What are we to make of the seemingly incessant left-wing chorus and their proclamations about how issues are being addressed by Sweden, or France, or some other country that they believe possess an enlightenment that is light-years beyond our own? If the subject is healthcare, then the Left will proclaim that there are surveys showing that 37 other countries provide better health care to their citizens than does the United States. If the issue is religion, there will be countless refrains about the benefits of secularism on display in Europe. When the subject of education is brought up, there are multitudes of tsk-tskers at the ready to tell anyone who will listen how great the educational system is in England, in Asia, or in Norway.
It doesn’t matter what the subject matter is, the stentorian Left are always there to dismiss American accomplishments, American leadership, and above all, American exceptionalism. And why not? Hasn’t it always been thus? Haven’t the weak always resented the strong? Aren’t the anti-American Americans really just parroting the sentiments of certain factions who have consistently found themselves in second place (or third place, or last place) when measured against American accomplishment? Ever since Farmer Cain slew Abel, the Hunter, there has existed a resentment, fomented by envy, among those who are weak against those who are strong. It exists today in many forms, in many quarters, just as it did one hundred years ago.
In 1910, at the Sorbonne, in Paris, Teddy Roosevelt gave a speech which has come to be known as “Citizenship in a Republic.” It is also known as “The Critic,” and I submit that this speech thoroughly highlights the difference between Left and Right:
“It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.”
While America may not be ranked at the very top of the survey in infant mortality, or have the absolute highest life expectancy, or the lowest crime rate, if you were to categorize every single, measurable factor, including freedom, liberty, opportunity, charity, and general goodwill toward her neighbors, it is abundantly clear that she deserves the title of Greatest Nation on Earth. It is indisputable. Ask the millions and millions who have immigrated to America, and consider the scores who have died trying. Who continue to die trying.
Better still, perhaps, would be to ask those on the Left -- those who are extraordinarily lucky enough to call themselves Americans -- why they persist in actively working to transform America into something that resembles a socialist nation. Perhaps they can explain why they want the preeminent global superpower to stand down, to ignore her glorious past and dismiss her awe-inspiring potential in order to focus on...being more Euro-centric and embracing an ideology of abject failure.
Although she has occasionally stumbled along the way, overall there is no nation on earth that can lay claim to the depth and breadth of greatness that is America. In fact, no nation has yet existed which surpasses America insofar as the freedoms of her people and her contributions to mankind, as a whole. This is no sycophantic boast, no mere wish borne of blind allegiance; this is a studied, reasoned and objective statement of fact. It is, therefore, extraordinarily fascinating -- continually, perpetually, absolutely, really and truly fascinating -- how so many people can continue to believe that Socialism is the answer to any problem. I mean, how much evidence is needed that Socialism is, at best, immoral, and at worst, evil? Even the Soviets and the East Germans wised up, eventually. China -- CHINA!! -- is today dabbling in free-market capitalism. This from a nation that has long labored under Socialism’s “big brother,” Communism. They have lived under Socialism taken to its logical conclusion and found it wanting!
So, what is it that compels certain Americans in general, and most Liberals in particular, to have this deep, emotional attachment to Socialism? What are the common denominators? Have they been denied an education? Raised in a cave? Suffered a severe head injury? What is it, exactly, that makes a person continue to believe that Socialism is a good thing when overwhelming evidence exists to contradict that belief?
I do not know. I really have no idea. Maybe they just like to criticize.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Friday, April 2, 2010
Welfare
Assertion: Everyone needs a little help from time to time, and sometimes, when all else fails, that help may need to come from the government. When that happens, we mustn’t blindly throw money at people; we must educate them, or help them find job training or apprenticeships. We must also ensure accountability: Recipients of government assistance must demonstrate that they are serious about finding employment, and welfare agencies must also show a determination to help those who are willing to help themselves. As such, any person who receives money in any form from a welfare agency should be subject to random drug testing and/or alcohol screening. An inability to pass either of these tests will disqualify most people from any job that requires it; that failure should also result in the instant disqualification of eligibility for future welfare assistance. The government has no business enabling reckless and self-defeating behavior, however, anyone can make a mistake. Upon the successful completion of a drug or alcohol treatment program the former enrollee may petition for reinstatement, but only once: Any subsequent relapse will irrevocably disqualify them from all future participation in any government-funded assistance program of any kind. Welfare should be used as a hand up, not as a lifetime hand-out. It should in no way enable a permanent lifestyle choice.
Why This Is Important: America has long been called “The Land of Opportunity,” and rightly so. We do our citizens no favors by encouraging a perpetual reliance upon “the Government,” nor are we helping those who need assistance by ignoring the issues which contribute to the problem in the first place. Those who end up on welfare rolls often do so as a result of failures upstream, and most are typically related to two things: family strife or a failed education. Often, the two are interrelated. If we really want to help our fellow man, and we are determined to use public funds to do so, we must ensure that we are addressing the core problems and not burying them under money and bureaucracy.
Constitutional Basis: There is no constitutional basis for government assistance, although it does exist in many forms. Our position is that welfare should be a matter for State governments, not the Federal government, and that in any event assistance should be rendered judiciously.
Quote: "...[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” – James Madison
Why This Is Important: America has long been called “The Land of Opportunity,” and rightly so. We do our citizens no favors by encouraging a perpetual reliance upon “the Government,” nor are we helping those who need assistance by ignoring the issues which contribute to the problem in the first place. Those who end up on welfare rolls often do so as a result of failures upstream, and most are typically related to two things: family strife or a failed education. Often, the two are interrelated. If we really want to help our fellow man, and we are determined to use public funds to do so, we must ensure that we are addressing the core problems and not burying them under money and bureaucracy.
Constitutional Basis: There is no constitutional basis for government assistance, although it does exist in many forms. Our position is that welfare should be a matter for State governments, not the Federal government, and that in any event assistance should be rendered judiciously.
Quote: "...[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” – James Madison
Voting
Assertion: "Citizen" is defined as a person owing loyalty to a state or nation. A citizen is entitled, by birth or naturalization, to the protection of said state or nation, and is further defined as someone who is entitled to vote.
Only U.S. citizens should be allowed to participate in American elections. If you want to vote, you must be able to provide proof of U.S. citizenship, which may be accomplished by registering to vote and presenting a valid picture ID at the polling station.
Why This Is Important: When the voting process is compromised, a nation’s identity becomes diluted. In essence, shared values become corrupted when those who do not share those values are allowed to infiltrate and influence the election process. Therefore, only those who have an allegiance to America should have a say in deciding what is best for America. American citizens are uniquely prepared to make such decisions, as only they are fully and completely aware of the history and the traditions which have kept America free, safe and secure for over two hundred years.
Constitutional Basis: The Constitution contains numerous references to the rights of “citizens of the United States,” and four amendments deal directly with voting: The 15th, the 19th, the 24th, and the 26th Amendments declare that race, sex, wealth, or age will not be used to discriminate against “the right of citizens of the United States” to vote in U.S. elections. Visitors, tourists, temporary workers, migrant workers, guest workers and all other persons who are not U.S. citizens do not have the right to vote and may not vote in U.S. elections.
Quote: “Your every voter, as surely as your chief magistrate, exercises a public trust.” – Grover Cleveland
Only U.S. citizens should be allowed to participate in American elections. If you want to vote, you must be able to provide proof of U.S. citizenship, which may be accomplished by registering to vote and presenting a valid picture ID at the polling station.
Why This Is Important: When the voting process is compromised, a nation’s identity becomes diluted. In essence, shared values become corrupted when those who do not share those values are allowed to infiltrate and influence the election process. Therefore, only those who have an allegiance to America should have a say in deciding what is best for America. American citizens are uniquely prepared to make such decisions, as only they are fully and completely aware of the history and the traditions which have kept America free, safe and secure for over two hundred years.
Constitutional Basis: The Constitution contains numerous references to the rights of “citizens of the United States,” and four amendments deal directly with voting: The 15th, the 19th, the 24th, and the 26th Amendments declare that race, sex, wealth, or age will not be used to discriminate against “the right of citizens of the United States” to vote in U.S. elections. Visitors, tourists, temporary workers, migrant workers, guest workers and all other persons who are not U.S. citizens do not have the right to vote and may not vote in U.S. elections.
Quote: “Your every voter, as surely as your chief magistrate, exercises a public trust.” – Grover Cleveland
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Social Security
Assertion: That we should all save some portion of our earnings for future needs is a fundamental tenet of financial freedom, and all U.S. citizens should have a mechanism through which they are able to do so. The funds supplied to Social Security via a tax on working Americans and their employers have been pillaged by Congress, redirected to other entitlement programs to the point where the Social Security program itself is in danger of collapse.
Why This Is Important: If we ignore the gathering storm we do so at our own risk. We must make plans, now, to begin to prepare for our own individual retirements, and transitioning a small part of what is currently being taken by the Government to individual retirement plans is vital to the financial independence of every American. We mustn’t let scare tactics and fear-mongering paralyze us from implementing common-sense solutions to our own financial security.
Constitutional Basis: There is no constitutional basis for Social Security; the Social Security Act itself is unconstitutional.
Quote: “He who fails to plan is planning to fail.” – Winston Churchill
Why This Is Important: If we ignore the gathering storm we do so at our own risk. We must make plans, now, to begin to prepare for our own individual retirements, and transitioning a small part of what is currently being taken by the Government to individual retirement plans is vital to the financial independence of every American. We mustn’t let scare tactics and fear-mongering paralyze us from implementing common-sense solutions to our own financial security.
Constitutional Basis: There is no constitutional basis for Social Security; the Social Security Act itself is unconstitutional.
Quote: “He who fails to plan is planning to fail.” – Winston Churchill
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
School Vouchers
Assertion: There is no legitimate rationale for continuing to support school systems that do not successfully educate our children. School Vouchers have worked every time and every place they have been tried. When given the opportunity to perform, students and teachers alike have excelled.
Why This Is Important:. We should not force our children to attend sub-par schools, nor should those schools receive federal funding. We should, instead, encourage the use of School Vouchers to allow parents and students to choose a school that offers them the very best chance to succeed.
Constitutional Basis: There is no provision relating to education in the Constitution; it is, therefore, a power reserved to the States. Our position, as always, is that local governments govern best, and therefore should have the final say in all educational matters.
Quote: “Education has for it’s object the formation of character.”
– Herbert Spencer
Why This Is Important:. We should not force our children to attend sub-par schools, nor should those schools receive federal funding. We should, instead, encourage the use of School Vouchers to allow parents and students to choose a school that offers them the very best chance to succeed.
Constitutional Basis: There is no provision relating to education in the Constitution; it is, therefore, a power reserved to the States. Our position, as always, is that local governments govern best, and therefore should have the final say in all educational matters.
Quote: “Education has for it’s object the formation of character.”
– Herbert Spencer
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
The Right to Work
Assertion: Every person who is legally eligible to work, and who is capable of it, must be allowed to pursue whatever work he or she desires, without encumbrance or interference from any other party or group. There exists an explicit compact between Worker and Employer, and no third party should attempt to interject themselves into this equation. That includes unions, the federal government, or any other agent not directly related to the business between those who seek employment and the private or public concern which seeks to employ him or her.
Why This Is Important: The Declaration of Independence declares, among other things, our unalienable right to the Pursuit of Happiness. While it is important to make the distinction between having a right to pursue happiness and otherwise having a government attempt to supply it to us, it is an undeniable fact that American citizens, that all persons, have a fundamental right to work. Whether or not they have the talent or skill to find work in a particular field, and whether or not such endeavors can provide the level of subsistence or lifestyle that they desire is another story – and completely irrelevant. People have the right to pursue employment without interference in any form, and from any faction.
Constitutional Basis: None, explicitly; however, the spirit of our Constitution does provide for freedom of religion, speech, assembly, gun ownership and the vote. It stands to reason, therefore, that American citizens also have the right to ply their trade or otherwise seek employment wherever and however they see fit.
Quote: “The business of America is business.” – Calvin Coolidge
Why This Is Important: The Declaration of Independence declares, among other things, our unalienable right to the Pursuit of Happiness. While it is important to make the distinction between having a right to pursue happiness and otherwise having a government attempt to supply it to us, it is an undeniable fact that American citizens, that all persons, have a fundamental right to work. Whether or not they have the talent or skill to find work in a particular field, and whether or not such endeavors can provide the level of subsistence or lifestyle that they desire is another story – and completely irrelevant. People have the right to pursue employment without interference in any form, and from any faction.
Constitutional Basis: None, explicitly; however, the spirit of our Constitution does provide for freedom of religion, speech, assembly, gun ownership and the vote. It stands to reason, therefore, that American citizens also have the right to ply their trade or otherwise seek employment wherever and however they see fit.
Quote: “The business of America is business.” – Calvin Coolidge
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Reproductive Freedom
Assertion: Abortion is an issue on which we are sharply divided. It is a difficult and trying ordeal that is also an extraordinarily private matter. We support a woman’s right to choose what to do with her body, but also hope that she gives the matter some very serious consideration long before having to make such a life-altering decision. Abstinence, contraceptives, non-vaginal sex, or delivering the baby and placing it for adoption are all preferrable to terminating a pregnancy. Abortion should remain legal but every effort should be made to reduce the number of abortions performed and partial-birth abortions should be outlawed altogether.
Why This Is Important: Abortion is a legal procedure available to terminate unwanted pregnancies up to 12 weeks in duration. While carrying a fetus to full term will always be the preferred outcome, it is understood that there are certain instances where doing so can have tremendous physical and psychological repercussions, at times jeopardizing the life of the mother. It is vitally important, therefore, that all parties understand that abortion is not a trivial matter nor is it a decision that should be made lightly or without counsel.
Constitutional Basis: There is no constitutional basis for abortion “rights,” although the SCOTUS essentially created one with Roe v. Wade. That being said, there also exists no constitutional right to exert control or authority over the day-to-day lives of American citizens, which includes decisions regarding reproduction.
Quote: “A private sin is not so prejudicial in this world as a public indecency.” – Cervantes
Why This Is Important: Abortion is a legal procedure available to terminate unwanted pregnancies up to 12 weeks in duration. While carrying a fetus to full term will always be the preferred outcome, it is understood that there are certain instances where doing so can have tremendous physical and psychological repercussions, at times jeopardizing the life of the mother. It is vitally important, therefore, that all parties understand that abortion is not a trivial matter nor is it a decision that should be made lightly or without counsel.
Constitutional Basis: There is no constitutional basis for abortion “rights,” although the SCOTUS essentially created one with Roe v. Wade. That being said, there also exists no constitutional right to exert control or authority over the day-to-day lives of American citizens, which includes decisions regarding reproduction.
Quote: “A private sin is not so prejudicial in this world as a public indecency.” – Cervantes
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Religious Freedom
Assertion: While the Federal Government should not favor one religion over another in the form of blatant or oppressive discrimination, neither should it fail to recognize that the United States of America is a Judeo-Christian nation and act accordingly. Indeed, these United States were founded on Judeo-Christian values: Each and every individual state in this Union made it a point to request the favor or blessing of a Creator God in their individual State Constitution. There can be no doubt that the United States of America is a Judeo-Christian nation, and her Government shall make no laws which hinder or abridge the rights of all Americans to freely practice their religion and/or support the laws and traditions thereof. The right of all people to worship as they choose is not a privilege to be bestowed by any King or denied by any Tyrant. It is a Divine Right, granted by our Creator, and American citizens are so endowed with the right to wear or display religious symbols and to participate in individual or group prayers, public or private; so, too, are they allowed to decline participation in any organized religion or religious activity. These and similar rights shall not be abridged by man or government, nor hindered by political-driven sentiment such as political correctness. We believe that school prayer is a good thing; that having the Ten Commandments posted anywhere is a good thing; that having “In God We Trust” on our currency is a good thing; and that having God in our Pledge of Allegiance is a good thing.
Why This Is Important: Only the most belligerent or ignorant would argue that America was not founded on Judeo-Christian values, or that Judeo-Christian values as a whole have not helped to significantly shape and civilize Mankind, usually for the better. From Arts and Letters to Science and Technology, those values have driven us forward, saints and sinners alike, out of the darkness and into the light. You don’t have to be an active participant in any religious organization to reap the rewards of a better, safer and more civil world. If for no other reason, we should uphold and defend every citizen’s right to practice their religion and to worship as they see fit.
Constitutional Basis: The Bill of Rights, Amendment I declares that Congress shall make no law with respect to religion, nor can it prohibit the free exercise thereof.
Quote: “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.” – Thomas Jefferson
Why This Is Important: Only the most belligerent or ignorant would argue that America was not founded on Judeo-Christian values, or that Judeo-Christian values as a whole have not helped to significantly shape and civilize Mankind, usually for the better. From Arts and Letters to Science and Technology, those values have driven us forward, saints and sinners alike, out of the darkness and into the light. You don’t have to be an active participant in any religious organization to reap the rewards of a better, safer and more civil world. If for no other reason, we should uphold and defend every citizen’s right to practice their religion and to worship as they see fit.
Constitutional Basis: The Bill of Rights, Amendment I declares that Congress shall make no law with respect to religion, nor can it prohibit the free exercise thereof.
Quote: “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.” – Thomas Jefferson
Thursday, March 25, 2010
National Defense
Assertion: America should continue to invest in National Defense until such time as the entire world is free from villainy, tyranny, and those who seek to do us harm. Further, the United States military shall answer to no one except the American people.
Why This Is Important: The entire world is not free from villainy, tyranny, or those who seek to do us harm, and all the talking and hand-holding in the world will not make it thus.
Constitutional Basis: Article I, Section 8 and Article II, Section 2
Quote: “We shall nobly save or meanly lose the last, best hope of earth.”– Abraham Lincoln
Why This Is Important: The entire world is not free from villainy, tyranny, or those who seek to do us harm, and all the talking and hand-holding in the world will not make it thus.
Constitutional Basis: Article I, Section 8 and Article II, Section 2
Quote: “We shall nobly save or meanly lose the last, best hope of earth.”– Abraham Lincoln
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Marriage
Assertion: Marriage is, by definition, the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife.
Why This Is Important: Traditions are important, but perhaps even more so are the fundamentals of basic Reason, Fact, and Logic. We would no sooner call an apple an orange, or declare that one plus one equals bacon, than to say that a marriage is between a woman and a woman, or a man and a man. A thing is not a different thing simply because some wish that it were so. That is not to say that all American citizens in a deeply committed relationship should not have the same basic rights as married couples simply because they are of the same sex; that is discrimination. Same-sex couples should be able to enter into a legally binding partnership of some kind – the actual term and definition is yet be determined – and be granted the same status in the eyes of the law, and hospital administrations, and insurance companies, and every other institution as long as they both shall live.
Constitutional Basis: None, either way, although we would say that we support the “Pursuit of Happiness” in virtually any form; if for some that means a same-sex partnership, or a civil union, it is a personal and private matter, and it is the business of only those who make that choice. The government itself has no business interjecting itself into matters of the heart, one way or another.
Quote: “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet.” – William Shakespeare
Why This Is Important: Traditions are important, but perhaps even more so are the fundamentals of basic Reason, Fact, and Logic. We would no sooner call an apple an orange, or declare that one plus one equals bacon, than to say that a marriage is between a woman and a woman, or a man and a man. A thing is not a different thing simply because some wish that it were so. That is not to say that all American citizens in a deeply committed relationship should not have the same basic rights as married couples simply because they are of the same sex; that is discrimination. Same-sex couples should be able to enter into a legally binding partnership of some kind – the actual term and definition is yet be determined – and be granted the same status in the eyes of the law, and hospital administrations, and insurance companies, and every other institution as long as they both shall live.
Constitutional Basis: None, either way, although we would say that we support the “Pursuit of Happiness” in virtually any form; if for some that means a same-sex partnership, or a civil union, it is a personal and private matter, and it is the business of only those who make that choice. The government itself has no business interjecting itself into matters of the heart, one way or another.
Quote: “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet.” – William Shakespeare
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Judiciary
Assertion: Only judges who follow the letter (if not the spirit or intent) of the Constitution should receive the support of American Patriots, their Congressmen, and their Senators. Those who seek to legislate from the bench should be identified and removed from it.
Why This Is Important: The importance of the Rule of Law and legal precedent cannot be overstated. Further, it is our judgment that the farther we as a Nation stray from the fundamental principles outlined in the Constitution of the United States of America, the more difficult it becomes to save our republic as it was intended. Especially whereas the Supreme Court of the United Sates receives its power from the Constitution, it should and must remain beholden to its core values, particularly as regards the “balance of power” between the three branches of government.
Constitutional Basis: Article III, Section II grants power to the SCOTUS over all cases “arising under this Constitution” and to all citizens in all matters ranging from state to state and from sea to shining sea.
Quote: “Extraordinary conditions do not create or enlarge Constitutional power.” – Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, Schecter v. United States
Why This Is Important: The importance of the Rule of Law and legal precedent cannot be overstated. Further, it is our judgment that the farther we as a Nation stray from the fundamental principles outlined in the Constitution of the United States of America, the more difficult it becomes to save our republic as it was intended. Especially whereas the Supreme Court of the United Sates receives its power from the Constitution, it should and must remain beholden to its core values, particularly as regards the “balance of power” between the three branches of government.
Constitutional Basis: Article III, Section II grants power to the SCOTUS over all cases “arising under this Constitution” and to all citizens in all matters ranging from state to state and from sea to shining sea.
Quote: “Extraordinary conditions do not create or enlarge Constitutional power.” – Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, Schecter v. United States
Friday, March 19, 2010
Income Tax
Assertion: The United States Tax Code should be simplified; taxes should be paid in proportion to income level; and every American citizen should pay taxes. A flat Income Tax should be implemented, or a national sales tax should replace the Income Tax.
Why This Is Important: The current tax code is complex, convoluted, and mind-numbingly long, running to over 1,000 pages. The “progressive” tax scheme currently employed is, in fact, oppressive and unfair. Furthermore, the more progressive it gets, the less effective it is: When you raise taxes on upper-income earners, and lower taxes on the low- and middle-income earners, you will see huge revenue losses from both accounts. The top earners will simply restructure their income to report less of it – think of 401(k)s, IRAs, Keough plans, itemized deductions, lifetime gifts, charitable gifts, trusts, tax free bonds, and all sorts of deferred income compensation plans – while the bottom 75% will pay less in taxes as a result of the reduced rate.
Taxes are a fact of life, and no rational person will complain about paying them as long as they are fair and everyone else is helping to pull the load. However, based on the latest available tax data, from 2005, the richest 1% of Americans pay about 39% of all income taxes collected. If we look at the top 5% of earners, we see that they paid about 60% of all taxes. Overall, the top 10% of taxpayers are responsible for 70% of all tax revenue. On the other hand, the bottom half of all American households account for just 3% of tax revenue, with roughly 122 million Americans -- 44 percent of our population -- having no tax liability whatsoever. This particular demographic group, therefore, “has no skin in the game,” and therefore have no sense of being a contributing member of their society. Instead, their worth as a citizen is devalued and in its place is rooted a sense of entitlement.
Using the U.S. tax code to redistribute wealth among citizens - taking money from one particular group of people for the expressed purpose of redirecting it to another group of people - is wrong; it is immoral, it is unjust, and it is un-American. Saying “We are going to tax cigarettes, and use that money to pay for children’s healthcare,” is but one example of our Congress trying to use the U.S. Tax Code as a means toward socialistic ends. The United States of America was not founded as, nor ever intended be modeled on, a socialist society. Article IV, Section IV of our Constitution avows that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” Those who seek to break that promise should be reminded of that fact at the ballot box.
Constitutional Basis: Amendment XVI gave the Congress broad powers to “lay and collect taxes on income.”
Quote: "How can there possibly be liberty and justice for all, when, in the name of justice, people claim rights to income, food, housing, education, health care, transportation, ad infinitum? We can't. Positive rights to receive such things, absent an obligation to earn them, must violate others' liberty, by taking some of their income without their consent. They are really just wishes, convertible into benefits for some only by employing the government to violate others' rights not to have what is theirs taken." – Gary Galles
Why This Is Important: The current tax code is complex, convoluted, and mind-numbingly long, running to over 1,000 pages. The “progressive” tax scheme currently employed is, in fact, oppressive and unfair. Furthermore, the more progressive it gets, the less effective it is: When you raise taxes on upper-income earners, and lower taxes on the low- and middle-income earners, you will see huge revenue losses from both accounts. The top earners will simply restructure their income to report less of it – think of 401(k)s, IRAs, Keough plans, itemized deductions, lifetime gifts, charitable gifts, trusts, tax free bonds, and all sorts of deferred income compensation plans – while the bottom 75% will pay less in taxes as a result of the reduced rate.
Taxes are a fact of life, and no rational person will complain about paying them as long as they are fair and everyone else is helping to pull the load. However, based on the latest available tax data, from 2005, the richest 1% of Americans pay about 39% of all income taxes collected. If we look at the top 5% of earners, we see that they paid about 60% of all taxes. Overall, the top 10% of taxpayers are responsible for 70% of all tax revenue. On the other hand, the bottom half of all American households account for just 3% of tax revenue, with roughly 122 million Americans -- 44 percent of our population -- having no tax liability whatsoever. This particular demographic group, therefore, “has no skin in the game,” and therefore have no sense of being a contributing member of their society. Instead, their worth as a citizen is devalued and in its place is rooted a sense of entitlement.
Using the U.S. tax code to redistribute wealth among citizens - taking money from one particular group of people for the expressed purpose of redirecting it to another group of people - is wrong; it is immoral, it is unjust, and it is un-American. Saying “We are going to tax cigarettes, and use that money to pay for children’s healthcare,” is but one example of our Congress trying to use the U.S. Tax Code as a means toward socialistic ends. The United States of America was not founded as, nor ever intended be modeled on, a socialist society. Article IV, Section IV of our Constitution avows that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” Those who seek to break that promise should be reminded of that fact at the ballot box.
Constitutional Basis: Amendment XVI gave the Congress broad powers to “lay and collect taxes on income.”
Quote: "How can there possibly be liberty and justice for all, when, in the name of justice, people claim rights to income, food, housing, education, health care, transportation, ad infinitum? We can't. Positive rights to receive such things, absent an obligation to earn them, must violate others' liberty, by taking some of their income without their consent. They are really just wishes, convertible into benefits for some only by employing the government to violate others' rights not to have what is theirs taken." – Gary Galles
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Immigration Policy
Assertion: As long as America remains the “Land of Opportunity” it will be attractive to people from all over the world. However, America can not sustain an influx of illegal immigrants living off the grid, paying no taxes and collecting benefits from Federal and State governments. It isn’t fair to hard-working tax-paying Americans and it isn’t fair to the hundreds of thousands who are going through the proper bureaucratic channels to attain American citizenship. This has nothing whatsoever to do with racism or xenophobia; our borders need to be secured, our immigration laws and processes need to be enforced, and non-citizens here illegally must be deported (without malice; essentially sent to the back of the line).
Why This Is Important: Basic mathematics tells us that we can not continue to support illegal immigrants. The financial drain it puts on our cities and states ultimately results in a higher tax burden on American citizens, taxes which in turn are used to pay for fewer basic services. The immigration demographic also plays a key role in America’s future, as a growing population comprised of hard-working tax-paying citizens, including lawful immigrants fully committed to the American ideal, is vital to our continued prosperity.
Constitutional Basis: Article I, Section 8 provides Congress with the power to establish uniform rules for Naturalization. The 14th Amendment provides the framework for what defines a citizen, chiefly that a person must be born in the U.S. or become a naturalized citizen. The Immigration and Naturalization Act sets forth the particular legal requirements for citizenships.
Quote: “Happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.” – George Washington
Why This Is Important: Basic mathematics tells us that we can not continue to support illegal immigrants. The financial drain it puts on our cities and states ultimately results in a higher tax burden on American citizens, taxes which in turn are used to pay for fewer basic services. The immigration demographic also plays a key role in America’s future, as a growing population comprised of hard-working tax-paying citizens, including lawful immigrants fully committed to the American ideal, is vital to our continued prosperity.
Constitutional Basis: Article I, Section 8 provides Congress with the power to establish uniform rules for Naturalization. The 14th Amendment provides the framework for what defines a citizen, chiefly that a person must be born in the U.S. or become a naturalized citizen. The Immigration and Naturalization Act sets forth the particular legal requirements for citizenships.
Quote: “Happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.” – George Washington
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Health Care
Note: There is extraordinary coverage of the current attempts to nationalize the U.S. healthcare system, yet few have gotten it right, in my view. First, the entire effort is unconstitutional. That should be enough to end the whole discussion - but that has not been the case. It seems our Congress feels that it may simply do whatever it wants to do (such is the hubris in D.C. these days). Secondly, if Congress were really and truly interested in "reforming healthcare," instead of advancing governmental power, they would be working to address the issues that are causing the problems. Alas, that isn't the case - which, when you think about it, is in itself a pretty damning piece of evidence, pointing straight to the heart of their treacherous machinations.
Assertion: American healthcare is among the very best in the world. We are the worldwide leader in medical innovation and advancements, and more people choose to get medical treatment in the U.S. than in any other country in the world. Where we fall short is not in our delivery of healthcare, but in the costs to the consumer. The way to reduce the cost of healthcare is to address the two major issues that keep those costs artificially inflated: Tort Reform and Interstate Insurance regulations.
Why This Is Important: When the costs of doing business increases, the costs incurred are passed along to the consumer. The same is true whether the product is pizza, Hawaiian shirts, or health care. Lawyers have been feeding at the medical malpractice trough for so long, and malpractice insurance has risen so dramatically as a result, that many doctors are leaving the field because they can no longer afford the insurance they need in order to practice. Standardize malpractice awards instead of allowing ambulance-chasing attorneys to try malpractice cases in “plaintiff-friendly” locales where jury awards are completely out-of-touch with reality. Additionally, current law allows the purchase of only those healthcare insurance plans which have been approved by the state in which the buyer resides. This allows de facto monopolies to exist within state boundaries, which results in less competition and higher prices. One of the few powers allotted to Congress is the power to regulate interstate commerce. If they want to do something useful, they should find a way to allow consumers to buy the best insurance coverage that they can afford, regardless of which state is offering it. These are the root causes of the healthcare “crisis,” and if we are to cure the patient we must address the symptoms.
Constitutional Basis: There is no constitutional basis for a nationalized healthcare system. However, Article I, Section 8, does grant to Congress the power to regulate commerce among the states, which means that it has the power to strike down what are essentially regional insurance monopolies. With regard to Tort Reform: Because exorbitant jury awards and legal fees generated by malpractice lawsuits extend, by their very nature, from the states in which the cases are tried to all states and municipalities, and such awards lead directly to increases in the costs of healthcare, we may infer that the cases are an Impost, or Duty, on healthcare itself. As such, they should therefore be regulated as such under Article I, Section 10. Section 8 also says that all Duties, Imposts and Excises “shall be uniform throughout the United States,” which means that seeking sympathetic juries outside of the state in which the harm was done, while good for the lawyers, is detrimental to the General Welfare of the American consumer.
Quote: “We should always presume the disease to be curable, until its own nature prove it otherwise.”– Peter Mere Latham
Assertion: American healthcare is among the very best in the world. We are the worldwide leader in medical innovation and advancements, and more people choose to get medical treatment in the U.S. than in any other country in the world. Where we fall short is not in our delivery of healthcare, but in the costs to the consumer. The way to reduce the cost of healthcare is to address the two major issues that keep those costs artificially inflated: Tort Reform and Interstate Insurance regulations.
Why This Is Important: When the costs of doing business increases, the costs incurred are passed along to the consumer. The same is true whether the product is pizza, Hawaiian shirts, or health care. Lawyers have been feeding at the medical malpractice trough for so long, and malpractice insurance has risen so dramatically as a result, that many doctors are leaving the field because they can no longer afford the insurance they need in order to practice. Standardize malpractice awards instead of allowing ambulance-chasing attorneys to try malpractice cases in “plaintiff-friendly” locales where jury awards are completely out-of-touch with reality. Additionally, current law allows the purchase of only those healthcare insurance plans which have been approved by the state in which the buyer resides. This allows de facto monopolies to exist within state boundaries, which results in less competition and higher prices. One of the few powers allotted to Congress is the power to regulate interstate commerce. If they want to do something useful, they should find a way to allow consumers to buy the best insurance coverage that they can afford, regardless of which state is offering it. These are the root causes of the healthcare “crisis,” and if we are to cure the patient we must address the symptoms.
Constitutional Basis: There is no constitutional basis for a nationalized healthcare system. However, Article I, Section 8, does grant to Congress the power to regulate commerce among the states, which means that it has the power to strike down what are essentially regional insurance monopolies. With regard to Tort Reform: Because exorbitant jury awards and legal fees generated by malpractice lawsuits extend, by their very nature, from the states in which the cases are tried to all states and municipalities, and such awards lead directly to increases in the costs of healthcare, we may infer that the cases are an Impost, or Duty, on healthcare itself. As such, they should therefore be regulated as such under Article I, Section 10. Section 8 also says that all Duties, Imposts and Excises “shall be uniform throughout the United States,” which means that seeking sympathetic juries outside of the state in which the harm was done, while good for the lawyers, is detrimental to the General Welfare of the American consumer.
Quote: “We should always presume the disease to be curable, until its own nature prove it otherwise.”– Peter Mere Latham
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Guns
Assertion: We believe that all of America is a militia, and that the Second Amendment guarantees each citizen the right to gun ownership.
Why This Is Important: The right to own a gun - or a knife, or a baseball bat, or to use any means or method necessary to defend one’s self or one’s family from harm - is self-evident.
Constitutional Basis: Amendment II
Quote: “Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who have not.” – Thomas Jefferson
Why This Is Important: The right to own a gun - or a knife, or a baseball bat, or to use any means or method necessary to defend one’s self or one’s family from harm - is self-evident.
Constitutional Basis: Amendment II
Quote: “Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who have not.” – Thomas Jefferson
Monday, March 15, 2010
Foreign Policy
Assertion: Our foreign policy will follow “The Golden Rule” in so far as we shall treat our neighbors and competitors as they treat us, their neighbors, and their competitors. We will provide support to those who have established or seek to establish free and open societies, and will not provide support to those who seek to stifle liberty. We shall endeavor to maintain global commerce and will act with whatever means are necessary to protect the free and open distribution of key resources to ourselves and our allies. Those who openly antagonize us, and who actively work against us – like those who consistently vote against our national interests in the United Nations – will see a sharp reduction or elimination of all U.S.-based foreign aid, in whatever form such aid may take. We must also actively work to strengthen our political and economic ties with India, the world’s largest democracy, and with whomsoever shares our fundamental commitment to freedom.
Why This Is Important: About three-quarters of those who receive foreign aid from the U.S. vote against our position a majority of the time. Granted, most UN resolutions aren’t really all that important and do not warrant the application of special or extraordinary U.S. pressure to influence the outcome, and we do get support on most of the major issues. However, while it is understood that foreign assistance programs can provide a minor degree of leverage, it should also be acknowledged that it remains largely ineffective as a means of affecting U.S. foreign policy as a whole. As such we should certainly re-examine the hundreds of millions of dollars we spend on foreign assistance against our relationships with each and every recipient of foreign aid.
There is nothing more important than the security of U.S. citizens. As the preeminent democracy on the planet, we must also do what we can to extend freedom and liberty for all of mankind. Prudence has its place, but we must also understand that not acting can prove to be more dangerous than taking decisive action in the first place.
Constitutional Basis: Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the right and power to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,” to define and punish “Offences against the Law of Nations,” to “declare War,” to “raise and support Armies,” to “maintain a Navy,” and to “make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.” Article II, Section II says the President “shall be Commander in Chief” and “shall have power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties.”
Quote: “Speak softly, but carry a big stick..” – Theodore Roosevelt
Why This Is Important: About three-quarters of those who receive foreign aid from the U.S. vote against our position a majority of the time. Granted, most UN resolutions aren’t really all that important and do not warrant the application of special or extraordinary U.S. pressure to influence the outcome, and we do get support on most of the major issues. However, while it is understood that foreign assistance programs can provide a minor degree of leverage, it should also be acknowledged that it remains largely ineffective as a means of affecting U.S. foreign policy as a whole. As such we should certainly re-examine the hundreds of millions of dollars we spend on foreign assistance against our relationships with each and every recipient of foreign aid.
There is nothing more important than the security of U.S. citizens. As the preeminent democracy on the planet, we must also do what we can to extend freedom and liberty for all of mankind. Prudence has its place, but we must also understand that not acting can prove to be more dangerous than taking decisive action in the first place.
Constitutional Basis: Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the right and power to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,” to define and punish “Offences against the Law of Nations,” to “declare War,” to “raise and support Armies,” to “maintain a Navy,” and to “make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.” Article II, Section II says the President “shall be Commander in Chief” and “shall have power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties.”
Quote: “Speak softly, but carry a big stick..” – Theodore Roosevelt
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Fiscal Responsibility
Assertion: While it is universally understood that credit and debt play an important part in the construction and operation of a vibrant economy, the Government has no constitutional authority to wantonly spend monies from the Treasury on 90% of the programs it currently funds. The truth is, the way the government spends money is completely lacking in any sort of fiduciary responsibility. We must take control of so-called “discretionary spending,” root out fraud, waste and abuse, and do everything we possibly can to achieve some semblance of a balanced and constitution-based budget.
Why This Is Important: As the Federal Government increases spending on a plethora of unconstitutional programs it increases the National debt and destabilizes the National economy, putting America at great risk. Besides the fact that unchecked Congressional spending puts us in economic peril, there is clearly no constitutional mandate for the vast majority of the programs and agencies they fund. The first thing we need to understand is that our government works within the framework of what is called an “annual baseline budget.” This isn’t a terrible thing, in itself, but it does allow our Representatives to assume that every federal program will exist from one year to the next without really looking into the situation. It is further assumed that the funding for these programs will need to be increased each year in order to offset inflation and, naturally, a growing number of enrollees. This lack of oversight means that, year in and year out, we end up funding programs that make little sense, have outlived their usefulness, or are so rife with fraud, waste, and abuse that we would be better served by burning the program funds for heat than chucking it into this black hole of mindless spending.
The Federal Government must be made to manage the National budget much as you and I do with our salaries and the expenses related to running our households, or as businesses do with respect to remaining in business. Why, for example, would the Federal Government spend $1 million for a Lewis and Clark exhibit in Washington state, $14 million in continuing funding for research on the aurora borealis in Alaska, or $1 million to keep the brown tree snake out of Hawaii? Why do we continue to fund the National Weather Service when there are more than 300 private businesses already providing weather forecasting?
Taxpayer money is being spent on a stunning array of government boondoggles and black holes, and we must put an end to the endless, mindless, pointless spending designed to do little more than guarantee the re-election of those who are squandering the resources of the national treasury. We must examine every government department, every government job, and every government subsidy, entitlement program and hand-out, and if it is unconstitutional, or constitutional but doesn’t make sense, we must shut it down.
We are now routinely talking about trillions of dollars when we discuss budgets and deficit spending, and when we talk about cutting a million here, or ten million there, there are those who like to downplay the importance of fiscal responsibility, who like to say "It's just a drop in the bucket." Well, here's a thought that might put things in perspective for those people: You can't convince a raindrop that it is responsible for the flood.
Constitutional Basis: Article I, Section 8 outlines the powers of Congress. Based on the fiduciary responsibilities assigned to the Federal Government, the only bona fide expenditures would, then, strictly involve only those costs incurred in the operation of the Internal Revenue Service, the Commerce Department, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Treasury, the Postal Service, and the Department of Defense.
Quote: "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents...." – James Madison
Why This Is Important: As the Federal Government increases spending on a plethora of unconstitutional programs it increases the National debt and destabilizes the National economy, putting America at great risk. Besides the fact that unchecked Congressional spending puts us in economic peril, there is clearly no constitutional mandate for the vast majority of the programs and agencies they fund. The first thing we need to understand is that our government works within the framework of what is called an “annual baseline budget.” This isn’t a terrible thing, in itself, but it does allow our Representatives to assume that every federal program will exist from one year to the next without really looking into the situation. It is further assumed that the funding for these programs will need to be increased each year in order to offset inflation and, naturally, a growing number of enrollees. This lack of oversight means that, year in and year out, we end up funding programs that make little sense, have outlived their usefulness, or are so rife with fraud, waste, and abuse that we would be better served by burning the program funds for heat than chucking it into this black hole of mindless spending.
The Federal Government must be made to manage the National budget much as you and I do with our salaries and the expenses related to running our households, or as businesses do with respect to remaining in business. Why, for example, would the Federal Government spend $1 million for a Lewis and Clark exhibit in Washington state, $14 million in continuing funding for research on the aurora borealis in Alaska, or $1 million to keep the brown tree snake out of Hawaii? Why do we continue to fund the National Weather Service when there are more than 300 private businesses already providing weather forecasting?
Taxpayer money is being spent on a stunning array of government boondoggles and black holes, and we must put an end to the endless, mindless, pointless spending designed to do little more than guarantee the re-election of those who are squandering the resources of the national treasury. We must examine every government department, every government job, and every government subsidy, entitlement program and hand-out, and if it is unconstitutional, or constitutional but doesn’t make sense, we must shut it down.
We are now routinely talking about trillions of dollars when we discuss budgets and deficit spending, and when we talk about cutting a million here, or ten million there, there are those who like to downplay the importance of fiscal responsibility, who like to say "It's just a drop in the bucket." Well, here's a thought that might put things in perspective for those people: You can't convince a raindrop that it is responsible for the flood.
Constitutional Basis: Article I, Section 8 outlines the powers of Congress. Based on the fiduciary responsibilities assigned to the Federal Government, the only bona fide expenditures would, then, strictly involve only those costs incurred in the operation of the Internal Revenue Service, the Commerce Department, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Treasury, the Postal Service, and the Department of Defense.
Quote: "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents...." – James Madison
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Education
Assertion: It is obvious that Public Education requires serious reform, and we absolutely must take back our education system. Let’s start by insisting on school vouchers so we can send our children to elementary and junior high schools where teachers want to teach and children want to learn. Let’s also get back to basics by instilling the curriculum found in E.D. Hirsch’s “Core Knowledge” curriculum (or something very similar). In high school, let’s identify students whose aptitudes lend themselves to either higher education or to vocational systems and direct their studies accordingly. Not everyone wants or needs to attend a college or university to achieve competence and satisfaction in their preferred field of endeavor, so let’s stop herding everyone down the “college” path and start paying attention to the natural inclinations of our young adults. If we do those things which help them to attain a core competence in their area(s) of interest, all of society will benefit.
We ask a lot of our teachers; it is time that we ask the same of students and parents, as well. If we are serious about educating our young, we must emphasize the importance of it to such a degree that there can be no doubt about it. We must make it understood that, for the young, there is nothing more important than their education and, as such, their participation in any extracurricular activities will be tied directly to their performance in the classroom. If a student does not carry a “C” average, or better, they will not be allowed to participate in sports, join school clubs or school-sponsored activities, get a driver’s license, or be allowed to take a job. It must be very clear that their focus will and must be on getting an education, and that these and other measures will be considered if they do not have the motivation necessary to maintain a “C” average up to and including their graduation from high school.
While we place no small amount of emphasis on parental involvement and student accountability, we also require results from our teachers. Those who achieve positive results should be rewarded, and those who do not ought be fired, retired or retrained for a new line of work.
Why This Is Important: There isn’t a whole lot of meaningful discussion about the world and America’s place in it, but there is one thing we all need to understand: Geopolitically, every single day we are essentially in a fight for our lives, and what is at stake, every single day, are resources: Natural resources, metals, minerals, food, fuel, and fresh water. All of the materials needed to sustain and improve our lives are available – to one extent or another – and are purchased – one way or another – in the global marketplace. It isn’t always a genteel affair. Conflicts, often full-scale wars, have erupted over the pursuit of, or control of, resources. In order to compete we need smart people; we need “human” resources. To not only survive, but to thrive, we need an intelligent and competent population to create, build, innovate and invent.
Constitutional Basis: There is no constitutional guarantee of an education. Individual states define educational policies that are then implemented and funded by individual localities. This is as it should be, for most issues are handled best which are handled locally.
Quote: "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." – Thomas Jefferson
We ask a lot of our teachers; it is time that we ask the same of students and parents, as well. If we are serious about educating our young, we must emphasize the importance of it to such a degree that there can be no doubt about it. We must make it understood that, for the young, there is nothing more important than their education and, as such, their participation in any extracurricular activities will be tied directly to their performance in the classroom. If a student does not carry a “C” average, or better, they will not be allowed to participate in sports, join school clubs or school-sponsored activities, get a driver’s license, or be allowed to take a job. It must be very clear that their focus will and must be on getting an education, and that these and other measures will be considered if they do not have the motivation necessary to maintain a “C” average up to and including their graduation from high school.
While we place no small amount of emphasis on parental involvement and student accountability, we also require results from our teachers. Those who achieve positive results should be rewarded, and those who do not ought be fired, retired or retrained for a new line of work.
Why This Is Important: There isn’t a whole lot of meaningful discussion about the world and America’s place in it, but there is one thing we all need to understand: Geopolitically, every single day we are essentially in a fight for our lives, and what is at stake, every single day, are resources: Natural resources, metals, minerals, food, fuel, and fresh water. All of the materials needed to sustain and improve our lives are available – to one extent or another – and are purchased – one way or another – in the global marketplace. It isn’t always a genteel affair. Conflicts, often full-scale wars, have erupted over the pursuit of, or control of, resources. In order to compete we need smart people; we need “human” resources. To not only survive, but to thrive, we need an intelligent and competent population to create, build, innovate and invent.
Constitutional Basis: There is no constitutional guarantee of an education. Individual states define educational policies that are then implemented and funded by individual localities. This is as it should be, for most issues are handled best which are handled locally.
Quote: "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." – Thomas Jefferson
Friday, March 12, 2010
Constitutional Amendments
Assertion: Instead of Legislating from the Bench, or from the “bully pulpit,” or through popular, media-driven opinion, major changes to the American legal, social, and political landscape should be implemented through Constitutional amendments.
Why This Is Important: The Constitution of the United States of America is the blueprint of our Federal Government and the foundation upon which our Republic was built. It has stood firm for over two hundred years, a shining beacon of self-government that has inspired countless others to freedom and liberty. But it is also more than that: It is the very soul of our Nation, a touchstone for all that we have ever been or ever hope to be. Within that hallowed parchment lay the genesis of our national identity, and any radical or far-reaching changes to the basic American ideals contained therein should and must be approved by the people, not by any single political party or political ideology. Amendments have been passed to guarantee our right to bear arms, to worship as we see fit, to assemble, and to say what we want. Amendments were also used to abolish slavery, and to ensure that all Americans have the right to vote. We even used the 21st Amendment to repeal the 18th Amendment. We have the genius of our Founding Fathers to thank for providing a mechanism through which we can adapt and change when the issue is important enough to warrant it by amending the Constitution. In an age and a time when there are seemingly countless “special” or personal interests, we feel it is vitally important that the number one allegiance should be – should always and without fail be – to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Constitutional Basis: Article V provides the means for proposing and ratifying changes to the U.S. Constitution. Essentially, three fourths of the State legislatures must sign off on any proposed changes to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights further stipulates, in Amendment X, that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Quote: “Let us make democracy work by working through the instruments of democracy.”
– Raymond C. Moley, a law professor, economic advisor and member of FDR’s “Brain Trust.” He later became a critic of Roosevelt’s administration and it’s arbitrary “reforms.”
Why This Is Important: The Constitution of the United States of America is the blueprint of our Federal Government and the foundation upon which our Republic was built. It has stood firm for over two hundred years, a shining beacon of self-government that has inspired countless others to freedom and liberty. But it is also more than that: It is the very soul of our Nation, a touchstone for all that we have ever been or ever hope to be. Within that hallowed parchment lay the genesis of our national identity, and any radical or far-reaching changes to the basic American ideals contained therein should and must be approved by the people, not by any single political party or political ideology. Amendments have been passed to guarantee our right to bear arms, to worship as we see fit, to assemble, and to say what we want. Amendments were also used to abolish slavery, and to ensure that all Americans have the right to vote. We even used the 21st Amendment to repeal the 18th Amendment. We have the genius of our Founding Fathers to thank for providing a mechanism through which we can adapt and change when the issue is important enough to warrant it by amending the Constitution. In an age and a time when there are seemingly countless “special” or personal interests, we feel it is vitally important that the number one allegiance should be – should always and without fail be – to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Constitutional Basis: Article V provides the means for proposing and ratifying changes to the U.S. Constitution. Essentially, three fourths of the State legislatures must sign off on any proposed changes to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights further stipulates, in Amendment X, that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Quote: “Let us make democracy work by working through the instruments of democracy.”
– Raymond C. Moley, a law professor, economic advisor and member of FDR’s “Brain Trust.” He later became a critic of Roosevelt’s administration and it’s arbitrary “reforms.”
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Civil Rights
Assertion: The term “civil rights” is often applied within strictly defined discussions on race, and race relations, but it should in fact apply to all Americans, of every race, creed, color, gender, and ethnicity. “Civil,” after all, refers to the citizenry, to all citizens, and to our interaction with each other. We believe that the true intent of civil rights should, in fact, be construed as a commitment by all Americans to assume an equal share in all of the rights and privileges, as well as the duties and responsibilities implicit in American citizenship; that this equality rightfully translates as an equal opportunity for all Americans; and that granting any sort of favored status to one group, in order to curry favor for, or from, another group, is discrimination against all groups.
As it turns out, while these kinds of governmental policies may have had their time and place, the long-term consequences of such policies have actually served to dampen and diminish the competitive fire within a great many Americans, whether it be the business or organization being told who they can hire or those who are hired but must then wonder if they would have been good enough were it not for government-sanctioned discrimination.
We believe that all Americans are created equal, and that the Federal government has no business setting quotas for any reason, least of all for the expressed purpose of achieving or attempting to achieve a racial or gender balance through discriminatory policies and practices.
Why This Is Important: America is the Land of Opportunity and home of what Lincoln called “the True American system,” whereby any one of us can rise just as high as our abilities and determination will take us. This “American Dream” has driven countless Americans to greatness, and propelled our society to achieve more in 230 years than some civilizations have achieved in 2300 years. We are motivated by the mere opportunity to succeed, and when that opportunity isn’t earned as a matter of simply being an engaged American citizen but rather through Federal intervention, it diminishes both the citizen and the achievement itself.
Constitutional Basis: There is no constitutional basis for racial or gender gerrymandering of any sort. However, our Founders did assert, and great wars have been fought, to confirm that we are all "created equal.” Our government was instituted to secure certain rights, including Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. But note that last part; it is the Pursuit that we are entitled to, not Happiness itself.
Quote: “I have a dream…that one day my children will be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” – Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
As it turns out, while these kinds of governmental policies may have had their time and place, the long-term consequences of such policies have actually served to dampen and diminish the competitive fire within a great many Americans, whether it be the business or organization being told who they can hire or those who are hired but must then wonder if they would have been good enough were it not for government-sanctioned discrimination.
We believe that all Americans are created equal, and that the Federal government has no business setting quotas for any reason, least of all for the expressed purpose of achieving or attempting to achieve a racial or gender balance through discriminatory policies and practices.
Why This Is Important: America is the Land of Opportunity and home of what Lincoln called “the True American system,” whereby any one of us can rise just as high as our abilities and determination will take us. This “American Dream” has driven countless Americans to greatness, and propelled our society to achieve more in 230 years than some civilizations have achieved in 2300 years. We are motivated by the mere opportunity to succeed, and when that opportunity isn’t earned as a matter of simply being an engaged American citizen but rather through Federal intervention, it diminishes both the citizen and the achievement itself.
Constitutional Basis: There is no constitutional basis for racial or gender gerrymandering of any sort. However, our Founders did assert, and great wars have been fought, to confirm that we are all "created equal.” Our government was instituted to secure certain rights, including Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. But note that last part; it is the Pursuit that we are entitled to, not Happiness itself.
Quote: “I have a dream…that one day my children will be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” – Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Freedom from Government
Assertion: There is an axiom in politics that a government is more effective the closer it is to those being governed. We therefore assert that States rights are foremost; that they are paramount to maintaining liberty and justice for the individual Citizen; and that State rights supersede all rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution of the United States of America.
Why This Is Important: In 2009, the U.S. Government increased the Federal Minimum Wage to $7.25 per hour. Why is the Federal Government setting a “minimum wage” to begin with? Why was the President able to fire the CEO of General Motors? How do our members of Congress get away with voting themselves pay increases? Why is their healthcare plan different from yours? Why are their retirement packages so outrageously generous?
Constitutional Basis: Article I, Section 8 outlines the powers of Congress, noting that it is expected to “provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.” Among the powers enumerated are those pertaining to the establishment and collection of Duties, Excises, Tariffs and Taxes; the regulation of Commerce between States and other Nations; Naturalization; the coining of Money; the establishment of Post Offices and Roads; and the responsibility for declaring War and for providing the funds to wage War. These are the only powers granted to Congress. The Bill of Rights, Amendments IX and X, also clearly support the rights of individual States. Amendment IX points out that the powers enumerated in the Constitution should not be interpreted as granting the Federal government abilities “to deny or disparage (rights) retained by the people.” Amendment X clarifies this, fundamentally, by asserting that any powers not delegated to the United States are reserved to the States, or to the people.
Quote: “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” – Thomas Jefferson
Why This Is Important: In 2009, the U.S. Government increased the Federal Minimum Wage to $7.25 per hour. Why is the Federal Government setting a “minimum wage” to begin with? Why was the President able to fire the CEO of General Motors? How do our members of Congress get away with voting themselves pay increases? Why is their healthcare plan different from yours? Why are their retirement packages so outrageously generous?
Constitutional Basis: Article I, Section 8 outlines the powers of Congress, noting that it is expected to “provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.” Among the powers enumerated are those pertaining to the establishment and collection of Duties, Excises, Tariffs and Taxes; the regulation of Commerce between States and other Nations; Naturalization; the coining of Money; the establishment of Post Offices and Roads; and the responsibility for declaring War and for providing the funds to wage War. These are the only powers granted to Congress. The Bill of Rights, Amendments IX and X, also clearly support the rights of individual States. Amendment IX points out that the powers enumerated in the Constitution should not be interpreted as granting the Federal government abilities “to deny or disparage (rights) retained by the people.” Amendment X clarifies this, fundamentally, by asserting that any powers not delegated to the United States are reserved to the States, or to the people.
Quote: “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” – Thomas Jefferson
A New Way Forward
As I said last week, I am posting a platform designed to identify common ground among all Americans. It is my contention that we aren’t all that different; we’ve just been led astray, away from the fundamental principles upon which this great nation was birthed some 235 years ago.
The real impetus for this platform is to identify those principles, and to re-establish an allegiance to America’s core values as expressed in the Constitution of the United States of America. It is broken down into the major issues we must address – and sometimes confront – and I will be the first to say that, although these are in fact my words, I do not necessarily agree 100% with everything that I’ve written. I have tried to be as intellectually honest and open as I could possibly be, while keeping an eye toward what I feel are the essential tenets of our republic.
If you are a subscriber to the “blame America first” credo, or if you have a very limited understanding of the geopolitical realities faced by every nation on Earth (Do I repeat myself?), then you probably won’t fully appreciate the rationale behind many of the positions outlined below. The same thing may be said for "single-issue" voters, for those who stake their entire worldview on just one particular issue tend to be overly devoted to that issue, bordering on the manic, and they tend to have no room for compromise. I personally find this to be an immature and short-sighted approach, but to each his or her own. Having said that, if you can and do accept that America is good and that America strives to do as much good as is possible within certain very strict and very logical boundaries, then perhaps you will come to understand the fundamental assumption at the heart of this endeavor, which is this: I want people of all backgrounds and inclinations to read it and think: “You know? It isn’t perfect, but it does represent many of the very best ideals of America, and overall I can stand with my fellow Americans in support of those ideals.”
Within each “plank” you will find that I have provided an Assertion, which is generally a basic statement (or statements) of fact regarding the principle being presented. The Assertion, in turn, is supported with additional detail in Why This Is Important. Here I have sought, again, to nail down some of the particulars with regard to the basic premise of the Assertion. Where possible, I have sought to discern whether or not a Constitutional Basis exists to support the current state of things. While I am a student of the Constitution, I am no constitutional lawyer; this is my opinion and I welcome the counsel of those who are wiser than I. Finally, I added a Quote. This I did in order to add a little illumination to the subject at hand, and for no other reason than that I wanted to punctuate each plank with some “food for thought.” Speaking of which, here is a quote to kind of get things started:
"The path we will chart is not an easy one. It demands much of those chosen to govern, but also from those who did the choosing. And let there be no mistake about this: We have come to a crossroad, a time of decision and the path we follow turns away from any idea that government and those who serve it are omnipotent. It is a path impossible to follow unless we have faith in the collective wisdom and genius of the people. Along this path government will lead but not rule, listen but not lecture. It is the path of a Creative Society." – Ronald Reagan
The platform will be posted in a more or less alphabetical order, except for the first plank, which I feel sets the tone and is perhaps the most important one.
The real impetus for this platform is to identify those principles, and to re-establish an allegiance to America’s core values as expressed in the Constitution of the United States of America. It is broken down into the major issues we must address – and sometimes confront – and I will be the first to say that, although these are in fact my words, I do not necessarily agree 100% with everything that I’ve written. I have tried to be as intellectually honest and open as I could possibly be, while keeping an eye toward what I feel are the essential tenets of our republic.
If you are a subscriber to the “blame America first” credo, or if you have a very limited understanding of the geopolitical realities faced by every nation on Earth (Do I repeat myself?), then you probably won’t fully appreciate the rationale behind many of the positions outlined below. The same thing may be said for "single-issue" voters, for those who stake their entire worldview on just one particular issue tend to be overly devoted to that issue, bordering on the manic, and they tend to have no room for compromise. I personally find this to be an immature and short-sighted approach, but to each his or her own. Having said that, if you can and do accept that America is good and that America strives to do as much good as is possible within certain very strict and very logical boundaries, then perhaps you will come to understand the fundamental assumption at the heart of this endeavor, which is this: I want people of all backgrounds and inclinations to read it and think: “You know? It isn’t perfect, but it does represent many of the very best ideals of America, and overall I can stand with my fellow Americans in support of those ideals.”
Within each “plank” you will find that I have provided an Assertion, which is generally a basic statement (or statements) of fact regarding the principle being presented. The Assertion, in turn, is supported with additional detail in Why This Is Important. Here I have sought, again, to nail down some of the particulars with regard to the basic premise of the Assertion. Where possible, I have sought to discern whether or not a Constitutional Basis exists to support the current state of things. While I am a student of the Constitution, I am no constitutional lawyer; this is my opinion and I welcome the counsel of those who are wiser than I. Finally, I added a Quote. This I did in order to add a little illumination to the subject at hand, and for no other reason than that I wanted to punctuate each plank with some “food for thought.” Speaking of which, here is a quote to kind of get things started:
"The path we will chart is not an easy one. It demands much of those chosen to govern, but also from those who did the choosing. And let there be no mistake about this: We have come to a crossroad, a time of decision and the path we follow turns away from any idea that government and those who serve it are omnipotent. It is a path impossible to follow unless we have faith in the collective wisdom and genius of the people. Along this path government will lead but not rule, listen but not lecture. It is the path of a Creative Society." – Ronald Reagan
The platform will be posted in a more or less alphabetical order, except for the first plank, which I feel sets the tone and is perhaps the most important one.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Tea for Two
Let’s talk about what’s going on across America. Specifically, let’s talk about what seems to be confusing and confounding the politicians, pundits, and pollsters: The so-called Tea Party Movement. In Washington, D.C., and elsewhere, theories abound: The Tea Partiers are a Republican outfit, organized by FOX News to stir up dissent and to obstruct “the People’s business” of getting nationalized healthcare passed by Congress; or else they are called Tea Baggers (with the inevitable knowing smirk), labeled as a fringe group, a trifle merely to be dismissed by serious political observers. And there are those who are certain that this “rabble” will, like the cry-babies they are imagined to be, eventually fall asleep and become quiet.
I do not believe that any single one of these assumptions is correct, and I think that the so-called “experts” are not only wrong but are missing the point entirely. Not only that, but the movements themselves may be blinded by their own ambitions. There is a solution, but first let’s look at the problem:
In 1994, the Republican Party took Control of Congress after about 40 years in the political wilderness. They held a majority, or at least a plurality, until 2006, when several scandals, near scandals, and allegations of wrongdoing were brought to light. There was the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, Tom Delay was accused of violating campaign finance laws, Duke Cunningham was convicted of bribery, fraud and tax evasion, Mark Foley was accused of soliciting former congressional pages, and Scooter Libby took the fall for supposedly “outing” CIA agent Valerie Plame.
In 2006, the Democratic leadership crowed about the “culture of corruption” that was apparently fostered by the Republican majority in Congress. This drumbeat, amplified in the media echo chamber, led to Democratic victories in the 2006 elections, when Democrats took control of the House and the Senate. The new House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, vowed that the Democrats were going to have the “most open, most honest, and most ethical Congress in history.” What’s happened since then?
Representative William J. Jefferson, a Louisiana Democrat, was suspected by the FBI of bribery. They found $90,000 in his freezer and he was eventually convicted on 11 of 16 corruption charges. In New York, Elliot Spitzer, the Democratic Governor who made his name as a hard-charging, tough-as-nails New York Attorney General, resigned as a result of a prostitution scandal. David Paterson, Spitzer’s successor as Governor of New York, is currently being investigated for witness tampering, bid irregularities and charges that he lied under oath in regard to trying to use his position as Governor to get free World Series tickets from the New York Yankees. The House Ethics Committee is apparently investigating Charlie Rangel on accusations of tax fraud, using Congressional stationery to solicit donations for a public institute to be named after him, the Diageo Rum bailout, and other instances of influence peddling. Rep. Eric Massa, also of New York, is facing allegations of sexual harassment by a male staffer. In Connecticut, Democratic Senator Chris Dodd faced an Ethics Committee inquiry into “sweetheart loans” he received as a “friend of Angelo (Mozilo),” the CEO of Countrywide Financial, which includes what appears to be a staggering discount on a property purchased in Ireland. Similar allegations were leveled against North Dakota Democrat Kent Conrad. In 2008, despite questionable associations with disreputable characters such as Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, William Ayers, and ACORN (just to name a few), and having spent less than 180 days as the junior Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama was elected President of the United States. The Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, apparently tried to sell Obama’s lightly-used Senate seat to the highest bidder. He was impeached and removed from office.
As President, Mr. Obama promised to set a new ethical standard for American politics. He didn’t say that it would be a better or a higher standard, just that it would be a new standard, which quickly became apparent and hasn’t slowed down since he began naming Cabinet nominees from the “Office of the President-Elect.” Timothy Geithner, Tom Daschle, Ron Kirk, Nancy Killefer and Hilda Solis were all tainted by tax problems (during which Republican Rep. Eric Cantor quipped, “it’s easy for [Democrats] to sit here and advocate higher taxes because - you know what? - they don’t pay them.”). In order to push through the President’s plan to nationalize the nation’s healthcare system, in spite of being opposed by a vast majority of Americans, accommodations (read: “bribes”) were made to Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. Mr. Nelson’s $100,000,000 "Cornhusker Kickback" essentially makes the federal government responsible for all future Medicaid costs for all Nebraskans, forever. In Ms. Landrieu’s case, her “Louisiana Purchase” entails what amounts to a $300,000,000 Medicaid “boost” for her state. In both cases, the costs will be covered by the other 48 states.
In other news, former vice-presidential nominee and presidential candidate John Edwards has finally admitted fathering a child with a former campaign employee. The affair took place as Mr. Edwards’ wife battled cancer. As revelations of scientific misconduct surround the whole “man-made global warming” debacle, Al Gore, who used his political cache to cash in on the man-made hysteria, is looking more and more like a snake-oil salesman. And Nancy Pelosi? Well, when she isn’t flying family and friends back and forth between Washington, D.C. and San Francisco, or steering legislation that is favorable to her husband’s interests as a major shareholder in Starkist, she is presumably still working on that whole “most open, most honest, and most ethical Congress in history” thing. I’ll bet she wishes she had said they would “set a new standard” for openness, honesty and ethics, instead.
I could go on all day, but if you want more detail on the real “culture of corruption,” I suggest you read Donkey Con, a 2006 book written by Lynn Vincent and Robert Stacy McCain. In it, the authors point out that "the Democratic Party has a 200-year history of urban corruption, treason and subversion, mob control, alliance with corrupt unions, and aiding and abetting criminals that has no parallel in the GOP.”
True or not – and I happen to know that it is true; the authors back up their assertions with over 600 end notes – it doesn’t really help us to address the essential problem that is inherent in our political system. The truth is, we are talking about human beings, and no one is perfect, right? Mistakes will be made – but how can we minimize them?
I think we may be going about this whole thing the wrong way: Instead of asking or expecting our representatives in Washington to be perfect little angels while surrounded by that special sort of corruption that grows up around special interests, we (The People) must simply take care to ensure that they aren’t exposed to it for very long. That’s right: I’m talking about limiting their time in Washington by taking an anti-incumbent position during every election.
Hear me out.
What if we moved back toward the system of self-government as imagined by the Founding Fathers set forth in the Constitution? What if we sent farmers, plumbers and clerks to represent us instead of lawyers and career politicians? What if we simply took turns, and sent a new representative to Washington every election cycle? What is the upside? What is the downside?
For starters, it would undoubtedly get more Americans engaged in the political process. Today’s elections have devolved to the point where we, as a nation, are more concerned with what a candidate looks like, or well he or she speaks, than the content of their character. It’s become American Idolized. What if there were good, solid, potential candidates on every block?
As for the way Congress operates, have you ever wondered why so many laws are on the books? Do we really need all of that legislation? Perhaps we should also consider limiting the amount of time our representatives actually spend in Washington. Let them meet only in June, July, and August. If they have only 90 days to conduct business, doesn’t it stand to reason that they would have to prioritize, and work on only the most important legislation? The rest of the time they will be in their local office, meeting with their constituents and hearing their concerns.
If we send everyday people to Washington, and for only a short time, a one-time only thing, then we needn’t worry about funding elaborate retirement plans for them. As citizen-legislators, they go, they legislate, and when they are done serving, they come home and return to their job or their career. The same would hold true for their staff. Would a one-term representative, in town for just three months, need a staff of thirty people to get the job done? Think of all the perks that would be reduced or eliminated simply as a matter of their limited time in Washington. Now, imagine the cost savings to the American taxpayer.
Of course, the power of K-Street lobbyists would shrink. Their business model would certainly have to be re-thought. How do you influence someone who has come to Washington on a short-term mission to serve their communities back home? They have no re-election to worry about, no campaign chest to fill. But that can cut both ways, nes pas? Again, this is why we must concern ourselves with character when selecting our representatives.
What would this mean to the National Committees, both Republican and Democratic? Would their power and influence be diminished as well? My guess is that they probably would, and other groups and movements would find a larger voice in the political process. The will of individual communities would probably begin to take precedence over the desires of the current (for all intents and purposes) two-party system.
As I said, I don’t think that the true message that is inherent in the current dissatisfaction being demonstrated by disaffected Americans is being heard. I think that the entrenched political machines are, instead, ignoring the larger Truth of what has been happening. We are talking about bringing some fundamental changes to our system of self-rule and self-government. We are talking about the end of “party lines” and of the one-size-fits-all mentality endemic to the current two-party system. We are talking about the possibility of taking back our government, reforming and reformulating it to reflect the common sense needs of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Next week, I will post a platform to address those needs. It isn’t meant to be an entirely comprehensive, all-inclusive game plan, but merely to serve as a starting point for discussion. It is a Constitution-based "declaration," of sorts, designed to find common ground among Americans who think and believe that we can and should have a far better government than we have. I look forward to reading your comments.
I do not believe that any single one of these assumptions is correct, and I think that the so-called “experts” are not only wrong but are missing the point entirely. Not only that, but the movements themselves may be blinded by their own ambitions. There is a solution, but first let’s look at the problem:
In 1994, the Republican Party took Control of Congress after about 40 years in the political wilderness. They held a majority, or at least a plurality, until 2006, when several scandals, near scandals, and allegations of wrongdoing were brought to light. There was the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, Tom Delay was accused of violating campaign finance laws, Duke Cunningham was convicted of bribery, fraud and tax evasion, Mark Foley was accused of soliciting former congressional pages, and Scooter Libby took the fall for supposedly “outing” CIA agent Valerie Plame.
In 2006, the Democratic leadership crowed about the “culture of corruption” that was apparently fostered by the Republican majority in Congress. This drumbeat, amplified in the media echo chamber, led to Democratic victories in the 2006 elections, when Democrats took control of the House and the Senate. The new House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, vowed that the Democrats were going to have the “most open, most honest, and most ethical Congress in history.” What’s happened since then?
Representative William J. Jefferson, a Louisiana Democrat, was suspected by the FBI of bribery. They found $90,000 in his freezer and he was eventually convicted on 11 of 16 corruption charges. In New York, Elliot Spitzer, the Democratic Governor who made his name as a hard-charging, tough-as-nails New York Attorney General, resigned as a result of a prostitution scandal. David Paterson, Spitzer’s successor as Governor of New York, is currently being investigated for witness tampering, bid irregularities and charges that he lied under oath in regard to trying to use his position as Governor to get free World Series tickets from the New York Yankees. The House Ethics Committee is apparently investigating Charlie Rangel on accusations of tax fraud, using Congressional stationery to solicit donations for a public institute to be named after him, the Diageo Rum bailout, and other instances of influence peddling. Rep. Eric Massa, also of New York, is facing allegations of sexual harassment by a male staffer. In Connecticut, Democratic Senator Chris Dodd faced an Ethics Committee inquiry into “sweetheart loans” he received as a “friend of Angelo (Mozilo),” the CEO of Countrywide Financial, which includes what appears to be a staggering discount on a property purchased in Ireland. Similar allegations were leveled against North Dakota Democrat Kent Conrad. In 2008, despite questionable associations with disreputable characters such as Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, William Ayers, and ACORN (just to name a few), and having spent less than 180 days as the junior Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama was elected President of the United States. The Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, apparently tried to sell Obama’s lightly-used Senate seat to the highest bidder. He was impeached and removed from office.
As President, Mr. Obama promised to set a new ethical standard for American politics. He didn’t say that it would be a better or a higher standard, just that it would be a new standard, which quickly became apparent and hasn’t slowed down since he began naming Cabinet nominees from the “Office of the President-Elect.” Timothy Geithner, Tom Daschle, Ron Kirk, Nancy Killefer and Hilda Solis were all tainted by tax problems (during which Republican Rep. Eric Cantor quipped, “it’s easy for [Democrats] to sit here and advocate higher taxes because - you know what? - they don’t pay them.”). In order to push through the President’s plan to nationalize the nation’s healthcare system, in spite of being opposed by a vast majority of Americans, accommodations (read: “bribes”) were made to Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. Mr. Nelson’s $100,000,000 "Cornhusker Kickback" essentially makes the federal government responsible for all future Medicaid costs for all Nebraskans, forever. In Ms. Landrieu’s case, her “Louisiana Purchase” entails what amounts to a $300,000,000 Medicaid “boost” for her state. In both cases, the costs will be covered by the other 48 states.
In other news, former vice-presidential nominee and presidential candidate John Edwards has finally admitted fathering a child with a former campaign employee. The affair took place as Mr. Edwards’ wife battled cancer. As revelations of scientific misconduct surround the whole “man-made global warming” debacle, Al Gore, who used his political cache to cash in on the man-made hysteria, is looking more and more like a snake-oil salesman. And Nancy Pelosi? Well, when she isn’t flying family and friends back and forth between Washington, D.C. and San Francisco, or steering legislation that is favorable to her husband’s interests as a major shareholder in Starkist, she is presumably still working on that whole “most open, most honest, and most ethical Congress in history” thing. I’ll bet she wishes she had said they would “set a new standard” for openness, honesty and ethics, instead.
I could go on all day, but if you want more detail on the real “culture of corruption,” I suggest you read Donkey Con, a 2006 book written by Lynn Vincent and Robert Stacy McCain. In it, the authors point out that "the Democratic Party has a 200-year history of urban corruption, treason and subversion, mob control, alliance with corrupt unions, and aiding and abetting criminals that has no parallel in the GOP.”
True or not – and I happen to know that it is true; the authors back up their assertions with over 600 end notes – it doesn’t really help us to address the essential problem that is inherent in our political system. The truth is, we are talking about human beings, and no one is perfect, right? Mistakes will be made – but how can we minimize them?
I think we may be going about this whole thing the wrong way: Instead of asking or expecting our representatives in Washington to be perfect little angels while surrounded by that special sort of corruption that grows up around special interests, we (The People) must simply take care to ensure that they aren’t exposed to it for very long. That’s right: I’m talking about limiting their time in Washington by taking an anti-incumbent position during every election.
Hear me out.
What if we moved back toward the system of self-government as imagined by the Founding Fathers set forth in the Constitution? What if we sent farmers, plumbers and clerks to represent us instead of lawyers and career politicians? What if we simply took turns, and sent a new representative to Washington every election cycle? What is the upside? What is the downside?
For starters, it would undoubtedly get more Americans engaged in the political process. Today’s elections have devolved to the point where we, as a nation, are more concerned with what a candidate looks like, or well he or she speaks, than the content of their character. It’s become American Idolized. What if there were good, solid, potential candidates on every block?
As for the way Congress operates, have you ever wondered why so many laws are on the books? Do we really need all of that legislation? Perhaps we should also consider limiting the amount of time our representatives actually spend in Washington. Let them meet only in June, July, and August. If they have only 90 days to conduct business, doesn’t it stand to reason that they would have to prioritize, and work on only the most important legislation? The rest of the time they will be in their local office, meeting with their constituents and hearing their concerns.
If we send everyday people to Washington, and for only a short time, a one-time only thing, then we needn’t worry about funding elaborate retirement plans for them. As citizen-legislators, they go, they legislate, and when they are done serving, they come home and return to their job or their career. The same would hold true for their staff. Would a one-term representative, in town for just three months, need a staff of thirty people to get the job done? Think of all the perks that would be reduced or eliminated simply as a matter of their limited time in Washington. Now, imagine the cost savings to the American taxpayer.
Of course, the power of K-Street lobbyists would shrink. Their business model would certainly have to be re-thought. How do you influence someone who has come to Washington on a short-term mission to serve their communities back home? They have no re-election to worry about, no campaign chest to fill. But that can cut both ways, nes pas? Again, this is why we must concern ourselves with character when selecting our representatives.
What would this mean to the National Committees, both Republican and Democratic? Would their power and influence be diminished as well? My guess is that they probably would, and other groups and movements would find a larger voice in the political process. The will of individual communities would probably begin to take precedence over the desires of the current (for all intents and purposes) two-party system.
As I said, I don’t think that the true message that is inherent in the current dissatisfaction being demonstrated by disaffected Americans is being heard. I think that the entrenched political machines are, instead, ignoring the larger Truth of what has been happening. We are talking about bringing some fundamental changes to our system of self-rule and self-government. We are talking about the end of “party lines” and of the one-size-fits-all mentality endemic to the current two-party system. We are talking about the possibility of taking back our government, reforming and reformulating it to reflect the common sense needs of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Next week, I will post a platform to address those needs. It isn’t meant to be an entirely comprehensive, all-inclusive game plan, but merely to serve as a starting point for discussion. It is a Constitution-based "declaration," of sorts, designed to find common ground among Americans who think and believe that we can and should have a far better government than we have. I look forward to reading your comments.
Monday, February 22, 2010
True Believers
As you can probably tell, I have an interest in Liberalism, and I am just a wee bit curious as to what makes a person identify with Liberal "values." What makes a person "conservative," for that matter? What are the major differences between the two worldviews? And, more to the point, which of those worldviews are more compatible with what might be called "traditional American values"?
Let's take a look. For the sake of having a placeholder to compare and contrast the Liberal worldview, we will use the much maligned and often demonized term "Conservative," which seems to me to be a natural counterpoint.
Conservatives think that Capitalism is the fairest and most equitable way a society can ensure equal opportunity for its citizens; Liberals believe that Socialism makes citizens equal.
Conservatives think that the Founding Fathers created one of the most forward-looking documents ever written and adhere to Constitutional Constructionism; Liberals believe in a "living" Constitution, one that is open to a very broad interpretation and which can therefore be bent to suit individual needs.
Conservatives think that Americans are by nature Self-Reliant and will Persevere in order to address the challenges that confront them; Liberals believe that Social Programs, Entitlements and Subsidies should be funded and implemented as quickly as they can be created.
Conservatives think that Abraham Lincoln's "True American System" is an eloquent distillation of the uniquely American belief that success is rightly achieved through hard work and determination; Liberals believe that The Government should interfere and arbitrate through Quotas and Affirmative Action in an attempt to provide success.
Conservatives think that each and every one of us should be held Accountable for his or her own actions; Liberals believe that Consequences are mean and that actions can always be Rationalized or Equivocated.
Conservatives think that Personal Responsibility is a virtue; Liberals believe that Corporate Liability should be exploited at every opportunity.
Conservatives think that Classicism, though rarely achieved, is an ideal worth striving for; Liberals believe that Class Warfare is best used to achieve the Socialist ideal.
Conservatives think that a sense of Fair Play should be employed in every endeavor, large or small; Liberals believe that rules are for other people and that the most important thing is to Win At Any Cost.
Conservatives think that Juris Prudence and The Rule of Law are indispensable to civilization; Liberals believe that the Trial Lawyers Association should rule the land.
Conservatives think being Pro Business is a catalyst for job growth; Liberals believe that being Pro Union will somehow grow jobs.
Conservatives think that everyone has a Right to Life, and defends those who cannot speak for themselves; Liberals believe that everyone has a Right to Choose Death for those who cannot speak in defense of their Life.
Conservatives think that Organized Religion represents the best opportunity to find God; Liberals believe that promoting Secularism is the best way to avoid any discussion of God whatsoever.
Conservatives think that Marriage is best defined as a sacrosanct union between a Man and a Woman; Liberals believe that Marriage should be redefined to include the union of two people (so far) of the same sex (so far).
Conservatives think that The Right To Bear Arms is a self-evident extension of Natural Law, being that people have the right to defend themselves; Liberals believe that self-defense impinges upon the right of people to Do As They Will, including Rape and Murder.
Conservatives think that Capital Punishment is a necessary component of Justice; Liberals believe that taking a human life is reprehensible, unless it is a defenseless fetus.
Conservatives think that people can and should solve their own problems and that a Limited Government is best suited to promote that ideal; Liberals believe that a Big Government can and should attempt to solve everyone's problems.
Conservatives think that States are sovereign and that citizens should govern and be governed locally as much as possible; Liberals believe that the Federal Government should trump State's Rights.
Conservatives think that Fiscal Responsibility demonstrates a fundamental moral obligation to The People; Liberals believe that a "Tax and Spend" approach demonstrates a fundamental moral obligation to take care of The People.
Conservatives think that Problems should be addressed through Realism; Liberals believe that there are No Problems which Idealism cannot solve.
Conservatives think that the important issues of the day should be discussed and debated using Critical Thought; Liberals believe that Emotionalism trumps Logic and Reason.
Conservatives think that Man is the ultimate arbiter of his world, and that the Responsible Stewardship of Natural Resources is merely acting in the best interests of self-preservation; Liberals believe that the preservation of lower life forms should take precedence over the best interests of Humanity.
Conservatives think America should act as an Eagle; Liberals believe America should act as a Pigeon.
Conservatives think America should "Speak Softly But Carry A Big Stick": Liberals believe that America should be Soft.
Conservatives think that America should act in her own Best Interests, or in the interest of Justice, even when that means acting unilaterally; Liberals believe that America should act only in unison with a Global Consensus.
Conservatives think that America has been a Positive Force, overall, in the betterment of Humanity; Liberals believe that America has been a Greedy Bully who should be stopped at any cost.
Conservatives think "What Is Best For My Country?"; Liberals believe that it is more important to ask "What Is Best For My Party?"
Conservatives think that Honest Debate should be conducted through a lens of Objectivity; Liberals believe that Subjectivity (and Volume) is a worthy substitute for Fact, Reason and Logic
I continue to wonder about the differences between Liberals and The Rest of Us, but the one overarching theme that I keep coming back to is this: Conservatives think; Liberals believe.
Let's take a look. For the sake of having a placeholder to compare and contrast the Liberal worldview, we will use the much maligned and often demonized term "Conservative," which seems to me to be a natural counterpoint.
Conservatives think that Capitalism is the fairest and most equitable way a society can ensure equal opportunity for its citizens; Liberals believe that Socialism makes citizens equal.
Conservatives think that the Founding Fathers created one of the most forward-looking documents ever written and adhere to Constitutional Constructionism; Liberals believe in a "living" Constitution, one that is open to a very broad interpretation and which can therefore be bent to suit individual needs.
Conservatives think that Americans are by nature Self-Reliant and will Persevere in order to address the challenges that confront them; Liberals believe that Social Programs, Entitlements and Subsidies should be funded and implemented as quickly as they can be created.
Conservatives think that Abraham Lincoln's "True American System" is an eloquent distillation of the uniquely American belief that success is rightly achieved through hard work and determination; Liberals believe that The Government should interfere and arbitrate through Quotas and Affirmative Action in an attempt to provide success.
Conservatives think that each and every one of us should be held Accountable for his or her own actions; Liberals believe that Consequences are mean and that actions can always be Rationalized or Equivocated.
Conservatives think that Personal Responsibility is a virtue; Liberals believe that Corporate Liability should be exploited at every opportunity.
Conservatives think that Classicism, though rarely achieved, is an ideal worth striving for; Liberals believe that Class Warfare is best used to achieve the Socialist ideal.
Conservatives think that a sense of Fair Play should be employed in every endeavor, large or small; Liberals believe that rules are for other people and that the most important thing is to Win At Any Cost.
Conservatives think that Juris Prudence and The Rule of Law are indispensable to civilization; Liberals believe that the Trial Lawyers Association should rule the land.
Conservatives think being Pro Business is a catalyst for job growth; Liberals believe that being Pro Union will somehow grow jobs.
Conservatives think that everyone has a Right to Life, and defends those who cannot speak for themselves; Liberals believe that everyone has a Right to Choose Death for those who cannot speak in defense of their Life.
Conservatives think that Organized Religion represents the best opportunity to find God; Liberals believe that promoting Secularism is the best way to avoid any discussion of God whatsoever.
Conservatives think that Marriage is best defined as a sacrosanct union between a Man and a Woman; Liberals believe that Marriage should be redefined to include the union of two people (so far) of the same sex (so far).
Conservatives think that The Right To Bear Arms is a self-evident extension of Natural Law, being that people have the right to defend themselves; Liberals believe that self-defense impinges upon the right of people to Do As They Will, including Rape and Murder.
Conservatives think that Capital Punishment is a necessary component of Justice; Liberals believe that taking a human life is reprehensible, unless it is a defenseless fetus.
Conservatives think that people can and should solve their own problems and that a Limited Government is best suited to promote that ideal; Liberals believe that a Big Government can and should attempt to solve everyone's problems.
Conservatives think that States are sovereign and that citizens should govern and be governed locally as much as possible; Liberals believe that the Federal Government should trump State's Rights.
Conservatives think that Fiscal Responsibility demonstrates a fundamental moral obligation to The People; Liberals believe that a "Tax and Spend" approach demonstrates a fundamental moral obligation to take care of The People.
Conservatives think that Problems should be addressed through Realism; Liberals believe that there are No Problems which Idealism cannot solve.
Conservatives think that the important issues of the day should be discussed and debated using Critical Thought; Liberals believe that Emotionalism trumps Logic and Reason.
Conservatives think that Man is the ultimate arbiter of his world, and that the Responsible Stewardship of Natural Resources is merely acting in the best interests of self-preservation; Liberals believe that the preservation of lower life forms should take precedence over the best interests of Humanity.
Conservatives think America should act as an Eagle; Liberals believe America should act as a Pigeon.
Conservatives think America should "Speak Softly But Carry A Big Stick": Liberals believe that America should be Soft.
Conservatives think that America should act in her own Best Interests, or in the interest of Justice, even when that means acting unilaterally; Liberals believe that America should act only in unison with a Global Consensus.
Conservatives think that America has been a Positive Force, overall, in the betterment of Humanity; Liberals believe that America has been a Greedy Bully who should be stopped at any cost.
Conservatives think "What Is Best For My Country?"; Liberals believe that it is more important to ask "What Is Best For My Party?"
Conservatives think that Honest Debate should be conducted through a lens of Objectivity; Liberals believe that Subjectivity (and Volume) is a worthy substitute for Fact, Reason and Logic
I continue to wonder about the differences between Liberals and The Rest of Us, but the one overarching theme that I keep coming back to is this: Conservatives think; Liberals believe.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
The Greatest Country
I received (and forwarded) two emails this week that generated a good deal of discussion amongst my friends and acquaintances. The first one contained a Kitty Werthmann article, entitled “America Truly Is The Greatest Country In The World. Don’t Let Freedom Slip Away.” In it, the author gives an eyewitness account of growing up in Austria and what happened when the Austrians voted to be annexed by Germany and have Adolph Hitler as their ruler. This was in 1938, and Austria was in a deep recession. They were led to believe that Germany and Hitler would solve all of their problems and everyone would be happy. Of course, we know today how that turned out, but what makes Kitty Werthmann’s story so compelling is that she lived through it, and she uses that experience to draw parallels to the current situation in America.
Naturally, my friends on the Left took exception to such comparisons, drawing the not unreasonable inference that the article essentially paints Barrack Obama and the Democratic majority in Congress as Hitler and the Nazis. I countered that it was less a comparison than a warning about the socialization of America, and the grand “changing” of America that the Left is working so fervently to institute.
Then a second email hit my Inbox, and it sort of complemented the first. Called “The Fundamental Transformation of America,” it was an unattributed compilation of all of the warning signs that we had received in regard to Barrack Obama, and how we pretty much ignored them. (It should be stated here that by “we,” I mean those who voted for “change” in the first place; not everyone was seduced by Obama’s promises.)
By the way, I did find out that the author of this piece is a fellow named Matt Bruce, a Vietnam veteran, retired firefighter and host of “The Captain’s AMERICA” Radio Show. Here’s a link to his website, which I found while trying to authenticate the authorship of the email: http://thecaptainsamerica.com/ Well done, sir, and thank you for your service to America.
Both emails were a variation on the same theme, a warning that we should be vigilant and hold tight to our values lest we endanger them or lose them altogether. I’ll sign off by saying that, while I think the current POTUS is an abomination, the larger danger to our republic is the fact that we have in place an electorate that would elect such a man in the first place. It’s not as if we were entirely ignorant of the facts; no, I tend to think that a conscious decision was made, by many, to simply ignore the facts.
I’ve found links to the essential content of the emails. You can decide for yourself what to think of them. (Note: I do not read or endorse these websites or their content in general; they were simply the most convenient links available.)
http://www.resistnet.com/profiles/blogs/1938-austria-land-of-the
http://www.redcounty.com/fundamental-transformation-america
Naturally, my friends on the Left took exception to such comparisons, drawing the not unreasonable inference that the article essentially paints Barrack Obama and the Democratic majority in Congress as Hitler and the Nazis. I countered that it was less a comparison than a warning about the socialization of America, and the grand “changing” of America that the Left is working so fervently to institute.
Then a second email hit my Inbox, and it sort of complemented the first. Called “The Fundamental Transformation of America,” it was an unattributed compilation of all of the warning signs that we had received in regard to Barrack Obama, and how we pretty much ignored them. (It should be stated here that by “we,” I mean those who voted for “change” in the first place; not everyone was seduced by Obama’s promises.)
By the way, I did find out that the author of this piece is a fellow named Matt Bruce, a Vietnam veteran, retired firefighter and host of “The Captain’s AMERICA” Radio Show. Here’s a link to his website, which I found while trying to authenticate the authorship of the email: http://thecaptainsamerica.com/ Well done, sir, and thank you for your service to America.
Both emails were a variation on the same theme, a warning that we should be vigilant and hold tight to our values lest we endanger them or lose them altogether. I’ll sign off by saying that, while I think the current POTUS is an abomination, the larger danger to our republic is the fact that we have in place an electorate that would elect such a man in the first place. It’s not as if we were entirely ignorant of the facts; no, I tend to think that a conscious decision was made, by many, to simply ignore the facts.
I’ve found links to the essential content of the emails. You can decide for yourself what to think of them. (Note: I do not read or endorse these websites or their content in general; they were simply the most convenient links available.)
http://www.resistnet.com/profiles/blogs/1938-austria-land-of-the
http://www.redcounty.com/fundamental-transformation-america
Saturday, February 6, 2010
They Reap What They Sow
Have you ever wondered why the Left are such proponents of Big Government? Have you ever wondered what their motivation is? The larger question is: Do they not understand Thomas Jefferson’s maxim that “A government large enough to give you everything you want is large enough to take away everything you have”?
Or perhaps they understand it all too well.
When a Conservative addresses a problem, he does so with a full complement of facts and figures, and his argument aims at the truth of a particular issue. The conservative approach to problem solving is one of cold, hard, rational logic being brought to bear on a thoughtful resolution of the problem at hand. When a Liberal addresses the same issue, he doesn’t so much argue his position as he waxes rhapsodic about it. “Oh, the things we can accomplish if we only throw enough money at the problem!”
Money can solve some problems, but only when applied in a studied and judicious manner. The problem is, Liberals are so enamored with the perks associated with dispensing other people’s money that, as a class, they are unequivocally and adamantly opposed to ever acknowledge when money has failed to solve a problem. It’s always, “We haven’t done enough,” or “We haven’t given it enough time,” or “Those who don’t think we can solve this problem by continuing to throw money at it are fascists (or racists, or right-wing Republicans who don’t care about poor people, or black people, or ‘the children,’ or the environment, or, well, you get the picture).”
The very real difference in approach to problem solving may also be explained on another level: Conservatives believe what they see; Liberals see what they believe. Where a Conservative will look at statistics and say, “Overall, our achievements are not commensurate with our investment. We should consider a different approach,” the Liberal will say, “Statistics showing that we are falling behind reflect the hard reality that Third World countries are investing in their futures while the United States continues to lag behind. We need to re-focus our resources to close this gap.” Note how one group says, “This isn’t working; let’s try something different,” the other group says, “This isn’t working; we need to keep trying the same thing over and over regardless of past performance.” Is their embrace of failure simply a failure to comprehend, or is it a calculated (and completely feigned) ignorance designed to maintain the tax-and-spend status quo?
To answer that question, we must ask ourselves a few more questions: Why does the Left insist upon setting up a Big Government to pay for so-called “entitlement programs” which do little more than propagate a Nanny State? And why are Welfare programs -- just to name one of the more obvious “entitlements” -- such delightfully smooth-running bureaucracies?
The answer is really quite simple: The “good intentions” cultivated by The Left aren’t even remotely philanthropic; they are actually quite sinister and coldly calculated. For example, consider how much more comfortable it is for everyone involved to simply send a welfare check through the mail, or deposit it electronically, than it is to have the recipient sit across a counter from a bureaucrat every month and explain why they have been on the public dole for years and years and years. The same rationale is undoubtedly behind the reason why, a number of years ago, Food Stamps -- which were actual stamps, to be redeemed for foodstuffs at the local grocery store -- were replaced by a Government-issued debit card: There was a stigma attached to standing at the checkout and having everyone see you pay with Food Stamps. Sure, there is the argument that digital transfers are more economical, but since when do governmental agencies care about what makes economic sense?
Make no mistake: The over-riding issue was that any sense of shame should be eradicated. We mustn’t have folks even thinking about their ongoing dependency upon governmental handouts. The utter lack of accountability, coupled with the virtual anonymity of these transactions, completely eliminates any sense of humility on the part of the Welfare recipient; in fact, they don’t have to consider their dependency for a single, solitary minute. And with that comes, inevitably, an increased sense of entitlement, and victimization. It becomes easier to accept and even nurture a mindset of “Why shouldn’t The Government take care of me?”
On the other side of the coin, the “enabling” Left looks at it this way: “Just take the money out of my taxes. I don’t want to have to actually look at poor people; let’s just set up an agency to send ‘em a check.” Thus they can step back from the unseemly equation altogether. No fuss, no muss. Having removed themselves from the realities of the welfare state, they free themselves to approach every media megaphone they can find to drop self-righteous platitudes about how “The Government” should “Do Something” about “Helping The Poor,” and “Why aren’t (those selfish) Republicans more interested in helping The Poor?”
Of course, what goes largely unreported is the fact that a class that has learned to be dependent upon Government largesse will rarely, if ever, do for themselves what others are so willing to do for them.
Unfortunately, there is no real motivation on either side to change the status quo. The Takers have settled, quite literally, for a third-class existence, while the Givers require nothing more of them than their vote. In this there exists an almost agricultural relationship: The Givers continue to plant the seeds of dependency and the Takers are harvested every election cycle.
To be sure, there are people who leave the welfare rolls every month; ours is an economically mobile society, after all, and we tend to move between the different economic layers throughout our lives. But what does the extended welfare experience do to our psyches? And what does it mean for generations of families who log in to the system and never leave it?
Much like the Left’s push for a bi-lingual society and their insistence on sacrificing real and meaningful education on the altar of Diversity, government-sponsored Entitlements minimize, erode, and belittle the value of real-life, flesh-and-blood human beings. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde: Liberals know the price of everything but the value of nothing.
Or perhaps they understand it all too well.
When a Conservative addresses a problem, he does so with a full complement of facts and figures, and his argument aims at the truth of a particular issue. The conservative approach to problem solving is one of cold, hard, rational logic being brought to bear on a thoughtful resolution of the problem at hand. When a Liberal addresses the same issue, he doesn’t so much argue his position as he waxes rhapsodic about it. “Oh, the things we can accomplish if we only throw enough money at the problem!”
Money can solve some problems, but only when applied in a studied and judicious manner. The problem is, Liberals are so enamored with the perks associated with dispensing other people’s money that, as a class, they are unequivocally and adamantly opposed to ever acknowledge when money has failed to solve a problem. It’s always, “We haven’t done enough,” or “We haven’t given it enough time,” or “Those who don’t think we can solve this problem by continuing to throw money at it are fascists (or racists, or right-wing Republicans who don’t care about poor people, or black people, or ‘the children,’ or the environment, or, well, you get the picture).”
The very real difference in approach to problem solving may also be explained on another level: Conservatives believe what they see; Liberals see what they believe. Where a Conservative will look at statistics and say, “Overall, our achievements are not commensurate with our investment. We should consider a different approach,” the Liberal will say, “Statistics showing that we are falling behind reflect the hard reality that Third World countries are investing in their futures while the United States continues to lag behind. We need to re-focus our resources to close this gap.” Note how one group says, “This isn’t working; let’s try something different,” the other group says, “This isn’t working; we need to keep trying the same thing over and over regardless of past performance.” Is their embrace of failure simply a failure to comprehend, or is it a calculated (and completely feigned) ignorance designed to maintain the tax-and-spend status quo?
To answer that question, we must ask ourselves a few more questions: Why does the Left insist upon setting up a Big Government to pay for so-called “entitlement programs” which do little more than propagate a Nanny State? And why are Welfare programs -- just to name one of the more obvious “entitlements” -- such delightfully smooth-running bureaucracies?
The answer is really quite simple: The “good intentions” cultivated by The Left aren’t even remotely philanthropic; they are actually quite sinister and coldly calculated. For example, consider how much more comfortable it is for everyone involved to simply send a welfare check through the mail, or deposit it electronically, than it is to have the recipient sit across a counter from a bureaucrat every month and explain why they have been on the public dole for years and years and years. The same rationale is undoubtedly behind the reason why, a number of years ago, Food Stamps -- which were actual stamps, to be redeemed for foodstuffs at the local grocery store -- were replaced by a Government-issued debit card: There was a stigma attached to standing at the checkout and having everyone see you pay with Food Stamps. Sure, there is the argument that digital transfers are more economical, but since when do governmental agencies care about what makes economic sense?
Make no mistake: The over-riding issue was that any sense of shame should be eradicated. We mustn’t have folks even thinking about their ongoing dependency upon governmental handouts. The utter lack of accountability, coupled with the virtual anonymity of these transactions, completely eliminates any sense of humility on the part of the Welfare recipient; in fact, they don’t have to consider their dependency for a single, solitary minute. And with that comes, inevitably, an increased sense of entitlement, and victimization. It becomes easier to accept and even nurture a mindset of “Why shouldn’t The Government take care of me?”
On the other side of the coin, the “enabling” Left looks at it this way: “Just take the money out of my taxes. I don’t want to have to actually look at poor people; let’s just set up an agency to send ‘em a check.” Thus they can step back from the unseemly equation altogether. No fuss, no muss. Having removed themselves from the realities of the welfare state, they free themselves to approach every media megaphone they can find to drop self-righteous platitudes about how “The Government” should “Do Something” about “Helping The Poor,” and “Why aren’t (those selfish) Republicans more interested in helping The Poor?”
Of course, what goes largely unreported is the fact that a class that has learned to be dependent upon Government largesse will rarely, if ever, do for themselves what others are so willing to do for them.
Unfortunately, there is no real motivation on either side to change the status quo. The Takers have settled, quite literally, for a third-class existence, while the Givers require nothing more of them than their vote. In this there exists an almost agricultural relationship: The Givers continue to plant the seeds of dependency and the Takers are harvested every election cycle.
To be sure, there are people who leave the welfare rolls every month; ours is an economically mobile society, after all, and we tend to move between the different economic layers throughout our lives. But what does the extended welfare experience do to our psyches? And what does it mean for generations of families who log in to the system and never leave it?
Much like the Left’s push for a bi-lingual society and their insistence on sacrificing real and meaningful education on the altar of Diversity, government-sponsored Entitlements minimize, erode, and belittle the value of real-life, flesh-and-blood human beings. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde: Liberals know the price of everything but the value of nothing.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
And Now For Something Completely Different
We’re going to mix it up a bit this week, and take a break from the usual Tories, Luddites and Liberals fare, so that I can share a bit of myself with you. Here, then, are some Hobbies and Habits, along with some personal history. Truly exceptional (or otherwise interesting) recommendations are highlighted:
BOOKS
I read quite a bit. I love history but also enjoy fiction, so I tend to mix things up by reading a couple of non-fiction books, then reading a “blockbuster” or a “summer novel.” My favorite non-fiction book is probably Alexander Hamilton, by Ron Chernow. I had no real idea of just how important Alexander Hamilton was to this country. He was just phenomenal, and is a personal hero of mine. I am working on a synopsis of his extraordinary accomplishments to share with you at some point in the future. My all-time favorite book of fiction is Les Miserables, by Victor Hugo. Simply awesome. Some recent non-fiction books I’ve read:
The Forgotten Man, by Amity Schlaes
Alexis de Tocqueville, A Life, by Hugh Brogan
The American Patriot’s Almanac, by W. Bennett and John Cribb
His Excellency (a George Washington bio), by Joseph J. Ellis
The Great Upheaval, by Jay Winik
American Sphinx (a Thomas Jefferson bio), by Joseph J. Ellis
James Madison, by Garry Wills
America The Last Best Hope, Volume II, by William J. Bennett
Benjamin Franklin, by Edmund S. Morgan
John Adams, by David McCullough
1776, by David McCullough
America The Last Best Hope, Volume I, by William J. Bennett
Recent fiction books I’ve read:
The Thirteenth Tale, by Diane Setterfield
The Interpretation of Murder, by Jed Rubenfeld
The Historian, by Elizabeth Kostova
The Da Vinci Code, by Dan Brown
Angels and Demons, by Dan Brown
I am currently reading:
Immortal Words, by Terry Breverton
The Devil in the White City, by Erik Larson
…and these are “on deck”:
Who Really Cares, by Arthur C. Brooks
Grant, Memoirs and Selected Letters, The Library of America
A Country of Vast Designs, by Robert W. Merry
American Lightning, by Howard Blum
Sin in the Second City, by Karen Abbott
Subscriptions: We subscribe to both of the local daily newspapers, plus The Wall Street Journal, National Review, Vanity Fair and Playboy. I also read columnists like Thomas Sowell, George Will, Larry Elder, Suzanne Fields, Dennis Prager, Paul Greenberg and yes, Ann Coulter. They can be found at TownHall.com, which offers a free subscription via email. I also subscribe to PatriotPost.us, which is just phenomenal and always gives me something to think about. It, too, is a free subscription.
COIN COLLECTING
We have almost completed a U.S. Type Set, which is essentially a collection of every type of American coin ever made. The set is incomplete, however, as we still need several of the gold coins. They are kind of pricey, so it may take a while to finish our collection. I started the collection in part to get Jake and Will interested in history, and it really jump-started my own passion for it. Here are some of my favorite U.S. coins:
1798 Draped Bust Large Cent – It’s from the 1700’s (!)
1804 Draped Bust Half Cent – Lewis and Clark took off to explore America
1826 Capped Bust Half Dollar – On July 4th, 1826, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson both died fifty years to the day after signing the Declaration of Independence
1864 Two Cent – Just a cool design
1883 Liberty Head Nickel – The back features a “V,” for Five, but no “Cents.” An enterprising scam artist named Josh Tatum plated them in gold and passed them off as $5 gold pieces. Thus was the term “You ain’t Joshing me,” was, um, coined…
MOVIES
I am a cinephile, or a major Movie Buff. We own over 300 movies, and we generally rent several movies a week, usually on weekends. If I have to pick a favorite movie, it is probably The Godfather, Part II. I also really like Little Big Man, and for goofy fun I really dig Sean of the Dead. Here are some recent favorites for your consideration:
The Hurt Locker
Moon
District 9
Sherlock Holmes
Surveillance
I Love You, Man
Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist
The Reader
Bottle Shock
Tell No One (French)
Superbad
Slumdog Millionaire
Marley and Me
GUNS
I used to hunt a bit – deer, duck, geese, rabbit, and squirrel – but I haven’t been out in years. It isn’t something I’ve imparted to my sons and I’m not sure that I will. However, I do like guns and I have a lifetime concealed carry permit. My sons and I are just beginning to explore gun safety and marksmanship. There is a local gun club I am looking at and we’ll probably join it in the near future. Here is what I own and shoot:
.45 semi-auto pistol (model 1911-A1)
5.56mm AR-15 semi-auto rifle (w/ ACOG)
.243 single-shot rifle (breech load w/ scope)
.357 Magnum revolver (7-shot)
12-gauge pump-action shotgun
.50 caliber muzzle loader
SPORTS and LEISURE
I grew up playing football, baseball and basketball, but really only follow football (I’m in a fantasy football league – Go, Mean Machine!) and some college basketball (primarily the NCAA Tournament). I also enjoy golf. Golf is my passion. Although I’m not terrific at it, I’m a 12 or 13 handicap and usually shoot in the mid-80’s. I have two golf “dreams” that I’m sure are shared by a million other golfers: Make a hole-in-one (been close) and shoot a round in the 70’s (been very close). I have played at Sawgrass and, yes, I did manage to stick the green on the par 3 17th. The other course I would really like to play some day is Pebble Beach. I am a pretty fair dart-thrower, a decent pool player (we have a table in the basement) and I’ve been playing in a Bridge game for close to twenty years (best card game ever, by the way). I also enjoy playing Poker, though I don’t play on a regular basis anymore.
Proudest Athletic Achievement: Sports give us a lot of pleasure and enjoyment, but I suppose my favorite sports memory was when I was selected Most Valuable Player by my high school football teammates. I guess my picture is still hanging on a wall with all the other Lawrence North High School football MVP’s in the stadium locker room. Those were great guys, and good times. (I played linebacker, always linebacker, and my high school dreams of pro football stardom were sidelined by a dislocated shoulder as a Senior.)
MILITARY
I was in the U.S. Air Force from January 1983 to January 1987. After completing basic training at Lackland AFB (I was a squad leader) I attended Precision Measurement Electronics Laboratory (PMEL) training in Denver, CO. I would return to Lowry AFB twice more for advanced technical training, first in Physical/Dimensional Measurement and later for Optical Measurement. Other than the technical training at Lowry, I spent my four years working in a PME Laboratory at Keesler AFB in Biloxi, MS. It wasn’t bad; we were about 90 minutes from the Florida panhandle to the east, and “The City,” aka New Orleans, to the west. I wouldn’t trade the time I spent in the military for anything; I learned more, and grew more as a person, than I ever would have thought possible in just four years.
Highlights: I was named Keesler AFB DCM Airman of the Year in 1984, was promoted below-the-zone to Senior Airman, and was honorably discharged as a Sergeant.
Ironic Note: I was married to Ginger Ferguson in 1983, and in 1984 we welcomed a son, Zachary, into the world. He was born in July, in Biloxi, Mississippi at the Keesler AFB hospital. Ginger and I divorced in 1987, and about 20 years later, Zach, having joined the Air Force and completed basic training, received news that his first duty station was going to be…Keesler AFB. He’s still there; he’s an Air Force firefighter, married, with twins on the way.
CAREER
I’ve been with ITT in Ft. Wayne, IN since they recruited me while I was in the Air Force and joined them in January 1987. I started out as a calibration technician, was sent to an HVAC school to learn environmental chamber maintenance, was moved into the Phys/D lab, and in 1997 was named supervisor of the Calibration Lab at the Pontiac Street facility. In 2005 I was recruited to help start a Resource Management group, which is just what it sounds like: A group that looks to optimize company assets by maximizing the utilization of existing resources and planning for future technical needs. I won’t bore you with all the details – it isn’t at all as glamorous as it sounds, lol – but I will say that we’ve developed an amazing business model, and I wish I owned it. Our metrics have shown “hard” cost savings of one million dollars or more in each year of our existence, and we will exceed that once again this year.
ITT is a great place to work. Sure, there have been a few ups and downs, but I think of it as a quintessential American corporation and I am proud to have been associated with them. We do a number of things, and we do them extraordinarily well. When you see satellite pictures of the weather, it’s from our imagers in space. We provide our troops with secure tactical communication systems in the field. Ever hear of “night-vision goggles?” That’s us. Our water technology helped pump Katrina out of New Orleans.
FAMILY
Nancy Marie and I have been married for twenty years. We have two sons, Jacob Thornton and William Winston. Nancy is the brains of the outfit: She has a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering from Purdue University. She likes reading, watching “Days of Our Lives,” pro football, college basketball, and taking the boys to church. Jake attends Bishop Dwenger High School and is interested in becoming a doctor. He’s a regular “Renaissance Man.” He plays trumpet and piano, speaks a little French, and is a talented artist and writer. Will is “Joe Athlete.” He plays football and soccer for St. Charles, and plays tennis in the summer. He is also a very good student: He has consistently been on the Honor Roll, and has received High Honors for the last couple of years. Education is a very high priority in our household, but we also like to have fun. Recent vacations have been to Virginia Beach, Ft. Walton Beach, the Outer Banks, and Myrtle Beach. We also go to the movies, go to the pool, and play golf on occasion. We have a salt-and-pepper mini-Schnauzer named Lucy, who is the sweetest dog in the world. I should have named her Shadow, because she follows me wherever I go. Nancy calls her my “stalker.” In general, life is good. We live, quite happily (knock on wood), in a fairly average house in a golf-course community.
My Mom, Patty, and step-Dad, Dale, live in Greenfield, IN, and are great. Both are retired, although Dale went back to work part-time. I have the greatest sister in the world, Jodi, who shares a house in Greenfield with her husband, David, sons Eric and Connor, and two dogs, Annie and Izzy. I have numerous cousins, many of whom keep in touch, and their parents, my Aunts and Uncles, who I love dearly but don’t see nearly enough. My grandparents are gone, and I miss them every day.
ONWARD AND UPWARD
That’s it; that’s basically who I am and what I like. I’m not sure why I decided to share all of the flotsam and jetsam of my life, but I do hope that perhaps it gives you an insight into where I’m coming from amidst this discussion of ours. Please feel free to comment and I will attempt to answer or address whatever it is that you want to talk about.
A note on Tories: Moving forward, this blog will become more topical. There is much to discuss and, thus far, I feel that we have only laid the groundwork. These are target-rich times and I think it is imperative that we shine a little light on the important issues of the day. Do please join me.
BOOKS
I read quite a bit. I love history but also enjoy fiction, so I tend to mix things up by reading a couple of non-fiction books, then reading a “blockbuster” or a “summer novel.” My favorite non-fiction book is probably Alexander Hamilton, by Ron Chernow. I had no real idea of just how important Alexander Hamilton was to this country. He was just phenomenal, and is a personal hero of mine. I am working on a synopsis of his extraordinary accomplishments to share with you at some point in the future. My all-time favorite book of fiction is Les Miserables, by Victor Hugo. Simply awesome. Some recent non-fiction books I’ve read:
The Forgotten Man, by Amity Schlaes
Alexis de Tocqueville, A Life, by Hugh Brogan
The American Patriot’s Almanac, by W. Bennett and John Cribb
His Excellency (a George Washington bio), by Joseph J. Ellis
The Great Upheaval, by Jay Winik
American Sphinx (a Thomas Jefferson bio), by Joseph J. Ellis
James Madison, by Garry Wills
America The Last Best Hope, Volume II, by William J. Bennett
Benjamin Franklin, by Edmund S. Morgan
John Adams, by David McCullough
1776, by David McCullough
America The Last Best Hope, Volume I, by William J. Bennett
Recent fiction books I’ve read:
The Thirteenth Tale, by Diane Setterfield
The Interpretation of Murder, by Jed Rubenfeld
The Historian, by Elizabeth Kostova
The Da Vinci Code, by Dan Brown
Angels and Demons, by Dan Brown
I am currently reading:
Immortal Words, by Terry Breverton
The Devil in the White City, by Erik Larson
…and these are “on deck”:
Who Really Cares, by Arthur C. Brooks
Grant, Memoirs and Selected Letters, The Library of America
A Country of Vast Designs, by Robert W. Merry
American Lightning, by Howard Blum
Sin in the Second City, by Karen Abbott
Subscriptions: We subscribe to both of the local daily newspapers, plus The Wall Street Journal, National Review, Vanity Fair and Playboy. I also read columnists like Thomas Sowell, George Will, Larry Elder, Suzanne Fields, Dennis Prager, Paul Greenberg and yes, Ann Coulter. They can be found at TownHall.com, which offers a free subscription via email. I also subscribe to PatriotPost.us, which is just phenomenal and always gives me something to think about. It, too, is a free subscription.
COIN COLLECTING
We have almost completed a U.S. Type Set, which is essentially a collection of every type of American coin ever made. The set is incomplete, however, as we still need several of the gold coins. They are kind of pricey, so it may take a while to finish our collection. I started the collection in part to get Jake and Will interested in history, and it really jump-started my own passion for it. Here are some of my favorite U.S. coins:
1798 Draped Bust Large Cent – It’s from the 1700’s (!)
1804 Draped Bust Half Cent – Lewis and Clark took off to explore America
1826 Capped Bust Half Dollar – On July 4th, 1826, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson both died fifty years to the day after signing the Declaration of Independence
1864 Two Cent – Just a cool design
1883 Liberty Head Nickel – The back features a “V,” for Five, but no “Cents.” An enterprising scam artist named Josh Tatum plated them in gold and passed them off as $5 gold pieces. Thus was the term “You ain’t Joshing me,” was, um, coined…
MOVIES
I am a cinephile, or a major Movie Buff. We own over 300 movies, and we generally rent several movies a week, usually on weekends. If I have to pick a favorite movie, it is probably The Godfather, Part II. I also really like Little Big Man, and for goofy fun I really dig Sean of the Dead. Here are some recent favorites for your consideration:
The Hurt Locker
Moon
District 9
Sherlock Holmes
Surveillance
I Love You, Man
Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist
The Reader
Bottle Shock
Tell No One (French)
Superbad
Slumdog Millionaire
Marley and Me
GUNS
I used to hunt a bit – deer, duck, geese, rabbit, and squirrel – but I haven’t been out in years. It isn’t something I’ve imparted to my sons and I’m not sure that I will. However, I do like guns and I have a lifetime concealed carry permit. My sons and I are just beginning to explore gun safety and marksmanship. There is a local gun club I am looking at and we’ll probably join it in the near future. Here is what I own and shoot:
.45 semi-auto pistol (model 1911-A1)
5.56mm AR-15 semi-auto rifle (w/ ACOG)
.243 single-shot rifle (breech load w/ scope)
.357 Magnum revolver (7-shot)
12-gauge pump-action shotgun
.50 caliber muzzle loader
SPORTS and LEISURE
I grew up playing football, baseball and basketball, but really only follow football (I’m in a fantasy football league – Go, Mean Machine!) and some college basketball (primarily the NCAA Tournament). I also enjoy golf. Golf is my passion. Although I’m not terrific at it, I’m a 12 or 13 handicap and usually shoot in the mid-80’s. I have two golf “dreams” that I’m sure are shared by a million other golfers: Make a hole-in-one (been close) and shoot a round in the 70’s (been very close). I have played at Sawgrass and, yes, I did manage to stick the green on the par 3 17th. The other course I would really like to play some day is Pebble Beach. I am a pretty fair dart-thrower, a decent pool player (we have a table in the basement) and I’ve been playing in a Bridge game for close to twenty years (best card game ever, by the way). I also enjoy playing Poker, though I don’t play on a regular basis anymore.
Proudest Athletic Achievement: Sports give us a lot of pleasure and enjoyment, but I suppose my favorite sports memory was when I was selected Most Valuable Player by my high school football teammates. I guess my picture is still hanging on a wall with all the other Lawrence North High School football MVP’s in the stadium locker room. Those were great guys, and good times. (I played linebacker, always linebacker, and my high school dreams of pro football stardom were sidelined by a dislocated shoulder as a Senior.)
MILITARY
I was in the U.S. Air Force from January 1983 to January 1987. After completing basic training at Lackland AFB (I was a squad leader) I attended Precision Measurement Electronics Laboratory (PMEL) training in Denver, CO. I would return to Lowry AFB twice more for advanced technical training, first in Physical/Dimensional Measurement and later for Optical Measurement. Other than the technical training at Lowry, I spent my four years working in a PME Laboratory at Keesler AFB in Biloxi, MS. It wasn’t bad; we were about 90 minutes from the Florida panhandle to the east, and “The City,” aka New Orleans, to the west. I wouldn’t trade the time I spent in the military for anything; I learned more, and grew more as a person, than I ever would have thought possible in just four years.
Highlights: I was named Keesler AFB DCM Airman of the Year in 1984, was promoted below-the-zone to Senior Airman, and was honorably discharged as a Sergeant.
Ironic Note: I was married to Ginger Ferguson in 1983, and in 1984 we welcomed a son, Zachary, into the world. He was born in July, in Biloxi, Mississippi at the Keesler AFB hospital. Ginger and I divorced in 1987, and about 20 years later, Zach, having joined the Air Force and completed basic training, received news that his first duty station was going to be…Keesler AFB. He’s still there; he’s an Air Force firefighter, married, with twins on the way.
CAREER
I’ve been with ITT in Ft. Wayne, IN since they recruited me while I was in the Air Force and joined them in January 1987. I started out as a calibration technician, was sent to an HVAC school to learn environmental chamber maintenance, was moved into the Phys/D lab, and in 1997 was named supervisor of the Calibration Lab at the Pontiac Street facility. In 2005 I was recruited to help start a Resource Management group, which is just what it sounds like: A group that looks to optimize company assets by maximizing the utilization of existing resources and planning for future technical needs. I won’t bore you with all the details – it isn’t at all as glamorous as it sounds, lol – but I will say that we’ve developed an amazing business model, and I wish I owned it. Our metrics have shown “hard” cost savings of one million dollars or more in each year of our existence, and we will exceed that once again this year.
ITT is a great place to work. Sure, there have been a few ups and downs, but I think of it as a quintessential American corporation and I am proud to have been associated with them. We do a number of things, and we do them extraordinarily well. When you see satellite pictures of the weather, it’s from our imagers in space. We provide our troops with secure tactical communication systems in the field. Ever hear of “night-vision goggles?” That’s us. Our water technology helped pump Katrina out of New Orleans.
FAMILY
Nancy Marie and I have been married for twenty years. We have two sons, Jacob Thornton and William Winston. Nancy is the brains of the outfit: She has a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering from Purdue University. She likes reading, watching “Days of Our Lives,” pro football, college basketball, and taking the boys to church. Jake attends Bishop Dwenger High School and is interested in becoming a doctor. He’s a regular “Renaissance Man.” He plays trumpet and piano, speaks a little French, and is a talented artist and writer. Will is “Joe Athlete.” He plays football and soccer for St. Charles, and plays tennis in the summer. He is also a very good student: He has consistently been on the Honor Roll, and has received High Honors for the last couple of years. Education is a very high priority in our household, but we also like to have fun. Recent vacations have been to Virginia Beach, Ft. Walton Beach, the Outer Banks, and Myrtle Beach. We also go to the movies, go to the pool, and play golf on occasion. We have a salt-and-pepper mini-Schnauzer named Lucy, who is the sweetest dog in the world. I should have named her Shadow, because she follows me wherever I go. Nancy calls her my “stalker.” In general, life is good. We live, quite happily (knock on wood), in a fairly average house in a golf-course community.
My Mom, Patty, and step-Dad, Dale, live in Greenfield, IN, and are great. Both are retired, although Dale went back to work part-time. I have the greatest sister in the world, Jodi, who shares a house in Greenfield with her husband, David, sons Eric and Connor, and two dogs, Annie and Izzy. I have numerous cousins, many of whom keep in touch, and their parents, my Aunts and Uncles, who I love dearly but don’t see nearly enough. My grandparents are gone, and I miss them every day.
ONWARD AND UPWARD
That’s it; that’s basically who I am and what I like. I’m not sure why I decided to share all of the flotsam and jetsam of my life, but I do hope that perhaps it gives you an insight into where I’m coming from amidst this discussion of ours. Please feel free to comment and I will attempt to answer or address whatever it is that you want to talk about.
A note on Tories: Moving forward, this blog will become more topical. There is much to discuss and, thus far, I feel that we have only laid the groundwork. These are target-rich times and I think it is imperative that we shine a little light on the important issues of the day. Do please join me.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
The Big Tent
So, how can it be that a political party is able to find so much support amongst a citizenry whose collective interests are clearly not being served? Is the Democratic Party willing to sacrifice national security for unbridled individual liberty? And is that the major appeal of the individuals it attracts?
I submit that the success of the Democratic Party is due to “The Big Tent” approach to politics. The Big Tent Approach works for two reasons. First, the Democrats make a concerted effort to appeal to everyone. As you can imagine, many are excited about the prospect of belonging to any group that will have them. You know them, I know them, and the Democratic Party most certainly knows them.
The second reason for the popularity of the Big Tent Approach is the complete and utter ostracization of those who do not choose to join the Democratic circus. Those who are not politically correct enough to support the myriad liberal causes are labeled “Right-wingers,” or religious fanatics, or Republicans. All are considered to be One And The Same. This, of course, makes it easier to target them, to identify them as “outsiders,” and to give the more clever Democrats a neat and tidy demographic onto which they can unleash their not inconsiderable rhetoric. I doubt that it’s occurred to them, but this “broad brush” approach is kind of like declaring war against all fish without considering how important fish are to the ecological system, how fish are an important staple in the diets of a great many people, or how there are a tremendous number of fish in the sea who are extremely capable hunters themselves.
Curiously, no one in the Democratic Party ever seems to acknowledge (or care) that it is more difficult to serve a thousand masters (the Democratic constituency) than it is to serve a single voice (Constitutional law). What is it they used to say about trying to please everyone? Not to fear: The Democratic Party will listen to absolutely anybody’s opinion, as long as that opinion isn’t religious in nature (or, heaven forbid, evangelical).
If you are not in the Big Tent, you are portrayed as a zealot and all-around party pooper. So says the Democratic Party, and this message is endlessly repeated in their personal echo chamber, the “mainstream” media. What do you suppose they would find if they were to investigate the Democratic demographic?
I’m no journalist, but even I was able to find out a few things about the Democratic demographic. Although it is hard to nail down, the evidence suggests that their “hardest” core constituency
consists of non-white, manual laborers with a grade school education and a Union card. If they participate in an organized religion, it is usually Catholicism. This is a very narrow view, however, I'm pretty sure that there are Republicans somewhere who are clever enough to use these few descriptors to paint all Democrats as toothless rubes -- or, say, Luddites -- if they really wanted to.
But I digress...
We know that the Democrats' constituency occupy a “Big Tent,” as they like to say; full of every manner of American. OK, so, shall we pretend for a moment that we are committed members of the mainstream media intelligentsia and take a peek under that canvass?
For starters, it’s a good thing that liberals value the individual; in the Democratic Party each constituent is unique -- just like everyone else. Under the Big Top you will find Idealists, Socialists, and Environmental Extremists mingling with Trial Lawyers, NAMBLA and the NEA. On stage in the middle ring there is Blame America First warming up for Big Government and the Entitlements (whose chief talent seems to be the ability to sing songs that have no apparent end). The Anti-Gun, Anti-War, Anti-Death Penalty-yet-Pro-Choice crowd have gathered ‘round. Meanwhile, the Gay Marriage Lobby is dancing with Judicial Activism while Class Warfare and Affirmative Action are having a wildly animated conversation nearby. Big Labor is here, small but stentorian (like Noam Chomsky, Bill Maher and Al Franken). Status Quo is talking amiably to itself -- about “Change” (the same as last year, and the year before that, and the year before that). The Demagogues and the Obstructionists are in a heated argument, although both sides are staking out the same position (much like the Journalists and the College Professors). The Global Warmists are trying to keep cool by fanning themselves with falsified data. Illegal Immigrants and Convicted Felons are crowding at the doors, clamoring to get in. “Soon, soon,” they are promised. Meanwhile, the ACLU is making a point of ignoring the posted occupancy levels.
Did I leave anyone out?
As you can see, there is a place for practically every special interest inside the “Big Tent.” Really, all you have to do is put your own particular self-interest(s) ahead of national interests -- that is, focus on the “small picture” -- and you’ll be made to feel right at home. Indeed, critical thinking is best left at the door.
One last thought, or two, on the Democratic Party:
During the 1972 Presidential campaign, Governor George McGovern of South Dakota was the Democratic candidate. He spoke of “change”:
“We reject the view of those who say, ‘America – love it or leave it.’ We reply, ‘Let us change it so we may love it the more.’”
During the 2008 Presidential campaign, Barack Obama reportedly said:
“My fellow Americans, we are the greatest nation on earth, and here I am, sincerely, asking you to help me change it.”
These simple statements, for many, sum up the true feelings of those on the Left, encompassing the notion that they can not and will not love America until she is remade in an image and an ideology that they would choose for her. This would, naturally, include a big, “Nanny State” government –- Socialist, of course -– with a “living” Constitution that is as broadly interpreted as it is pliable; quotas, subsidies, and entitlements, with the attendant class warfare rhetoric built right in to rationalize any sense of shame or embarrassment resulting from being a recipient of wealth redistribution schemes; an embrace of secularism, because, again, if we remove Religion from the equation we can also reduce or eliminate any kind of shame or embarrassment associated with so-called “aberrant behavior”; and, we wouldn’t do anything without reaching a global consensus, which of course, means we wouldn’t do anything, period, because such a consensus would be impossible owing to our penchant for letting the tail wag the dog.
So, there would be no more Wars, no more Rich or Poor -- though we would ostensibly be “rich in Love” -- no more Hunger, Disease, Famine or Pestilence. Global Warming would go away, as would Guns, the Death Penalty, and Prison Overcrowding. Animals and Trees would have the same rights as humans, and America would have the friendship and respect of the entire planet.
Of course, Capitalism would die (at long last). Why work if you don’t have to? Critical, objective thought would have no place in our society, and since there would be no real reward for risk-taking we could say goodbye to Innovation. Advances in Medicine would die on the table and Agriculture as we know it would wither on the vine. So too, by extension, would Productivity and any meaningful GDP.
But all is not lost: We would eventually discount outdated notions such as self-reliance, perseverance and accountability, and instead ask what our country can do for us. We wouldn’t have to concern ourselves with foreign policy, either; we would soon become the milquetoasts of the world and have policy dictated to us. But, hey! We’d all be living under the same Big Tent, so how bad could it be?
Democrats themselves don’t really stand for anything tangible; rather, they are poseurs for virtually everything, with standards that evolve and adapt as the time and situation dictate. In short, they are Opportunists, willing to promise whatever it takes to acquire and maintain power. But it doesn’t seem to matter; the important thing is -- always, always, always -- the Party, and everyone is invited into the Big Tent, absolutely no questions asked other than, “Can we count on your vote?”
Our Declaration of Independence tells us that we have a right, and a duty, “to alter or abolish” any form of government which becomes destructive to our inalienable rights, and it exhorts us to institute a new government, laying its foundation on those principles “that shall seem most likely to effect our Safety and Happiness.” I happen to think as old Ben Franklin did, that our republic may not be the best form of government, but that it is the best that has ever been tried. I also think that a Party or an ideology that tries to serve a thousand masters is not only ineffective and foolhardy, but also dangerous.
I submit that the success of the Democratic Party is due to “The Big Tent” approach to politics. The Big Tent Approach works for two reasons. First, the Democrats make a concerted effort to appeal to everyone. As you can imagine, many are excited about the prospect of belonging to any group that will have them. You know them, I know them, and the Democratic Party most certainly knows them.
The second reason for the popularity of the Big Tent Approach is the complete and utter ostracization of those who do not choose to join the Democratic circus. Those who are not politically correct enough to support the myriad liberal causes are labeled “Right-wingers,” or religious fanatics, or Republicans. All are considered to be One And The Same. This, of course, makes it easier to target them, to identify them as “outsiders,” and to give the more clever Democrats a neat and tidy demographic onto which they can unleash their not inconsiderable rhetoric. I doubt that it’s occurred to them, but this “broad brush” approach is kind of like declaring war against all fish without considering how important fish are to the ecological system, how fish are an important staple in the diets of a great many people, or how there are a tremendous number of fish in the sea who are extremely capable hunters themselves.
Curiously, no one in the Democratic Party ever seems to acknowledge (or care) that it is more difficult to serve a thousand masters (the Democratic constituency) than it is to serve a single voice (Constitutional law). What is it they used to say about trying to please everyone? Not to fear: The Democratic Party will listen to absolutely anybody’s opinion, as long as that opinion isn’t religious in nature (or, heaven forbid, evangelical).
If you are not in the Big Tent, you are portrayed as a zealot and all-around party pooper. So says the Democratic Party, and this message is endlessly repeated in their personal echo chamber, the “mainstream” media. What do you suppose they would find if they were to investigate the Democratic demographic?
I’m no journalist, but even I was able to find out a few things about the Democratic demographic. Although it is hard to nail down, the evidence suggests that their “hardest” core constituency
consists of non-white, manual laborers with a grade school education and a Union card. If they participate in an organized religion, it is usually Catholicism. This is a very narrow view, however, I'm pretty sure that there are Republicans somewhere who are clever enough to use these few descriptors to paint all Democrats as toothless rubes -- or, say, Luddites -- if they really wanted to.
But I digress...
We know that the Democrats' constituency occupy a “Big Tent,” as they like to say; full of every manner of American. OK, so, shall we pretend for a moment that we are committed members of the mainstream media intelligentsia and take a peek under that canvass?
For starters, it’s a good thing that liberals value the individual; in the Democratic Party each constituent is unique -- just like everyone else. Under the Big Top you will find Idealists, Socialists, and Environmental Extremists mingling with Trial Lawyers, NAMBLA and the NEA. On stage in the middle ring there is Blame America First warming up for Big Government and the Entitlements (whose chief talent seems to be the ability to sing songs that have no apparent end). The Anti-Gun, Anti-War, Anti-Death Penalty-yet-Pro-Choice crowd have gathered ‘round. Meanwhile, the Gay Marriage Lobby is dancing with Judicial Activism while Class Warfare and Affirmative Action are having a wildly animated conversation nearby. Big Labor is here, small but stentorian (like Noam Chomsky, Bill Maher and Al Franken). Status Quo is talking amiably to itself -- about “Change” (the same as last year, and the year before that, and the year before that). The Demagogues and the Obstructionists are in a heated argument, although both sides are staking out the same position (much like the Journalists and the College Professors). The Global Warmists are trying to keep cool by fanning themselves with falsified data. Illegal Immigrants and Convicted Felons are crowding at the doors, clamoring to get in. “Soon, soon,” they are promised. Meanwhile, the ACLU is making a point of ignoring the posted occupancy levels.
Did I leave anyone out?
As you can see, there is a place for practically every special interest inside the “Big Tent.” Really, all you have to do is put your own particular self-interest(s) ahead of national interests -- that is, focus on the “small picture” -- and you’ll be made to feel right at home. Indeed, critical thinking is best left at the door.
One last thought, or two, on the Democratic Party:
During the 1972 Presidential campaign, Governor George McGovern of South Dakota was the Democratic candidate. He spoke of “change”:
“We reject the view of those who say, ‘America – love it or leave it.’ We reply, ‘Let us change it so we may love it the more.’”
During the 2008 Presidential campaign, Barack Obama reportedly said:
“My fellow Americans, we are the greatest nation on earth, and here I am, sincerely, asking you to help me change it.”
These simple statements, for many, sum up the true feelings of those on the Left, encompassing the notion that they can not and will not love America until she is remade in an image and an ideology that they would choose for her. This would, naturally, include a big, “Nanny State” government –- Socialist, of course -– with a “living” Constitution that is as broadly interpreted as it is pliable; quotas, subsidies, and entitlements, with the attendant class warfare rhetoric built right in to rationalize any sense of shame or embarrassment resulting from being a recipient of wealth redistribution schemes; an embrace of secularism, because, again, if we remove Religion from the equation we can also reduce or eliminate any kind of shame or embarrassment associated with so-called “aberrant behavior”; and, we wouldn’t do anything without reaching a global consensus, which of course, means we wouldn’t do anything, period, because such a consensus would be impossible owing to our penchant for letting the tail wag the dog.
So, there would be no more Wars, no more Rich or Poor -- though we would ostensibly be “rich in Love” -- no more Hunger, Disease, Famine or Pestilence. Global Warming would go away, as would Guns, the Death Penalty, and Prison Overcrowding. Animals and Trees would have the same rights as humans, and America would have the friendship and respect of the entire planet.
Of course, Capitalism would die (at long last). Why work if you don’t have to? Critical, objective thought would have no place in our society, and since there would be no real reward for risk-taking we could say goodbye to Innovation. Advances in Medicine would die on the table and Agriculture as we know it would wither on the vine. So too, by extension, would Productivity and any meaningful GDP.
But all is not lost: We would eventually discount outdated notions such as self-reliance, perseverance and accountability, and instead ask what our country can do for us. We wouldn’t have to concern ourselves with foreign policy, either; we would soon become the milquetoasts of the world and have policy dictated to us. But, hey! We’d all be living under the same Big Tent, so how bad could it be?
Democrats themselves don’t really stand for anything tangible; rather, they are poseurs for virtually everything, with standards that evolve and adapt as the time and situation dictate. In short, they are Opportunists, willing to promise whatever it takes to acquire and maintain power. But it doesn’t seem to matter; the important thing is -- always, always, always -- the Party, and everyone is invited into the Big Tent, absolutely no questions asked other than, “Can we count on your vote?”
Our Declaration of Independence tells us that we have a right, and a duty, “to alter or abolish” any form of government which becomes destructive to our inalienable rights, and it exhorts us to institute a new government, laying its foundation on those principles “that shall seem most likely to effect our Safety and Happiness.” I happen to think as old Ben Franklin did, that our republic may not be the best form of government, but that it is the best that has ever been tried. I also think that a Party or an ideology that tries to serve a thousand masters is not only ineffective and foolhardy, but also dangerous.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)