican who voted with him 80% of the time, than a Democrat who voted with him 0% of the time." Though his reasoning makes since, it is not what is best for the country, and THAT should be the focus of our party, not what is best for our party.
We have learned in the past that moderates will always vote against you when you need them the most, and they will always take more left leaning positions once elected. This is not what America needs. If Conservatives were better at communicating conservatism we would not have a problem getting elected in the center-right country of America. Run a conservative, but help him with message and he will get elected.
These five points are simply my opinions, and should be weighed as such. I know that I am a small time blogger with not much of a following, but I also have a few friends who could take these ideas and put them in the hands of the right people. My only hope, is that you the reader read these points, and pass them along to your friends, so that at the grassroots level we start chaging the Grand Ole Party.
1. Take back the debate!
Stop letting the Leftists in this country frame the debate. When they do, they paint conservatives in a corner, in which the conservative spends most of their time refuting instead of talking about their solutions. If you can't shut them down in debate, do what they do to us and ignore them. Instead of refuting their claims, don't even acknowledge them, make some claims of your own, and then talk solutions. This is the only way to get your message out and take back the debate. STOP FALLING FOR THE RHETORICAL TRAPS OF THE LEFT!
2. Throw an elbow when they throw a jab!
Stop playing nice! Our opponents are shameless in their name calling and hystrionics. Don't be afraid to call a spade a spade. Look at the response towards Ari Fleischer's appearance on MSNBC's Hardball on Wednesday. Ari called Chris Matthews out on all of his hyberbolic accusations, and made Matthews acknowledge his sensationalistic twisting of the facts. It was awesome, and at the same time Ari was respectful, but he was not afraid to call Matthews out. This is what it takes. The facts and the truth on our side, start using it to throw an elbow from time to time. The American people will respect that. They want us to fight for them, not suck up to them.
3. Approach and reveal the heart in Conservatism.
Instead being completely focused on numbers and statistics in our arguments, we need to start appealing to heart of the American people. We need to celebrate the American spirit, and brag on the individual who succeeds on their own without the government being their savior. We need to champion people like Star Parker, who pulled herself out of the trap of welfare and became successful. We need to put more heart and less brain in our arguments. We need to show that conservatism puts the individual above government, and that our policies are about empowerment and not enslavement. This is the approach of every successful political talk radio host, and it is a strategy we need to adopt.
4. We need real Pro-Life policies, not wedge issues.
The GOP needs to get away from divisive issues like gay marriage and abortion, and begin to show a willingness to compromise to take back certain ground in issues like the above. We need to say that we could be fore civil unions, so long as there are protections for churches who do not wish to perform gay ceremonies. We should say that we would be willing to allow abortions for four key situations: Rape, Incest, Viability of the fetus and health of the mother. If we could get abortion limited to these four areas it would be a huge success and would show compassion towards hard situations.
That being said these issues should not be our sole focus during elections. Yes, they are great for ralling the troops, but we have to show the American people that we care about what they care about, and that is putting food on the table and gas in their car, keeping their children safe and being able to save for retirement and the future. This is what they care about, not whether Adam and Steve are wanting to tie the knot. Moral issues ARE important, but we must not be singular in our efforts, nor be portrayed as such.
5. A moderate who votes with you 80% of the time is still 20% a leftist.
Senator John Cornyn (R- TX) chairman of the Republican Senatorial Election Committee said several weeks ago that the GOP should consider recruiting more moderate candidates to run in more liberal areas in the country if we wanted to win in 2010. He said as his reasoning that he would "rather serve with a Republican who voted with him 80% of the time, than a Democrat who voted with him 0% of the time." Though his reasoning makes since, it is not what is best for the country, and THAT should be the focus of our party, not what is best for our party.
We have learned in the past that moderates will always vote against you when you need them the most, and they will always take more left leaning positions once elected. This is not what America needs. If Conservatives were better at communicating conservatism we would not have a problem getting elected in the center-right country of America. Run a conservative, but help him with message and he will get elected.
These five points are simply my opinions, and should be weighed as such. I know that I am a small time blogger with not much of a following, but I also have a few friends who could take these ideas and put them in the hands of the right people. My only hope, is that you the reader read these points, and pass them along to your friends, so that at the grassroots level we start chaging the Grand Ole Party.
Monday, February 16, 2009
It's Gettin' Hot In Here...
Listening to many pundits and experts on the issue of Global Warming, one could assume that we are heading for disaster in the next fifty years if nothing is done to curb the effects. We are inundated with story after story of how humans are destroying this planet, and that it is our greed and laziness that is leading to this destruction. If only we will allow drastic governmental measures to thwart this threat, then we will all be saved. Yet, I have not seen any peer reviewed, scientific proof that there is such a thing as human caused global warming, and I am not exactly sure that there is anything we could right now to drastically thwart any warming trend if one exists. So, why all the hysteria? It makes great political theatre, and opens the door for Big Government proponents to intrude in our lives.
For example, in today's Agance France, there was an article that stipulated that if humans continue to eat hamburgers we will irrevocably destroy the earth, and contribute to global warming. Why? Because cows emit too much methane which is bad to the environment, and the more burgers we eat the more cows are needed to produce them. Really? Well, anyone whose every eaten at McDonald's knows that more cows is not necessarily what makes more burgers. (I digress) Large beasts have been on this planet much longer than humans, if you believe the evolutionists, and therefore have been emitting methane for a lot longer time. Fact is, cows have been crapping on this earth longer than us, and will probably be after us. That being said, I don't think a vegetarian diet (as suggested in the article) is what the doctor ordered. No, I think we should simply eat more cow, then we can keep the population down and have a tasty steak at the same time.
In reality, methane is actually not as harmful as the alarmist make out. Methane is a natural byproduct of decay. That means that even fallen trees emit methane, animals that die naturally in the wilderness emit methane, and rotting vegetables that go uneaten because of farm subsidies produce methane when they decay because no one bought them and consumed them. Perhaps, our friend who wrote this ill-researched paper should stop trying to control the rest of us, and focus more energy in researching his science.
On another note, the issue of global warming is a "red herring" used by individuals in the name of "altruism" to force government control on the people. In the AP today they released a story of former Astronaut Harrison Schmitt - who walked on the moon- resigning his position at The Planetary Society, a non-profit dedicated to space exploration, because they endorsed human-caused global warming. Dr. Schmitt was quoted as saying, "scientists are being intimidated if they disagree with the idea that burning fossil fuels has increased carbon dioxide levels, temperatures and sea levels." He was also quoted as saying that he believed, "global warming scare is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making."
Dr, Schmitt does not resist the claim that the climate is changing, only that it is not being propelled by human activity, and that the data actually stands behind his claim. Dr. Scmitt would be right in many cases. Global temperatures are not actually increasing, but are decreasing.
According to the leading meteorologists at the National Weather and Meteorological Society (NWMS)the average temperature for America has gone down 3 degrees fehrenheit over the last 150 years. globally, the temp has either remained constant or decreased from 1 to 3 degrees as well. According to many peer-reviewed journal pieces, the temperature on the plant has not been effected that greatly by the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. According to the NWMS, if the atmosphere was the thickness of a football field, the total carbon dioxide build up over the last 150 years (since we started using fossil fuels) would be three to five inches. According to NWMS this is not enough to cause any irreversible effects. Matter of fact if the layer of CO2 were to increase at that rate consistently it would take 1000 years to reach critical mass. I believe 1000 years would be enough time for technology to catch up in the free market and curb any effects at all.
Overall, people who believe that government should take care of people, and that government should keep us from harming ourselves, are the ones who have a tendency in believing the hype behind the global warming craze. Global warming may or may not be occurring, but one thing is certain, it looks less and less likely that humans are causing it, and that we can do anything at all to stop it.
For example, in today's Agance France, there was an article that stipulated that if humans continue to eat hamburgers we will irrevocably destroy the earth, and contribute to global warming. Why? Because cows emit too much methane which is bad to the environment, and the more burgers we eat the more cows are needed to produce them. Really? Well, anyone whose every eaten at McDonald's knows that more cows is not necessarily what makes more burgers. (I digress) Large beasts have been on this planet much longer than humans, if you believe the evolutionists, and therefore have been emitting methane for a lot longer time. Fact is, cows have been crapping on this earth longer than us, and will probably be after us. That being said, I don't think a vegetarian diet (as suggested in the article) is what the doctor ordered. No, I think we should simply eat more cow, then we can keep the population down and have a tasty steak at the same time.
In reality, methane is actually not as harmful as the alarmist make out. Methane is a natural byproduct of decay. That means that even fallen trees emit methane, animals that die naturally in the wilderness emit methane, and rotting vegetables that go uneaten because of farm subsidies produce methane when they decay because no one bought them and consumed them. Perhaps, our friend who wrote this ill-researched paper should stop trying to control the rest of us, and focus more energy in researching his science.
On another note, the issue of global warming is a "red herring" used by individuals in the name of "altruism" to force government control on the people. In the AP today they released a story of former Astronaut Harrison Schmitt - who walked on the moon- resigning his position at The Planetary Society, a non-profit dedicated to space exploration, because they endorsed human-caused global warming. Dr. Schmitt was quoted as saying, "scientists are being intimidated if they disagree with the idea that burning fossil fuels has increased carbon dioxide levels, temperatures and sea levels." He was also quoted as saying that he believed, "global warming scare is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making."
Dr, Schmitt does not resist the claim that the climate is changing, only that it is not being propelled by human activity, and that the data actually stands behind his claim. Dr. Scmitt would be right in many cases. Global temperatures are not actually increasing, but are decreasing.
According to the leading meteorologists at the National Weather and Meteorological Society (NWMS)the average temperature for America has gone down 3 degrees fehrenheit over the last 150 years. globally, the temp has either remained constant or decreased from 1 to 3 degrees as well. According to many peer-reviewed journal pieces, the temperature on the plant has not been effected that greatly by the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. According to the NWMS, if the atmosphere was the thickness of a football field, the total carbon dioxide build up over the last 150 years (since we started using fossil fuels) would be three to five inches. According to NWMS this is not enough to cause any irreversible effects. Matter of fact if the layer of CO2 were to increase at that rate consistently it would take 1000 years to reach critical mass. I believe 1000 years would be enough time for technology to catch up in the free market and curb any effects at all.
Overall, people who believe that government should take care of people, and that government should keep us from harming ourselves, are the ones who have a tendency in believing the hype behind the global warming craze. Global warming may or may not be occurring, but one thing is certain, it looks less and less likely that humans are causing it, and that we can do anything at all to stop it.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Three Fingers Pointing Back and "Hope We Can Believe In" Riiiight!
In today's blog you will find two topics. One the grilling of the Wall Street financiers yesterday, and a lil treatise on what President Obama really meant by "Tax Cut". Enjoy!
Three Fingers Pointing Back
Yesterday on the Hill, Democrats took turns gesticulating for the cameras by taking their favorite whipping boy(s) (Read: Wall Street Execs) out to the post. Many Representatives wanted the "captains of industry" to answer for their wasteful excess at taxpayer's expense, and then get to the bottom of how these "titans of ticker tape" plan on using the "Bailout" money more responsibly. Yet, while watching one Congressperson after another point fingers at the Wall Street execs, and condemn them for what the Representative thought was gross maleficence, I could not help to think of what my 6th grade English teacher once taught me, "Every time you point a finger, there are three fingers pointing back." This led me to come up with what I thought should have been the responses of the Wall Street execs that sat in the hot seat.
1. When asked about their private jets by a snotty New England Rep., one exec should have said, "Don't look down at us about our using a more efficient way of travel when your Speaker spends $9000 to $22,000 an hour every time she travels on her 100% taxpayer supported Air Force jet. (factcheck.com)Yes, we took some taxpayer money, but we also made money and that profit also went to pay for our travel. Can you say this?"
2. When California Representative Maxine Waters began her tirade about Executive bonuses when those execs failed to keep their business solvent, one exec should have said:
"Don't lecture us about pay raises and bonuses when every single one of you up there voted to give yourself a $4,200 pay raise this year, and gave every single one of your staff a bonus, and yet I challenge you to show us one single government program that works. (Citizens Against Wasteful Spending)Our losses were only in the Billions, yours have been in the Trillions."
Don't get me wrong, I don't support Wall Street getting a Bailout, and their extravagances during these hard economic times are hard to swallow. However, I don't believe anyone should use anyone to score cheap political points. Especially if you are wanting them to revive your country. Besides I get tired of the smugness of the Democrats, and the moral superiority they think they have.
"Hope We Can Believe In." Yeah Riiight!
The economic figures are starting to come out about the Stimulus Package the Democrats are trying to shove down our throats. With these figures out one thing becomes perfectly clear. It is better for you in this country if you are a rodent, than a taxpayer.
According the H.R. 1, $30 Million dollars is going for wetland preservation in San Fransisco (wonder whose district this is for?), more specifically, to help preserve the habitat of an endangered mouse. Yet, as promised by President Obama, the American people are receiving a reduction in their tax burden. Being the ever stout populist, President Obama fought for a robust tax cut of $7.70 per week for every American. Thanks Mr. President, now I can afford an extra rental at blockbuster with my stimulating tax cut. I am definitely more hopeful today, than yesterday!
Three Fingers Pointing Back
Yesterday on the Hill, Democrats took turns gesticulating for the cameras by taking their favorite whipping boy(s) (Read: Wall Street Execs) out to the post. Many Representatives wanted the "captains of industry" to answer for their wasteful excess at taxpayer's expense, and then get to the bottom of how these "titans of ticker tape" plan on using the "Bailout" money more responsibly. Yet, while watching one Congressperson after another point fingers at the Wall Street execs, and condemn them for what the Representative thought was gross maleficence, I could not help to think of what my 6th grade English teacher once taught me, "Every time you point a finger, there are three fingers pointing back." This led me to come up with what I thought should have been the responses of the Wall Street execs that sat in the hot seat.
1. When asked about their private jets by a snotty New England Rep., one exec should have said, "Don't look down at us about our using a more efficient way of travel when your Speaker spends $9000 to $22,000 an hour every time she travels on her 100% taxpayer supported Air Force jet. (factcheck.com)Yes, we took some taxpayer money, but we also made money and that profit also went to pay for our travel. Can you say this?"
2. When California Representative Maxine Waters began her tirade about Executive bonuses when those execs failed to keep their business solvent, one exec should have said:
"Don't lecture us about pay raises and bonuses when every single one of you up there voted to give yourself a $4,200 pay raise this year, and gave every single one of your staff a bonus, and yet I challenge you to show us one single government program that works. (Citizens Against Wasteful Spending)Our losses were only in the Billions, yours have been in the Trillions."
Don't get me wrong, I don't support Wall Street getting a Bailout, and their extravagances during these hard economic times are hard to swallow. However, I don't believe anyone should use anyone to score cheap political points. Especially if you are wanting them to revive your country. Besides I get tired of the smugness of the Democrats, and the moral superiority they think they have.
"Hope We Can Believe In." Yeah Riiight!
The economic figures are starting to come out about the Stimulus Package the Democrats are trying to shove down our throats. With these figures out one thing becomes perfectly clear. It is better for you in this country if you are a rodent, than a taxpayer.
According the H.R. 1, $30 Million dollars is going for wetland preservation in San Fransisco (wonder whose district this is for?), more specifically, to help preserve the habitat of an endangered mouse. Yet, as promised by President Obama, the American people are receiving a reduction in their tax burden. Being the ever stout populist, President Obama fought for a robust tax cut of $7.70 per week for every American. Thanks Mr. President, now I can afford an extra rental at blockbuster with my stimulating tax cut. I am definitely more hopeful today, than yesterday!
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
A Letter to 70 Million Americans
My Fellow Americans,
I know that over the last two years many disturbing and troubling events have occurred. We have seen yet another financial burst and send our economy into free fall. We have seen the banks declare their inability to remain solvant, and we have seen the big three auto makers declare their need for help. During this great time of turmoil you, my fellow Americans, voted for a charasmatic speaker who promised "change you can believe in", and promised to radically change the way business was done in Washington. To be honest all Americans hoped that this young leader could deliver on these promises, however, it seems in the last two weeks much of his promises were just rhetoric. So, I pose this question again, "Is this what you voted for?"
Did you vote for American tax dollars to be spent on the sensless murder of unborn children around the globe all in the name of economic simplicity? Did you vote for the Commander in Chief to close the only prison we have for murderous and feckless terrorist thugs, and then not have alternate spot to house them? Did you vote for a man to head the Executive Branch who chose a Governor suspected of "pay for play" to run Commerce, a tax cheat to run the Treasury, another tax cheat to run HHS, the wife of a tax cheat to be his performance officer, and a porn lobbyist to be Deputy Atty. General? Did you really vote for a President who would spend 2-4 trillion dollars of money we don't have, for only the "possibility" of economic recovery? Did you really really vote for a man who doesn't believe that this stimulus package has any pork? If you did than we need to talk, because none of this is the change anyone was promised!
I know for about 30 million of you what President Obama is doing is exactly what you hoped for; however, for the remaining 40 million you cannot believe what you are seeing. You seeing a President who promised change, but delivered nothing be the same tired Washington policies. You have seen a President who promised inclusion, exclude every REAL conservative from the conversation. You have seen a President who promised tax cuts for 95% of Americans run from that promise the first chance he could. You have seen exactly what you thought you were voting against in the man you voted for. How does this make you feel?
If it makes you feel outraged and incensed, then join me in using the next two years to give the Republicans a majority in one of the houses of Congress. Lets have real representative democracy, and force the President to have to genuinely compromise in order to get things done. Lets stop the forced socialism, and give the Democrats a real revolution to deal with, a Conservative Revolution!
Sincerely,
Joe Shehan
I know that over the last two years many disturbing and troubling events have occurred. We have seen yet another financial burst and send our economy into free fall. We have seen the banks declare their inability to remain solvant, and we have seen the big three auto makers declare their need for help. During this great time of turmoil you, my fellow Americans, voted for a charasmatic speaker who promised "change you can believe in", and promised to radically change the way business was done in Washington. To be honest all Americans hoped that this young leader could deliver on these promises, however, it seems in the last two weeks much of his promises were just rhetoric. So, I pose this question again, "Is this what you voted for?"
Did you vote for American tax dollars to be spent on the sensless murder of unborn children around the globe all in the name of economic simplicity? Did you vote for the Commander in Chief to close the only prison we have for murderous and feckless terrorist thugs, and then not have alternate spot to house them? Did you vote for a man to head the Executive Branch who chose a Governor suspected of "pay for play" to run Commerce, a tax cheat to run the Treasury, another tax cheat to run HHS, the wife of a tax cheat to be his performance officer, and a porn lobbyist to be Deputy Atty. General? Did you really vote for a President who would spend 2-4 trillion dollars of money we don't have, for only the "possibility" of economic recovery? Did you really really vote for a man who doesn't believe that this stimulus package has any pork? If you did than we need to talk, because none of this is the change anyone was promised!
I know for about 30 million of you what President Obama is doing is exactly what you hoped for; however, for the remaining 40 million you cannot believe what you are seeing. You seeing a President who promised change, but delivered nothing be the same tired Washington policies. You have seen a President who promised inclusion, exclude every REAL conservative from the conversation. You have seen a President who promised tax cuts for 95% of Americans run from that promise the first chance he could. You have seen exactly what you thought you were voting against in the man you voted for. How does this make you feel?
If it makes you feel outraged and incensed, then join me in using the next two years to give the Republicans a majority in one of the houses of Congress. Lets have real representative democracy, and force the President to have to genuinely compromise in order to get things done. Lets stop the forced socialism, and give the Democrats a real revolution to deal with, a Conservative Revolution!
Sincerely,
Joe Shehan
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Is This Really What 52% of America Voted For?
From the outside looking in, it is hard to see why people operating on common sense would support a $15 Billion bailout of the Auto Industry. Also, it is hard that the same people would vote for a gentleman who believes that a handfull of workers have the right to hold a bank hostage, because the bank did not loan their bankrupt business money to pay their payroll. Again, it is even more difficult to believe that the American people would vote a for a man who says one thing one day, and then the next denies he said it or says that those speaking for him "misspoke". Yet, if one looks at American history, one will find example after example of the American people being duped all in the name of "hope" and "change".
In the 1960's the people believed a megalomaniacal man who promised "hope" and "change" in Vietnam policy, and in the end was discovered to be a "win at all cost" politician and had to resign his presidency. This opened the door for another prophet of "change", and he led the country into near financial ruin, and the weakest foreign policy ever. But a glimmer of hope came in the 1980's, and it looked like the American people finally got it figured out, and for 12 years they had peace and prosperity. Unfortunate, another "snake oil" salesman from the South showed weaving words of "hope" and "change". His lies regarding the economy resonated because it played to the basest of all human emotions "envy", and his charge that "hope was on the way" led millions of Americans to vote for him. Now, we are faced another Ivy league trained lawyer, with smooth rhetoric and ability to use the catch phrase that wins elections, "change", and before he is even sworn into office he is on the precipice of a confidence risking scandal. Yet, this is nothing new.
The last smooth talking Ivy league trained lawyer to grace the office could not even get out of the election without scandal, and his presidency was one scandal after another, which eventually led to his impeachment. President-elect Obama is already involved in a cover up involving his governor. The Illinois governor has been recorded saying that Obama told him who he wanted to fill his spot, and yet today Obama is quoted as saying that he and the governor have not discussed the matter. Even Obama's campaign manager, has been quoted as saying that Obama and the governor discussed the matter. Yet, today an unknown Obama staffer has been quoted as saying that, "Axelrod misspoke". This is the M.O. of Mr. Obama. He is close with people and has them as "advisers" or "mentors", and discusses many issues with them. Obama even brags about their relationship, until these people do something that is politically inconvenient or damaging. Then these "were not [the people] he knew", or they "misspoke" or were "mistaken". Is this kind of side stepping the kind of presidency we will have from a President Obama? Is this kind of presidency what 52% of Americans voted for?
No one can know for sure what kind of presidency we will have the next four years. Many on the right have been warning the American people about the allegiances of Obama, but no one listened. The media chose to ignore the Ayers, Wright, Salinski, Retzco relationships, and now it appears the Blago relationship, or "lack there of" may mire this presidency. This begs the question, what other relationships will call into question our president's character during the next four years? Time will only tell.
Side Bar:
I don't know if anyone has been paying attention, but have you noticed that since the $700 Billion dollar bailout more and more companies and entities have put their hands out? The Auto industry was first, but now States and Mayors are asking for their piece of the pie.
The U.S. has a policy with negotiating with terrorists. We don't do it! Perhaps we should develop a policy to deal with "freeloaders" looking for a handout. JUST SAY NO!!!
Failure builds character, and if we allow large businesses to fail it has more positive benefits than negative. Business leaders learn from the mistakes of others and don't repeat them, workers learn that if they demand too much from their company they can destroy it from the inside, and investors learn to diversify. How are any of these lessons bad? Sure people might be out of a job, but maybe that is the quick kick in the butt they need to go back to school and learn a more modern trade, and maybe younger generations will see the importance of a good education. Again, how is this bad?
In the 1960's the people believed a megalomaniacal man who promised "hope" and "change" in Vietnam policy, and in the end was discovered to be a "win at all cost" politician and had to resign his presidency. This opened the door for another prophet of "change", and he led the country into near financial ruin, and the weakest foreign policy ever. But a glimmer of hope came in the 1980's, and it looked like the American people finally got it figured out, and for 12 years they had peace and prosperity. Unfortunate, another "snake oil" salesman from the South showed weaving words of "hope" and "change". His lies regarding the economy resonated because it played to the basest of all human emotions "envy", and his charge that "hope was on the way" led millions of Americans to vote for him. Now, we are faced another Ivy league trained lawyer, with smooth rhetoric and ability to use the catch phrase that wins elections, "change", and before he is even sworn into office he is on the precipice of a confidence risking scandal. Yet, this is nothing new.
The last smooth talking Ivy league trained lawyer to grace the office could not even get out of the election without scandal, and his presidency was one scandal after another, which eventually led to his impeachment. President-elect Obama is already involved in a cover up involving his governor. The Illinois governor has been recorded saying that Obama told him who he wanted to fill his spot, and yet today Obama is quoted as saying that he and the governor have not discussed the matter. Even Obama's campaign manager, has been quoted as saying that Obama and the governor discussed the matter. Yet, today an unknown Obama staffer has been quoted as saying that, "Axelrod misspoke". This is the M.O. of Mr. Obama. He is close with people and has them as "advisers" or "mentors", and discusses many issues with them. Obama even brags about their relationship, until these people do something that is politically inconvenient or damaging. Then these "were not [the people] he knew", or they "misspoke" or were "mistaken". Is this kind of side stepping the kind of presidency we will have from a President Obama? Is this kind of presidency what 52% of Americans voted for?
No one can know for sure what kind of presidency we will have the next four years. Many on the right have been warning the American people about the allegiances of Obama, but no one listened. The media chose to ignore the Ayers, Wright, Salinski, Retzco relationships, and now it appears the Blago relationship, or "lack there of" may mire this presidency. This begs the question, what other relationships will call into question our president's character during the next four years? Time will only tell.
Side Bar:
I don't know if anyone has been paying attention, but have you noticed that since the $700 Billion dollar bailout more and more companies and entities have put their hands out? The Auto industry was first, but now States and Mayors are asking for their piece of the pie.
The U.S. has a policy with negotiating with terrorists. We don't do it! Perhaps we should develop a policy to deal with "freeloaders" looking for a handout. JUST SAY NO!!!
Failure builds character, and if we allow large businesses to fail it has more positive benefits than negative. Business leaders learn from the mistakes of others and don't repeat them, workers learn that if they demand too much from their company they can destroy it from the inside, and investors learn to diversify. How are any of these lessons bad? Sure people might be out of a job, but maybe that is the quick kick in the butt they need to go back to school and learn a more modern trade, and maybe younger generations will see the importance of a good education. Again, how is this bad?
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Capitol Visitor's Center: A Testament to Elitism and Liberalism
In yesterday and today's Drudge Report, there were two stories that caught my eye. One dealt with the controversial speech Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) gave at the opening of the Capitol Visitor's Center, where he besmirched the millions of vistors who flock to D.C. every year, and the other story dealt with Senator Jim DeMint's (R-SC) letter of complaint about the utter lack of references to the Christian heritage of this country. Both, reveal something very poignant about the Multi-billion dollar Capitol Visitor's Center (CVC). The CVC is a testament of the attitude those who occupy federal office have towards this country and its people.
When I worked in D.C. I was witness to the construction of the monstrocity that is the CVC. It was already two years behind schedule, and well over budget. Two different Architects of the Capitol oversaw the construction of the project, and the Congressional leadership was very excited about it's soon to be opening (which was delayed for the sixth time when I was there). During my tenure is when it received its name "Emancipation Hall". From pictures I have seen, it is very beautiful and has a lot of modern media fair. However, with the recent statements by the Senate Majority Leader, and the concerns raised by the gentleman from South Carolina, I am wondering if its beauty will be fleeting.
Over the recent months, surprisingly, the disdain that the Members of Congress have for the people of the United States has been openly displayed and well documented. During the debate over the economic bailout policies this Congress is pursuing, Senators and Representatives alike have looked down from their ivory towers at the riff raff, and declared openly that the American people are "too ignorant of the complicated nuances of this 'rescue package'", (Senator Diane Feinstein, D-CA). Once their disdain (read fear) was relayed, they voted against the American people for a bailout that had no hope of working. Yet, now we have another example of the overt disdain the Members of Congress seem now so free to display in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's comments at the opening of the CVC.
Against the expressed wishes of his staff, Sen. Reid jokingly announced that he would no longer have to "smell the visitor's B.O." when they come to visit the Capitol. What the ofactorally challanged Senator was alluding to was, that in the past tourists would choose to go through their Senator's or Representative's office to receive a tour of the Capitol. Many times these people - during the hot summer months in D.C.- would have to walk almost a mile to get to their Senator's or Representative's office. This schlepp would often lead to people not smelling that fresh. Now, with the opening of the CVC, Senate and Representative offices no longer have to offer constiuent tours, and apparently Sen. Reid is thankful for this, because he won't have to "smell" his constituents. I am sorry that the inconveniences of his constiuents offends him so much. Perhaps Mr. Reid should find a new line of work, if he is so sensitive to such things.
As someone who gave the tours of the Capitol to the hot and sweating constituents. I take offense with these statements. The highlight of my week was often giving tours to the constiuents that I help represent. I loved getting to know the people of our district, and listening to their concerns and triumphs. I believed this helped me do my job better for the Congressman I worked for, and I know that it gave a more personal touch to our constituents vacation. I know that many of these people enjoyed the tours, because many would call the office or write letters to thank us. During the summer months the people could be ripe, but that was because they were walking everywhere they went (because renting and parking a car in D.C. is near impossible). Instead of commenting on their odor, we offered to let them rest and stored greater number of 5 gallon water jugs so we could offer them something cool to drink. I guess this is what it means to be a servant of the people, instead of thinking that the people are there to serve you. Perhaps Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid could take a lesson from the attitude of the people of Congressman Burgess of Texas' office.
Seperation of Church and State Gone Too Far
Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) released a letter to the media announcing his disgust with the lack of references to the Christian heritage of the United States in the Capitol Vistor's Center (CVC). Many of the references allude to the superiority of the federal government, and that the federal government is the answer to all men's woes. Visitors will also enter reading a large engraving that states, ‘We have built no temple but the Capitol. We consult no common oracle but the Constitution.’ This is a clear determination by the Architect of the Capitol and Congressional Leadership to deny God's past and current blessings on this country, and the importance Christianity played in our founding. To deny or even to refuse to mention the Christian heritage of this country is not only a travisty, but is a deliberate attempt to revise the history of this great country.
I am not suprised that this Architect of the Capitol would not wish to include religious references in the design of the CVC. This is the same Architect who tried to disallow any reference to God on the certificates that are given with the flags that are flown over the Capitol. It was only after public outcry that he changed his mind. Again the same Architect has promised to remedy this situation as well, and again it took the outcry of Senators.
When I worked in D.C. I was witness to the construction of the monstrocity that is the CVC. It was already two years behind schedule, and well over budget. Two different Architects of the Capitol oversaw the construction of the project, and the Congressional leadership was very excited about it's soon to be opening (which was delayed for the sixth time when I was there). During my tenure is when it received its name "Emancipation Hall". From pictures I have seen, it is very beautiful and has a lot of modern media fair. However, with the recent statements by the Senate Majority Leader, and the concerns raised by the gentleman from South Carolina, I am wondering if its beauty will be fleeting.
Over the recent months, surprisingly, the disdain that the Members of Congress have for the people of the United States has been openly displayed and well documented. During the debate over the economic bailout policies this Congress is pursuing, Senators and Representatives alike have looked down from their ivory towers at the riff raff, and declared openly that the American people are "too ignorant of the complicated nuances of this 'rescue package'", (Senator Diane Feinstein, D-CA). Once their disdain (read fear) was relayed, they voted against the American people for a bailout that had no hope of working. Yet, now we have another example of the overt disdain the Members of Congress seem now so free to display in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's comments at the opening of the CVC.
Against the expressed wishes of his staff, Sen. Reid jokingly announced that he would no longer have to "smell the visitor's B.O." when they come to visit the Capitol. What the ofactorally challanged Senator was alluding to was, that in the past tourists would choose to go through their Senator's or Representative's office to receive a tour of the Capitol. Many times these people - during the hot summer months in D.C.- would have to walk almost a mile to get to their Senator's or Representative's office. This schlepp would often lead to people not smelling that fresh. Now, with the opening of the CVC, Senate and Representative offices no longer have to offer constiuent tours, and apparently Sen. Reid is thankful for this, because he won't have to "smell" his constituents. I am sorry that the inconveniences of his constiuents offends him so much. Perhaps Mr. Reid should find a new line of work, if he is so sensitive to such things.
As someone who gave the tours of the Capitol to the hot and sweating constituents. I take offense with these statements. The highlight of my week was often giving tours to the constiuents that I help represent. I loved getting to know the people of our district, and listening to their concerns and triumphs. I believed this helped me do my job better for the Congressman I worked for, and I know that it gave a more personal touch to our constituents vacation. I know that many of these people enjoyed the tours, because many would call the office or write letters to thank us. During the summer months the people could be ripe, but that was because they were walking everywhere they went (because renting and parking a car in D.C. is near impossible). Instead of commenting on their odor, we offered to let them rest and stored greater number of 5 gallon water jugs so we could offer them something cool to drink. I guess this is what it means to be a servant of the people, instead of thinking that the people are there to serve you. Perhaps Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid could take a lesson from the attitude of the people of Congressman Burgess of Texas' office.
Seperation of Church and State Gone Too Far
Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) released a letter to the media announcing his disgust with the lack of references to the Christian heritage of the United States in the Capitol Vistor's Center (CVC). Many of the references allude to the superiority of the federal government, and that the federal government is the answer to all men's woes. Visitors will also enter reading a large engraving that states, ‘We have built no temple but the Capitol. We consult no common oracle but the Constitution.’ This is a clear determination by the Architect of the Capitol and Congressional Leadership to deny God's past and current blessings on this country, and the importance Christianity played in our founding. To deny or even to refuse to mention the Christian heritage of this country is not only a travisty, but is a deliberate attempt to revise the history of this great country.
I am not suprised that this Architect of the Capitol would not wish to include religious references in the design of the CVC. This is the same Architect who tried to disallow any reference to God on the certificates that are given with the flags that are flown over the Capitol. It was only after public outcry that he changed his mind. Again the same Architect has promised to remedy this situation as well, and again it took the outcry of Senators.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Economy Team: Deal or Dud
This last week, president-elect Barak Obama threw his hat into the ring by giving his first speech as president-elect on the economy. He announced who his economic team was going to be, and announced his economic plan. With the picks of former Treasury Secretary, Larry Summers as Obama's in-White House economic advisor, and NY Fed Chair, Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary, president-elect Obama should have the economic team he desires.
Both men served very Liberal administrations and governments, and know how to govern an economy from the left. It will be very interesting to see just how these individuals will be able to pull us out of this economic crisis. However, these new picks may not have much say, because president-elect Obama has already announced what he wishes to do over the next two years.
Mr. Obama has declared that he will oversee the largest stimulus package in the history of America. Where he and the Congress will get the money to pay for this is still a mistery to me. He also said that he will use this time to oversee radical changes in healthcare, energy and education policy. If you know the Obama's plans in any of three, you will know this will mean less choice and more bureaucracy all in the name of "fairness". Mr. Obama seeks a, "long term retooling of the American economy."This is scarey language if you like free market capitalism. Mr Obama, also declares that he will save the American tax payer $700 Billion, by using the line-item veto to cut specific spending items from the budget. Unfortunately for Mr. Obama, "Constitutional Scholar" that he is, the U.S. Supreme Court declared the line-item veto unconstitutional for the executive branch back in the 1990s. Unless he plans on superseding their authority, the line-item veto is not an option. But then again he also promises not to raise taxes, but how is he going to pay for his new social programs with out doing that?
I know that in my earlier blog I spoke about praying for our president, that he will make wise decisions that are good for this country. I also now it is a little bit premature to be speculating on what Obama's policies will exactly be, but if you base your opinions on what Barak Obama has said in the past about what he desires for this country, then its hard to beleive he will not try to implement those desires. President-Obama has stated in his books and stump speeches that he is for radical changes in our policies as a country (this includes radically changing the Constitution). Many of these policy changes are extremely unpopular with the American people when presented to them honestly(i.e. socialized healthcare, 65% against-40% for (AmericanSolutions.com)). Here is where you might say, "wait a minute he got elected on those policies!" No, he got elected on a vague promise of change, where everyone projected what change they wanted on to him. If you read his books, listen to his speeches and "private" conversations you will see a dyed-in-the-wool socialist, and socailist policy is unpopular with the American people. This is why I am already calling into question his policy decisions.
President-elect Obama is doing his best to do the right thing. The only problem is that it is his opinion of what the right thing is. For generations this country has operated under the free market system. We were not afraid to allow companies to fail, because we kknew the market would recover and those companies would be bought by the highest bidder and salvaged. Yet, today we are so afraid of failure and hard times, that we will allow our simplest freedom, the freedom of choice, to be taken from us in the name of "financial security". I understand that if companies like AIG or GM fail it could mean the collapse of large portion of our economy and millions would lose their jobs. However, these effects would be hard, but they would be short lived and individual Americans, who normally would not have a chance at owning a piece of America, would be able to buy up these failed business and make them trhive again through ingenuity and drive both of which is what this country was founded on.
Hard times are not called hard because they are attractive, but they are necessary from time to time to make us appreciate what we have. This country has survived worse, and we can survive this, but it is going to take the resolve of our leaders, and the courage of the American people to do the things that are necessary to save our country's economy and preserve the freedoms we so enjoy.
Both men served very Liberal administrations and governments, and know how to govern an economy from the left. It will be very interesting to see just how these individuals will be able to pull us out of this economic crisis. However, these new picks may not have much say, because president-elect Obama has already announced what he wishes to do over the next two years.
Mr. Obama has declared that he will oversee the largest stimulus package in the history of America. Where he and the Congress will get the money to pay for this is still a mistery to me. He also said that he will use this time to oversee radical changes in healthcare, energy and education policy. If you know the Obama's plans in any of three, you will know this will mean less choice and more bureaucracy all in the name of "fairness". Mr. Obama seeks a, "long term retooling of the American economy."This is scarey language if you like free market capitalism. Mr Obama, also declares that he will save the American tax payer $700 Billion, by using the line-item veto to cut specific spending items from the budget. Unfortunately for Mr. Obama, "Constitutional Scholar" that he is, the U.S. Supreme Court declared the line-item veto unconstitutional for the executive branch back in the 1990s. Unless he plans on superseding their authority, the line-item veto is not an option. But then again he also promises not to raise taxes, but how is he going to pay for his new social programs with out doing that?
I know that in my earlier blog I spoke about praying for our president, that he will make wise decisions that are good for this country. I also now it is a little bit premature to be speculating on what Obama's policies will exactly be, but if you base your opinions on what Barak Obama has said in the past about what he desires for this country, then its hard to beleive he will not try to implement those desires. President-Obama has stated in his books and stump speeches that he is for radical changes in our policies as a country (this includes radically changing the Constitution). Many of these policy changes are extremely unpopular with the American people when presented to them honestly(i.e. socialized healthcare, 65% against-40% for (AmericanSolutions.com)). Here is where you might say, "wait a minute he got elected on those policies!" No, he got elected on a vague promise of change, where everyone projected what change they wanted on to him. If you read his books, listen to his speeches and "private" conversations you will see a dyed-in-the-wool socialist, and socailist policy is unpopular with the American people. This is why I am already calling into question his policy decisions.
President-elect Obama is doing his best to do the right thing. The only problem is that it is his opinion of what the right thing is. For generations this country has operated under the free market system. We were not afraid to allow companies to fail, because we kknew the market would recover and those companies would be bought by the highest bidder and salvaged. Yet, today we are so afraid of failure and hard times, that we will allow our simplest freedom, the freedom of choice, to be taken from us in the name of "financial security". I understand that if companies like AIG or GM fail it could mean the collapse of large portion of our economy and millions would lose their jobs. However, these effects would be hard, but they would be short lived and individual Americans, who normally would not have a chance at owning a piece of America, would be able to buy up these failed business and make them trhive again through ingenuity and drive both of which is what this country was founded on.
Hard times are not called hard because they are attractive, but they are necessary from time to time to make us appreciate what we have. This country has survived worse, and we can survive this, but it is going to take the resolve of our leaders, and the courage of the American people to do the things that are necessary to save our country's economy and preserve the freedoms we so enjoy.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Mr. Obama, Our President
The people have spoken, and have chosen as their 44th president, the first African-American president, Barak Hussein Obama. This is a great day for our county's racial relations, and with much prayer could be a great day for our country as a whole. Eventhough I vigorously campaigned against president-elect Obama and do not agree with a single policy he campaigned on, he is my President and I wish him well.
In the Bible, Second Timothy, chapter 2 starts out exclaiming Christians to pray for all their leaders, that they will govern justly and there will be peace. This is my prayer for the leaders of our country, and for President-elect Obama. My prayer is that he governs so well, that as Dennis Miller said, "I want to run out and vote for his second term." Unfortunately, as I said during the campaign, I do not believe this will be so.
As a candidate of Change, Barak Obama promised us that he would reform Washington, and yet his choice for a running mate, and now his choices for a cabinet show either a veiled niavete, or deliberate dishonesty in that promise. By choosing former Clinton Administration advisors and Cabinet members, it is hard to determine if President-elect Obama is really serious about change. Or was change simply a by-word for anti-Bushism? It will be interesting to see if the Obama Administration will be something new and inspiring, or if it will be business as usual. I hope for the former.
Many conservative activists and media personalities have already shown what makes being conservative great. Everyone is wishing this soon-to-be president well, and showing what it means to be real patriots by supporting the office and not the man. All true patriots want the best for their country, and want their president to govern well, because when the government governs well, the people flurish.
A Prayer:
May God continue to shine his face on the United States of America, and may his eternal blessings rain done upon us forever. May our Heavenly Father give President Obama the wisdom and courage needed in the tough times, and the integrity and intelligence needed in the easy times.
In Jesus' precious name , Amen!
In the Bible, Second Timothy, chapter 2 starts out exclaiming Christians to pray for all their leaders, that they will govern justly and there will be peace. This is my prayer for the leaders of our country, and for President-elect Obama. My prayer is that he governs so well, that as Dennis Miller said, "I want to run out and vote for his second term." Unfortunately, as I said during the campaign, I do not believe this will be so.
As a candidate of Change, Barak Obama promised us that he would reform Washington, and yet his choice for a running mate, and now his choices for a cabinet show either a veiled niavete, or deliberate dishonesty in that promise. By choosing former Clinton Administration advisors and Cabinet members, it is hard to determine if President-elect Obama is really serious about change. Or was change simply a by-word for anti-Bushism? It will be interesting to see if the Obama Administration will be something new and inspiring, or if it will be business as usual. I hope for the former.
Many conservative activists and media personalities have already shown what makes being conservative great. Everyone is wishing this soon-to-be president well, and showing what it means to be real patriots by supporting the office and not the man. All true patriots want the best for their country, and want their president to govern well, because when the government governs well, the people flurish.
A Prayer:
May God continue to shine his face on the United States of America, and may his eternal blessings rain done upon us forever. May our Heavenly Father give President Obama the wisdom and courage needed in the tough times, and the integrity and intelligence needed in the easy times.
In Jesus' precious name , Amen!
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Newt and Burgess - Future of the GOP
Two days ago, I read on the Drudge Report that Newt Gingrich is rumored to be seeking the RNC chairmanship. This excited me to no end, then today I discovered that Congressman Michael C. Burgess, MD (TX-26) is seeking the House Republican Policy Committee Chairmanship, and now my joy runneth over! Should Newt and Burgess receive these posts we can be sure the GOP will be heading in the right direction.
Newt will serve the Party and the country best as the chairman of the RNC. His books Winning the Future and Real Change put forth a plan for this country that will rebuild America. They are solidly conservative, and place government squarely in the place that it belongs. The policies Newt focuses on in these books are overwhelmingly popular with the American people, and if pursued with the help of a Burgess Policy chairmanship could propell the GOP back into the Majority.
I know Congressman Burgess both personally and professionally. I am proud that I spent 2006 -2007 helping Burgess represent the people of the 26th District, and I know that if given the chance, Dr. Burgess can heal the Republican Party. His courage underfire (which I have seen first hand) and leadership is the exact prescription the GOP needs. Dr. Burgess is a conservative's conservative, and knows exactly how to fix America's healthcare woes, energy crisis, and has the moral fortitude to stand up to the special interest, and give the American people the medicine they need for recovery.
With Burgess and Gingrich at the helm, the future of the Republican Party looks strong, however, this future can dim should the moderate and liberal Republicans dominate the GOP. That is why we need to inform our representation that we want the real leadership of Burgess and Gingrich.
Newt will serve the Party and the country best as the chairman of the RNC. His books Winning the Future and Real Change put forth a plan for this country that will rebuild America. They are solidly conservative, and place government squarely in the place that it belongs. The policies Newt focuses on in these books are overwhelmingly popular with the American people, and if pursued with the help of a Burgess Policy chairmanship could propell the GOP back into the Majority.
I know Congressman Burgess both personally and professionally. I am proud that I spent 2006 -2007 helping Burgess represent the people of the 26th District, and I know that if given the chance, Dr. Burgess can heal the Republican Party. His courage underfire (which I have seen first hand) and leadership is the exact prescription the GOP needs. Dr. Burgess is a conservative's conservative, and knows exactly how to fix America's healthcare woes, energy crisis, and has the moral fortitude to stand up to the special interest, and give the American people the medicine they need for recovery.
With Burgess and Gingrich at the helm, the future of the Republican Party looks strong, however, this future can dim should the moderate and liberal Republicans dominate the GOP. That is why we need to inform our representation that we want the real leadership of Burgess and Gingrich.
Friday, September 19, 2008
U.S. News Media: 1776 - 2008
Listening to Conservatives bemoan about the "bias in the media" has grown as common place in today's society as hearing Liberals decry the actions of the Bush Administration, or declare that their President is an idiot. Yet, one only needs to be paying attention to current events to realize that Conservatives cries of bias are not baseless. Conservative talk radio host Sean Hannity, has often referred to the death of the U.S. news media in 2008, and I believe he may be right.
In a country were the media is more free to print or say what they want than the common citizen, the U.S. media has begun to abuse their privilige, and are beginning to overtly use their power to forward a political agenda the half of America does not agree with. This is no surprise, when you look at a Gallup poll conducted in 2006, where over 80% of reporters polled said they were financial contributers and members of the Democratic Party.
The 2008 Presidential Campaign has, if anything, been very exposing to the bias the liberal media has often tried to hide, and often ouright denied. When Saturday Night Live is parodying the cult up coverage of Sen. Barak Obama, and showing reporters as stalkers and psychofants of the Illinois Senator, we have a real problem. A little more solid evidence is a Rassmuesen poll conducted last week that showed 73% of the American people believed that the political news coverage favored Obama, and Media Matters said that the number of reports of the Obama campaign outnumbered the McCain Campaign 2 : 1. The bias towards Sen. Obama has been so great, and the public outcry so loud that MSNBC was forced to remove their veteran political news commentator, Chris Matthews, from further direct coverage of the campaigns because of his inability to contain his political motivations.
For many Americans, watching the news has become too nausiating to sustain, and they have chosen to remain either uninformed or limit their news to sources they know to be credible; however, this is proving to be harder to do as the bias towards Obama becomes more brazen. Even the once respected Charlie Gibson of ABC News has fallen victim to his own bias when he unfortunately chose to take on the task of "grand inquisitor" of Governor Sara Palin, who is seeking the Republican Vice Presidency.I believe very strongly that if media icons such as: Edward R. Murrow or even the very partisan Walter Kronkite would disapprove of the current state of our nation's news media. The news media is to be an unbias relayer of the news, not an attack wing of a political party or ideology.
In a free society we are rightfully limited to the regulations we are able to put on our media, because we believe in the freedom of speech, but in a free market society we do have a recourse to such abuse of the freedom of press, and that is turning the channel or walking past the news stand and not buying a paper. In a free society with free markets such overt bias is not a sound business move, and if continued could lead to the ruin of many media outlets' reputation and bottom line. Yet, many who benefit from this bias wish to use stifling measures (i.e. the Fairness Act) to prevent coverage that is less beneficial, but more popular. (That is a topic for another column.)
My dear reader, do what many of us "bitter" Americans do and turn the dial, and if you still don't like what you see or hear, then turn the whole thing off and find something that lives up to the true journalistic ethics that should be predominate in our media. Boycott is not the answer, but taking your business elsewhere is. This is the only way we will ever see the resurection of legitimate news coverage.
In a country were the media is more free to print or say what they want than the common citizen, the U.S. media has begun to abuse their privilige, and are beginning to overtly use their power to forward a political agenda the half of America does not agree with. This is no surprise, when you look at a Gallup poll conducted in 2006, where over 80% of reporters polled said they were financial contributers and members of the Democratic Party.
The 2008 Presidential Campaign has, if anything, been very exposing to the bias the liberal media has often tried to hide, and often ouright denied. When Saturday Night Live is parodying the cult up coverage of Sen. Barak Obama, and showing reporters as stalkers and psychofants of the Illinois Senator, we have a real problem. A little more solid evidence is a Rassmuesen poll conducted last week that showed 73% of the American people believed that the political news coverage favored Obama, and Media Matters said that the number of reports of the Obama campaign outnumbered the McCain Campaign 2 : 1. The bias towards Sen. Obama has been so great, and the public outcry so loud that MSNBC was forced to remove their veteran political news commentator, Chris Matthews, from further direct coverage of the campaigns because of his inability to contain his political motivations.
For many Americans, watching the news has become too nausiating to sustain, and they have chosen to remain either uninformed or limit their news to sources they know to be credible; however, this is proving to be harder to do as the bias towards Obama becomes more brazen. Even the once respected Charlie Gibson of ABC News has fallen victim to his own bias when he unfortunately chose to take on the task of "grand inquisitor" of Governor Sara Palin, who is seeking the Republican Vice Presidency.I believe very strongly that if media icons such as: Edward R. Murrow or even the very partisan Walter Kronkite would disapprove of the current state of our nation's news media. The news media is to be an unbias relayer of the news, not an attack wing of a political party or ideology.
In a free society we are rightfully limited to the regulations we are able to put on our media, because we believe in the freedom of speech, but in a free market society we do have a recourse to such abuse of the freedom of press, and that is turning the channel or walking past the news stand and not buying a paper. In a free society with free markets such overt bias is not a sound business move, and if continued could lead to the ruin of many media outlets' reputation and bottom line. Yet, many who benefit from this bias wish to use stifling measures (i.e. the Fairness Act) to prevent coverage that is less beneficial, but more popular. (That is a topic for another column.)
My dear reader, do what many of us "bitter" Americans do and turn the dial, and if you still don't like what you see or hear, then turn the whole thing off and find something that lives up to the true journalistic ethics that should be predominate in our media. Boycott is not the answer, but taking your business elsewhere is. This is the only way we will ever see the resurection of legitimate news coverage.
Friday, August 8, 2008
The Real Change America Needs
During my brief stint in Washington, I got to see how laws are really made, and I got to see what most Americans don't. What troubled me more than anything was the lack of real effort being put into fighting for the conservative ideals espoused by many Republicans on the Hill. Instead, a lot of wounds were being licked, a lot of regrouping took place and appeared the leadership went into playing the minority game instead of working on reclaiming the majority.
Granted I arrived in Washington the January 2007, which followed the spanking the GOP received in 2006. Yet, what was the real reason for this disciplinary action? Simple, the American people were disgusted with the GOP leadership, or lack thereof, and the complete abandonment of the conservative ideals that brought them to power in 1994. Today, we are seeing a resurgence in the old Conservative wing of the GOP with the protests taking place on Capitol Hill concerning the Energy Crisis, and the American people are paying attention.
America's attention is on the few patriots decrying the "tryanny" of the despotic rule of Speaker Pelosi, who is so beholden to her fringe enviromentalist base that she could not even allow a vote to allow this country to provide energy relief for its poor and lower middle class citizens. With America's attention squarely fixed on Congress, the GOP needs to sieze the moment and offer real ideas to help those citizens whom Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic party claim they represent. These same citizens who this day are suffering under the weight of high energy prices, and will suffer even greater come winter. These Americans are listening, but what is the message they need to hear?
The American citizen needs to hear more than just empty promises, or empty policies like "inflate your tires". (Marie Antionette could not have come up with a better policie initiative.) What they need to here are real plans that move our economy forward. Plans such as the bill introduced by Congressman Michael C. Burgess (R-TX)this Congress that would open our military bases to oil refinery construction and distribution. This simple fix would provide a quick answer to America's supply issues, while providing greater security for our energy infrastructure.
Another great idea is that of energy tycoon T. Boone Pickens, who wishes to use the vast wilderness of Texas and the midwest to raise a wind energy farm that could provide 20% of the Southwest's energy needs, and could free up much needed natural gas that could be used to convert 100% of all government vehicles to clean energy, and free up a considerable amount of gasoline and deisel for the free market.
One more interesting idea is one that I have heard from many great thinkers such as Newt Gingrich. This idea is to use the closed military instillations in the U.S. to build nuclear reactors for energy production. This is smart useage of uninhabited property, which help create even more clean energy production. How could the environmentalists argue with that? (Wry Smile)
All of the above ideas are energy policies that could be voted on immediately, and could have a dramatic and quick effect on energy prices and subsequently the economy. Yet, for environmental idealogues, these policies would help instead of hurt those industries on which they have a idealogical vendetta waged, and they just don't care about the rest of use who are hurting at the pump.
The American people are demanding something be done! I believe that if more of the same crud oozes from the DNC's "Do Nothing Congress", and the needs of the American people are not met, there will be a lot of incumbents updating their resumes.
Granted I arrived in Washington the January 2007, which followed the spanking the GOP received in 2006. Yet, what was the real reason for this disciplinary action? Simple, the American people were disgusted with the GOP leadership, or lack thereof, and the complete abandonment of the conservative ideals that brought them to power in 1994. Today, we are seeing a resurgence in the old Conservative wing of the GOP with the protests taking place on Capitol Hill concerning the Energy Crisis, and the American people are paying attention.
America's attention is on the few patriots decrying the "tryanny" of the despotic rule of Speaker Pelosi, who is so beholden to her fringe enviromentalist base that she could not even allow a vote to allow this country to provide energy relief for its poor and lower middle class citizens. With America's attention squarely fixed on Congress, the GOP needs to sieze the moment and offer real ideas to help those citizens whom Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic party claim they represent. These same citizens who this day are suffering under the weight of high energy prices, and will suffer even greater come winter. These Americans are listening, but what is the message they need to hear?
The American citizen needs to hear more than just empty promises, or empty policies like "inflate your tires". (Marie Antionette could not have come up with a better policie initiative.) What they need to here are real plans that move our economy forward. Plans such as the bill introduced by Congressman Michael C. Burgess (R-TX)this Congress that would open our military bases to oil refinery construction and distribution. This simple fix would provide a quick answer to America's supply issues, while providing greater security for our energy infrastructure.
Another great idea is that of energy tycoon T. Boone Pickens, who wishes to use the vast wilderness of Texas and the midwest to raise a wind energy farm that could provide 20% of the Southwest's energy needs, and could free up much needed natural gas that could be used to convert 100% of all government vehicles to clean energy, and free up a considerable amount of gasoline and deisel for the free market.
One more interesting idea is one that I have heard from many great thinkers such as Newt Gingrich. This idea is to use the closed military instillations in the U.S. to build nuclear reactors for energy production. This is smart useage of uninhabited property, which help create even more clean energy production. How could the environmentalists argue with that? (Wry Smile)
All of the above ideas are energy policies that could be voted on immediately, and could have a dramatic and quick effect on energy prices and subsequently the economy. Yet, for environmental idealogues, these policies would help instead of hurt those industries on which they have a idealogical vendetta waged, and they just don't care about the rest of use who are hurting at the pump.
The American people are demanding something be done! I believe that if more of the same crud oozes from the DNC's "Do Nothing Congress", and the needs of the American people are not met, there will be a lot of incumbents updating their resumes.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Obamisms
For the last eight years Republicans have been regiled with "Bushisms" because of the current President's uncanny ability to butcher the English language. Yet, even in his misspeaking he still was able to master basic geography and social studies. Unfortunately, the current presumptive Democratic candidate for President, Senator Barak Obama (a Constitutional Lawyer) cannot seem to get even the most elementary facts about his country correct.
During the campaign for President, Barak Obama has given some wonderful gems for Republicans to devour. Even when the late night comedy hosts are experiencing ideological comedy block, Republicans around the country can enjoy the fodder Obama gives so generously.
For example, when asked about his campaign schedule Senator Obama offered that he had been to "57 states, and still [had] three more to go." Now the last time I counted the stars on the American flag there were only 50 stars, and if the honorable Senator from Illinois is correct, then Hawaii will have to change its State motto. Not knowing the number of states is not too serious when you consider that Miss Teen South Carolina believes her country's name is the "United States of Americans", or that over 54% of Americans cannot accurately locate Washington, D.C on a map, or even Texas for that matter. Mr. Obama's ignorance of the number of states in the United States just enables him to identify more closely with the American people, but surely when it comes to the Constitution, Mr. Obama is an expert?
Not according to his recent statements in an interview with CBS when asked why he is meeting with foreign heads of state. In response to the question Senator Obama replied, "I want to get to know [them] better since I hope to be working with them for the next 8 to 10 years."
Now I am no expert when it comes to Constitutional Law like Barak Obama, who graduated Harvard Law School with a specialization in Constitutional Law, but I do know that according to the 25th Amendment, the President of the United States is limited to two, four year terms. If my math is correct that equals 8 definitively, not 8 to 10.
Here we have a Presidential candidate who cannot effectively communicate the subject in which he is Ivy League educated, and no one can see the comedy in that. Perhaps the light night comedy hosts are getting lazy, or perhaps they are afraid of being labeled racist, heretics or even worse...Republicans.
During the campaign for President, Barak Obama has given some wonderful gems for Republicans to devour. Even when the late night comedy hosts are experiencing ideological comedy block, Republicans around the country can enjoy the fodder Obama gives so generously.
For example, when asked about his campaign schedule Senator Obama offered that he had been to "57 states, and still [had] three more to go." Now the last time I counted the stars on the American flag there were only 50 stars, and if the honorable Senator from Illinois is correct, then Hawaii will have to change its State motto. Not knowing the number of states is not too serious when you consider that Miss Teen South Carolina believes her country's name is the "United States of Americans", or that over 54% of Americans cannot accurately locate Washington, D.C on a map, or even Texas for that matter. Mr. Obama's ignorance of the number of states in the United States just enables him to identify more closely with the American people, but surely when it comes to the Constitution, Mr. Obama is an expert?
Not according to his recent statements in an interview with CBS when asked why he is meeting with foreign heads of state. In response to the question Senator Obama replied, "I want to get to know [them] better since I hope to be working with them for the next 8 to 10 years."
Now I am no expert when it comes to Constitutional Law like Barak Obama, who graduated Harvard Law School with a specialization in Constitutional Law, but I do know that according to the 25th Amendment, the President of the United States is limited to two, four year terms. If my math is correct that equals 8 definitively, not 8 to 10.
Here we have a Presidential candidate who cannot effectively communicate the subject in which he is Ivy League educated, and no one can see the comedy in that. Perhaps the light night comedy hosts are getting lazy, or perhaps they are afraid of being labeled racist, heretics or even worse...Republicans.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Obama: A False Messiah
Since the beginning of the Democratic Primary race, Senator Obama's campaign has tried to portray the Illinois Senator as the "Savior of America". With an almost messianic message of "hope", "change", and "salvation" Mr. Obama has swept the country up in a kind of delirium, that rivals when the Beatles first arrived in the States back in the 1960s. Now the alleged "savior" is seeking to sway the evangelical vote his direction with policies that tickle the evangelical ear. It is time that American Evangelicals begin to see who this "wolf in sheep's clothing" really is.
In the last couple of weeks, Sen. Obama has reached out to America's evangelical community by promising to keep and expand President Bush's faith based initiatives program, and by stating that he believes that the legality of abortion should be determined by the States. However, these statements do not align with much of what Mr. Obama said during the Democratic primary.
For a gentleman who believes that people who believe in God do so because they are "bitter with their situation in life", claiming that he wants to help these embittered citizens who "cling to guns, and have anti-immigrant feelings" help their communities appears disingenuous. Senator Obama since before the beginning of his campaign has tried to court the Christian Evangelical vote. In his two books, he regales the reader with his stories of conversion and service to the Christian cause. Yet, when he is alone and with people who he believes are not going to report what he says, he belittles people of faith. I know that ridiculing Christians in San Francisco is en vouge to the voters of the most liberal city in America, but to the people of the South and the Bible belt it is patronizing, especially when his rhetoric about faith is different when he is in Mobile, Alabama.
In recent weeks Mr. Obama has also been quoted as saying that he believes that issues surrounding abortion should be decided by the States. However, this is not what the Senator, who believes a child is a punishment, said when he was courting Democratic votes. In a townhall meeting held by Mr. Obama during the primary, he was recorded (after being asked abortion) saying "I don't want my daughters, if they made a mistake, punished with a child". This simple statement reveals the heart of Mr. Obama, and tells us where really stands on this issue. Conservatives and Evangelicals should not be confused, the Honorable Senator from Illinois is not the "Savior of America"!
I believe that Senator Obama is genuine in his claims that he wishes to see change in America. All Americans would like to see change, but not all Americans are willing to sell out their beliefs or their freedom to do so. Since 2006 the Democratic Party has sought ways to lure the Christian Evangelical vote their way. In 2007, they hired a woman who had once held a policy position with the Assembly of God denomination, to help develop a strategy to make the Democrats more appealing to Christian voters. The language you see come from Senator Obama, is no doubt heartfelt, but it is clouded in the rhetoric that is emanating from the Religion think tank at the DNC. It is time that Evangelicals open their eyes and heed the warning that Jesus gave us to "beware of false prophets...and wolves in sheep's clothing".
In the last couple of weeks, Sen. Obama has reached out to America's evangelical community by promising to keep and expand President Bush's faith based initiatives program, and by stating that he believes that the legality of abortion should be determined by the States. However, these statements do not align with much of what Mr. Obama said during the Democratic primary.
For a gentleman who believes that people who believe in God do so because they are "bitter with their situation in life", claiming that he wants to help these embittered citizens who "cling to guns, and have anti-immigrant feelings" help their communities appears disingenuous. Senator Obama since before the beginning of his campaign has tried to court the Christian Evangelical vote. In his two books, he regales the reader with his stories of conversion and service to the Christian cause. Yet, when he is alone and with people who he believes are not going to report what he says, he belittles people of faith. I know that ridiculing Christians in San Francisco is en vouge to the voters of the most liberal city in America, but to the people of the South and the Bible belt it is patronizing, especially when his rhetoric about faith is different when he is in Mobile, Alabama.
In recent weeks Mr. Obama has also been quoted as saying that he believes that issues surrounding abortion should be decided by the States. However, this is not what the Senator, who believes a child is a punishment, said when he was courting Democratic votes. In a townhall meeting held by Mr. Obama during the primary, he was recorded (after being asked abortion) saying "I don't want my daughters, if they made a mistake, punished with a child". This simple statement reveals the heart of Mr. Obama, and tells us where really stands on this issue. Conservatives and Evangelicals should not be confused, the Honorable Senator from Illinois is not the "Savior of America"!
I believe that Senator Obama is genuine in his claims that he wishes to see change in America. All Americans would like to see change, but not all Americans are willing to sell out their beliefs or their freedom to do so. Since 2006 the Democratic Party has sought ways to lure the Christian Evangelical vote their way. In 2007, they hired a woman who had once held a policy position with the Assembly of God denomination, to help develop a strategy to make the Democrats more appealing to Christian voters. The language you see come from Senator Obama, is no doubt heartfelt, but it is clouded in the rhetoric that is emanating from the Religion think tank at the DNC. It is time that Evangelicals open their eyes and heed the warning that Jesus gave us to "beware of false prophets...and wolves in sheep's clothing".
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Obama the Delusional
Yesterday on the campaign trail Senator and presidential candidate Barak Obama gave the single greatest quote of his campaign. "Its not the cost of gas that gives shock... its not the cost of gas, but how fast it went up." This single quote reveals a lot about the beliefs, judgment and mental state of the Democratic candidate. Mr. Obama's words reveal how out of touch he is with he American people, and how delusional he is about the energy situation in this country. But hey, he's going to talk to the terrorist and make it alright.
The American people could care less about the time it takes the market to adjust to the cost of energy, because in the amount of time the market adjusts many Americans will be homeless and starving. Energy costs have been horrible for far to long now, and the Federal Government has done nothing to relieve the problem.
Democrats want you to believe that it was under President Bush's watch that gas prices went up, and thus, it is his fault. However, in 2006, a barrel of oil cost $56 (up from $26 a barrel in 2001), but in the last 18 months (since the Democrats took power) oil has almost tripled to a cost of $136+ a barrel.
The Democrats in 2006 gave their energy plan. It called for large tax incentives and tax breaks for the oil industry and energy companies to research alternative sources of energy and to increase domestic supply. They promised that only they could lower oil prices and energy costs. Yet, after 18 months no legislation giving oil and energy companies tax breaks and tax incentives for increase supply production has been introduced; however, bill after bill has been introduced increasing taxes on oil and energy companies. lets also not forget the wonderful "cap and trade" or "Tax and kill" bill that just passed. Still, the Democrats have the "Audacity of Hype" to claim it is the Republicans who are at fault. As far as the the American people are concerned, both parties have not done enough to alleviate today's energy strain.
Until we increase our nation's supply of oil and lower domestic energy costs, it is delusional to believe that our problems won't seem as bad in a couple of months because the market will balance out. Such thinking is the reason why an Obama Presidency would be disastrous for this country.
The American people could care less about the time it takes the market to adjust to the cost of energy, because in the amount of time the market adjusts many Americans will be homeless and starving. Energy costs have been horrible for far to long now, and the Federal Government has done nothing to relieve the problem.
Democrats want you to believe that it was under President Bush's watch that gas prices went up, and thus, it is his fault. However, in 2006, a barrel of oil cost $56 (up from $26 a barrel in 2001), but in the last 18 months (since the Democrats took power) oil has almost tripled to a cost of $136+ a barrel.
The Democrats in 2006 gave their energy plan. It called for large tax incentives and tax breaks for the oil industry and energy companies to research alternative sources of energy and to increase domestic supply. They promised that only they could lower oil prices and energy costs. Yet, after 18 months no legislation giving oil and energy companies tax breaks and tax incentives for increase supply production has been introduced; however, bill after bill has been introduced increasing taxes on oil and energy companies. lets also not forget the wonderful "cap and trade" or "Tax and kill" bill that just passed. Still, the Democrats have the "Audacity of Hype" to claim it is the Republicans who are at fault. As far as the the American people are concerned, both parties have not done enough to alleviate today's energy strain.
Until we increase our nation's supply of oil and lower domestic energy costs, it is delusional to believe that our problems won't seem as bad in a couple of months because the market will balance out. Such thinking is the reason why an Obama Presidency would be disastrous for this country.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
An American Ideology: The Economy
NOTE: This piece, as will be with every piece in this series, is a very brief glimpse into the overall history and politics that shape our American ideology.
American Ideology: The Economy
With today’s economic concerns, and with presidential hopefuls pontificating on how they plan to pull us out of our “economic slump”, it is appropriate to continue our look into the American Ideology, and how Americans view and have viewed the American Economy.
Since the onset of the “Great Experiment”, the American economy has been built on the free market. It was not until the late 19th century that socialism began to show up in the thought process of the American people. The founding fathers and subsequent generations understood that freedom must exist in commerce as well as in government, and many of the economic policies of the past were directed to that end.
Yet, in the early 20th century a new economic ideology began to seep into the American consciousness, and began the movement away from free market principles to more regulated, government controlled models that focused on social justice. Not forgetting the horrific conditions of many industrial revolutionary factories, and the slave wages many Americans worked for in the early 20th century it is easy to see why these populist ideas took root. However, the good that these policies did to create a fairer and healthier workplace in the early 20th century, is being out weighed by the damage the current aggressive socialist policies are doing to our economy today.
Free markets and deregulation, as revealed in the current economic atmosphere in Ireland (9% GDP in 2007), is the only way to spur another economic boom. Even though the working conditions and wages of the late 19th century worker were atrocious, the economy of late 19th century/early 20th century America was spectacular. Ingenuity and enterprise were the clarion call of the day, and America was poised to assume its later role as world super power. Yet, sadly today, America’s once economic prowess is falling to a weak dollar and high energy prices. What is to be done to stimulate our economy once again?
If America grasps on to its original ideology of free markets and deregulation again, we could see a stronger economy in our future. However, if few allow the current crop of socialist to implement their ideas of increasing taxes, and implementing greater control on the market, we will see America’s economy fall away. The American Economic Ideology of free markets and limited government interference is the only saving hope for America’s economy today.
American Ideology: The Economy
With today’s economic concerns, and with presidential hopefuls pontificating on how they plan to pull us out of our “economic slump”, it is appropriate to continue our look into the American Ideology, and how Americans view and have viewed the American Economy.
Since the onset of the “Great Experiment”, the American economy has been built on the free market. It was not until the late 19th century that socialism began to show up in the thought process of the American people. The founding fathers and subsequent generations understood that freedom must exist in commerce as well as in government, and many of the economic policies of the past were directed to that end.
Yet, in the early 20th century a new economic ideology began to seep into the American consciousness, and began the movement away from free market principles to more regulated, government controlled models that focused on social justice. Not forgetting the horrific conditions of many industrial revolutionary factories, and the slave wages many Americans worked for in the early 20th century it is easy to see why these populist ideas took root. However, the good that these policies did to create a fairer and healthier workplace in the early 20th century, is being out weighed by the damage the current aggressive socialist policies are doing to our economy today.
Free markets and deregulation, as revealed in the current economic atmosphere in Ireland (9% GDP in 2007), is the only way to spur another economic boom. Even though the working conditions and wages of the late 19th century worker were atrocious, the economy of late 19th century/early 20th century America was spectacular. Ingenuity and enterprise were the clarion call of the day, and America was poised to assume its later role as world super power. Yet, sadly today, America’s once economic prowess is falling to a weak dollar and high energy prices. What is to be done to stimulate our economy once again?
If America grasps on to its original ideology of free markets and deregulation again, we could see a stronger economy in our future. However, if few allow the current crop of socialist to implement their ideas of increasing taxes, and implementing greater control on the market, we will see America’s economy fall away. The American Economic Ideology of free markets and limited government interference is the only saving hope for America’s economy today.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Obama's Undoing: 5 things that will end Senator Obama's Presidential bid
After watching Fox News Sunday’s interview with Presidential hopeful Senator Barak Obama I realized that there are really five clear things that will bring down the Illinois Senator.
1. Connections with a radical Black Liberation preacher and church.
It is not merely that people disagree with the racial ranting and conspiratorial diatribes that come forth from the mouth of Rev. Jeremiah Wright that will hurt Se. Obama. It is Sen. Obama’s denial that in 20 years of attending Rev. Wright’s church he never heard anything controversial. Well that was the first answer. Then it was Sen. Obama heard things he didn’t necessarily agree with, but stayed in the church because of the good works the church was doing in the community. It doesn’t matter the good works an organization does in a community, if it is teaching racism and sedition it is not an organization any person should be a member of. Only those blinded by “hope” would see otherwise.
2. The company he keeps.
When you have one radical or shady friend people are willing to accept that, because we all have one or two people we wish we didn’t know. However, when you defend a known terrorist and associate and profit from dirty dealers the American people begin to question your judgment. Sen. Obama not only associates himself with a radical racist pastor, but is also closely connected to a 1960’s radical who is known, and unapologetically admitted to blowing up bombs at several Washington D.C. buildings. The connection between Sen. Obama and Prof. William Ayers is both neighborly and financial. Mr. Ayers held a find raiser for Sen. Obama’s presidential campaign where Sen. Obama was in attendance. When asked about his association with Prof. Ayers, Obama defiantly asks if he should “base his associations on actions individuals did 40 years ago?” My answer to that question is yes! Especially when it comes to someone who is guilty of sedition and still believes he was right in doing what he did.
3. Sen. Obama has a 98.9% liberal voting record (CongressWatch.com), the highest in the Senate.
In 2004, Sen. John Kerry (D- MA) was given a 96% liberal voting record, meaning that 96% of the time he voted with the liberal cause. This hurt Sen. John Kerry in 2004, and it will not bode well for a man who claims he can “reach across the aisle, and unite the country”. It is hard to believe that conservatives will appreciate the first 100 days of an Obama presidency when such legislation as Universal Healthcare or the raising of taxes is passed and signed. These are some of the issues Mr. Obama has consistently voted for.
4. A vague presidential platform of “change”.
“What does Senator Obama seek to change?” is the question millions of Americans still need Sen. Obama to answer. In his stumps speech he talks about hope and change, but he never details how he intends to change Washington. Is he going to change his own style of politics, and fight against the special interest that he represents in order to reach across the aisle? Is he going to veto anything that comes from his party? Change is a very broad topic, and is a wonderfully popular topic among the American people, however, eventually they want to know how you plan on changing America, and usually they make you tell them before they will vote for you.
5. Not saying what he means the first time.
During the entire interview on Saturday, Sen. Obama repeatedly corrected Chris Wallace, who was directly quoting Mr. Obama, and told him “what he meant by that”. It is hard to get behind a candidate that when questioned on his statements, tries to spin his statement to mean something else. The American people deserve a president who means what he says the first time he says it. We do not deserve someone who changes the meaning of his words when they are no longer politically expedient. Mr. Obama’s desire to be all things to all people will in the end give him a falseness that the American people will reject. This item is what I believe will hurt him the most.
For the first time in American history, America has a legitimate African-American candidate. However, being charismatic and articulate is not enough to run the greatest country every created by man. In these hard times we need real leadership with real, clear vision. We don’t need empty promises of hope and change, but we need someone who on day one will begin to allow his actions speak for themselves. Senator Obama is very “presidential”, but I do not believe there is much “there, there”. Yet, only time will tell, and we will see who Mr. Obama really is, should he receive the Democratic nomination.
1. Connections with a radical Black Liberation preacher and church.
It is not merely that people disagree with the racial ranting and conspiratorial diatribes that come forth from the mouth of Rev. Jeremiah Wright that will hurt Se. Obama. It is Sen. Obama’s denial that in 20 years of attending Rev. Wright’s church he never heard anything controversial. Well that was the first answer. Then it was Sen. Obama heard things he didn’t necessarily agree with, but stayed in the church because of the good works the church was doing in the community. It doesn’t matter the good works an organization does in a community, if it is teaching racism and sedition it is not an organization any person should be a member of. Only those blinded by “hope” would see otherwise.
2. The company he keeps.
When you have one radical or shady friend people are willing to accept that, because we all have one or two people we wish we didn’t know. However, when you defend a known terrorist and associate and profit from dirty dealers the American people begin to question your judgment. Sen. Obama not only associates himself with a radical racist pastor, but is also closely connected to a 1960’s radical who is known, and unapologetically admitted to blowing up bombs at several Washington D.C. buildings. The connection between Sen. Obama and Prof. William Ayers is both neighborly and financial. Mr. Ayers held a find raiser for Sen. Obama’s presidential campaign where Sen. Obama was in attendance. When asked about his association with Prof. Ayers, Obama defiantly asks if he should “base his associations on actions individuals did 40 years ago?” My answer to that question is yes! Especially when it comes to someone who is guilty of sedition and still believes he was right in doing what he did.
3. Sen. Obama has a 98.9% liberal voting record (CongressWatch.com), the highest in the Senate.
In 2004, Sen. John Kerry (D- MA) was given a 96% liberal voting record, meaning that 96% of the time he voted with the liberal cause. This hurt Sen. John Kerry in 2004, and it will not bode well for a man who claims he can “reach across the aisle, and unite the country”. It is hard to believe that conservatives will appreciate the first 100 days of an Obama presidency when such legislation as Universal Healthcare or the raising of taxes is passed and signed. These are some of the issues Mr. Obama has consistently voted for.
4. A vague presidential platform of “change”.
“What does Senator Obama seek to change?” is the question millions of Americans still need Sen. Obama to answer. In his stumps speech he talks about hope and change, but he never details how he intends to change Washington. Is he going to change his own style of politics, and fight against the special interest that he represents in order to reach across the aisle? Is he going to veto anything that comes from his party? Change is a very broad topic, and is a wonderfully popular topic among the American people, however, eventually they want to know how you plan on changing America, and usually they make you tell them before they will vote for you.
5. Not saying what he means the first time.
During the entire interview on Saturday, Sen. Obama repeatedly corrected Chris Wallace, who was directly quoting Mr. Obama, and told him “what he meant by that”. It is hard to get behind a candidate that when questioned on his statements, tries to spin his statement to mean something else. The American people deserve a president who means what he says the first time he says it. We do not deserve someone who changes the meaning of his words when they are no longer politically expedient. Mr. Obama’s desire to be all things to all people will in the end give him a falseness that the American people will reject. This item is what I believe will hurt him the most.
For the first time in American history, America has a legitimate African-American candidate. However, being charismatic and articulate is not enough to run the greatest country every created by man. In these hard times we need real leadership with real, clear vision. We don’t need empty promises of hope and change, but we need someone who on day one will begin to allow his actions speak for themselves. Senator Obama is very “presidential”, but I do not believe there is much “there, there”. Yet, only time will tell, and we will see who Mr. Obama really is, should he receive the Democratic nomination.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
An American Ideology: The Constitution
NOTE: This piece, as will be with every piece in this series, is a very brief glimpse into the overall history and politics that shape our American ideology.
In every social studies class and Government 101 class in college the Constitution is covered. Usually not in great detail, and sometimes with the teacher’s own personal biases mixed in. Yet, every American is instructed on the document that is the foundation for laws and government for their country. Surprisingly though, many Americans cannot accurately tell you which amendment contains the freedom of religion or where in the Constitution they can find the enumerated powers of the three branches of government. A people ignorant of the document that protects them from the overreach of government cannot prevent the stripping away of their freedoms, or realize that those freedoms were there to begin with. This is why I am starting with the Constitution. Not, only because it is a great document to use to develop the American Ideology, but also to give the readers a desire to read again the document that is so important to their freedom.
Since the founding fathers began working on a Constitution to today, the debate behind the interpretation of the second greatest document ever written (second only to the Bible) has continued. To state that the founding fathers were unanimous in their support for the Constitution would be inaccurate.
The men who fought the Revolution against the British and formed this great nation were divided during the ratification of the Constitution (September 1787 to July 1788), and split into political groups called Federalists and Anti-federalists. These were the beginnings of the dual party system we have today. The Federalist argued for the ratification of the Constitution which established a strong central government, but still allowed for the sovereignty of the States. The Anti-federalists argued against the ratification in support of a united confederacy of sovereign States. Ultimately the Federalists were able to persuade the American people, and the Constitution was officially ratified in 1788 and became the law of the land.
The fact we have a Constitution or its history of ratification has never been the hot topic of debate, but the interpretation of this document is where much of the division lies. There are many in this country that would say that the Constitution is a “living, breathing document”, which is to say that it “progresses” with the American people. There are also those who are labeled “constructionists” who believe that the Constitution is legal contract, and therefore is a stalwart document and its meaning can only be changed with amendments. In further study of the founding father’s opinions of the Constitution, they would say the Constitution is a legal contract between the governed and the government, and can only change with the people through the amendment process. Yet, as America progressed through centuries the “constructionist” belief dwindled more and more, yet with the rising of the modern conservative movement more people are beginning to understand the founding father’s opinion of the Constitution and are asking questions to the validity of the “living, breathing” or “progressive” position.
It is important to understand that both thought processes have a place into today’s political environment. The “progressive” interpretation of the Constitution led to the abolition of slavery (13th Amendment), the 14th , 15th and 19th Amendments which are very important to the progression of this country. Yet, the “progressive” interpretation of the Constitution has led to some rather harmful positions as well. For example: “Separation of Church and State” being inserted into the 1st Amendment as to mean Government to be separated from religion (which was never the intent of the founding fathers), Legalized Abortion (which would have turned the stomachs of anyone who was born before the turn of the 19th-20th century), and Flag Burning and Pornography protected under the freedom of speech. Anyone would be hard pressed to find a document that the founding fathers wrote that would support any of these positions, yet they have become accepted interpretations by many in “progressive” camp.
If you examine the previous goods that have come from the “progressive” camp you will see that many of them were achieved through “constructionist” methods (i.e. the amendment process). Yet, the arguments used to support these amendments originated from a “living, breathing” interpretation. I say this, because a strict “constructionist” interpretation would have maintained that African Americans should only amount to 3/5 a person.
A “progressive constructionist” view of the Constitution would best fit into an American ideology. It would allow for some interpretation of the constitution, but would require that any law that is proposed, that is contrary to the original intent of the constitution or the amendment in question, be subject to the Amendment process. This kind of position would be consistent with the evolution of this country, and would uphold the founding principles that make this country great.
In every social studies class and Government 101 class in college the Constitution is covered. Usually not in great detail, and sometimes with the teacher’s own personal biases mixed in. Yet, every American is instructed on the document that is the foundation for laws and government for their country. Surprisingly though, many Americans cannot accurately tell you which amendment contains the freedom of religion or where in the Constitution they can find the enumerated powers of the three branches of government. A people ignorant of the document that protects them from the overreach of government cannot prevent the stripping away of their freedoms, or realize that those freedoms were there to begin with. This is why I am starting with the Constitution. Not, only because it is a great document to use to develop the American Ideology, but also to give the readers a desire to read again the document that is so important to their freedom.
Since the founding fathers began working on a Constitution to today, the debate behind the interpretation of the second greatest document ever written (second only to the Bible) has continued. To state that the founding fathers were unanimous in their support for the Constitution would be inaccurate.
The men who fought the Revolution against the British and formed this great nation were divided during the ratification of the Constitution (September 1787 to July 1788), and split into political groups called Federalists and Anti-federalists. These were the beginnings of the dual party system we have today. The Federalist argued for the ratification of the Constitution which established a strong central government, but still allowed for the sovereignty of the States. The Anti-federalists argued against the ratification in support of a united confederacy of sovereign States. Ultimately the Federalists were able to persuade the American people, and the Constitution was officially ratified in 1788 and became the law of the land.
The fact we have a Constitution or its history of ratification has never been the hot topic of debate, but the interpretation of this document is where much of the division lies. There are many in this country that would say that the Constitution is a “living, breathing document”, which is to say that it “progresses” with the American people. There are also those who are labeled “constructionists” who believe that the Constitution is legal contract, and therefore is a stalwart document and its meaning can only be changed with amendments. In further study of the founding father’s opinions of the Constitution, they would say the Constitution is a legal contract between the governed and the government, and can only change with the people through the amendment process. Yet, as America progressed through centuries the “constructionist” belief dwindled more and more, yet with the rising of the modern conservative movement more people are beginning to understand the founding father’s opinion of the Constitution and are asking questions to the validity of the “living, breathing” or “progressive” position.
It is important to understand that both thought processes have a place into today’s political environment. The “progressive” interpretation of the Constitution led to the abolition of slavery (13th Amendment), the 14th , 15th and 19th Amendments which are very important to the progression of this country. Yet, the “progressive” interpretation of the Constitution has led to some rather harmful positions as well. For example: “Separation of Church and State” being inserted into the 1st Amendment as to mean Government to be separated from religion (which was never the intent of the founding fathers), Legalized Abortion (which would have turned the stomachs of anyone who was born before the turn of the 19th-20th century), and Flag Burning and Pornography protected under the freedom of speech. Anyone would be hard pressed to find a document that the founding fathers wrote that would support any of these positions, yet they have become accepted interpretations by many in “progressive” camp.
If you examine the previous goods that have come from the “progressive” camp you will see that many of them were achieved through “constructionist” methods (i.e. the amendment process). Yet, the arguments used to support these amendments originated from a “living, breathing” interpretation. I say this, because a strict “constructionist” interpretation would have maintained that African Americans should only amount to 3/5 a person.
A “progressive constructionist” view of the Constitution would best fit into an American ideology. It would allow for some interpretation of the constitution, but would require that any law that is proposed, that is contrary to the original intent of the constitution or the amendment in question, be subject to the Amendment process. This kind of position would be consistent with the evolution of this country, and would uphold the founding principles that make this country great.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)