As promised oh so long ago, here is my final paper on Progressivism. Now that it has been graded and I aced it, I can safely post it without the graders doing a google search and thinking I plagiarized myself. I have posted the entire thing here including references. It is a rather long post. I am thinking of setting up my free webspace with my internet provider to have it listed at. Of course, that will have to wait until later this week. Until then, I hope you enjoy. Remember, keep yourself informed and don't be afraid to speak out.
Progressivism and Individual Liberty
The Progressive movement of the early 20th century is often viewed as a small period of reform, merely a footnote in the history of American politics. Progressive ideals are at odds with the vision of the Founding Fathers and their views of individual liberty. The Progressive movement started in the late 19th century and included people from all walks of life. Progressives viewed individuals as selfish and disinterested in the needs of the community. The needs of the community should come before those of the individual and the government should have a role in determining what is best. Elite groups of government experts can see where history is taking us and ensure the needs of all individuals are met creating a balance with the needs of the community as a whole. Our nations’ founders felt government should be small and led by representatives from our own communities. They felt that individuals are inherently good and in improving their own lives would also improve the lives of those in their communities as well. Progressive ideals implemented throughout the 20th century have strayed from the intentions of the Founding Fathers and have slowly chipped away at some of the liberties they desired to protect.
Who were the Progressives? The Progressive movement had its beginnings in the late 19th century as the United States and most of the world was experiencing an economic boom from the advancements brought about by the industrial revolution. The turn of the 20th century has come to be known as the Progressive Era. (National Archives, 2009b)
Along with the advancements that came with the Industrial Revolution, there were a score of social ills that many felt needed to be addressed. A large number of those social ills were viewed as coming from the big cities as industry continued to grow. Among this diverse group of reformers were people from all walks of life; most notably, “politicians, labor leaders, religious leaders, and teachers.” (National Archives, 2009b) In looking at all the issues of the day they found several that were of common concern to their various groups. As a lot of the issues of the day had become large in nature, they felt that the federal government should take a hand in addressing these problems. (National Archives, 2009b) Progressivism started as most political movements in America, in the universities, and progressed into the political sphere to include such notable leaders of the day as U.S. Senator Robert M. La Follette of Wisconsin, President Theodore Roosevelt, and President Woodrow Wilson. (National Archives, 2009b)
Can individuals do what is good for the community while pursuing their own success? Progressives viewed individuals as selfish and therefore not capable of knowing how to best meet the needs of the community. In the attempt to better their own station in life, individuals may forget the needs of those around them and therefore needed guidance. It was felt that the state has a responsibility to mold individuals. Laws and institutions were viewed as a “means of creating individuals.” (West & Schambra, 2007) Evolutionary theory was viewed as an ideal model for the government to follow. If nature followed an evolutionary process, it made sense that “scientific principles” should be applied to political and economic decisions. (Anderson, 2009)
What is the best form of government for a free people? Progressives looked at the initial history of our nation and disagreed that an individual should be left with so much decision making ability. Too much was left in the hands of the individual on a smaller local level. The ideal government would be led by an elite body of experts. These experts would be men who had been properly educated at the best universities. Progressive elites viewed history as an evolutionary process. These enlightened experts could change with the times as they were able to see where history was taking us. (West & Schambra, 2007)
It was not enough for Progressives to have the people represented by elite experts; the whole of government itself would be best managed by professional administrators. (Tallant, 2001) Administrators could manage the affairs of the populace on a local level much better than a city council or county commission. On the national level, the day to day operations of government would best be handled by these administrative experts. Since these individuals were not politicians, but professionals, they would not let personal agendas get in the way. Politicians are widely noted as doing what is best to get themselves reelected, not necessarily what is best for the community. Legislators on a state and national level could then be guided by experts who could shed light on their various fields as had been done in the Wisconsin State Legislature in conjunction with the University of Wisconsin. (Wisconsin Historical Society, 2004)
What is the best way to ensure an individual’s needs are met? Is there a role for the government to play in meeting the daily needs of an individual? It has already been noted that progressives viewed individuals as selfish. The best way to ensure everything is fair would be to eliminate those ideas that were felt to promote selfishness. The government needed to step in and ensure everyone got an equal portion of success. One of the many ills the progressives viewed coming out of the industrial revolution was the formation of corporations. In particular, it was felt capitalism was detrimental to the greater good. Most progressives felt that big business needed to be reigned in through regulation to make things fair. That if you were going to bring about social justice, there needed to be an extension of national control. (Chase, 2004) One of the first targets of progressives was the railroads. It was felt that they had too much control and needed to be broken up. (Platform of the Progressive Party, 2009) From there it moved on to other large industries the government felt had a monopoly.
Every generation strives to view itself as having made some major accomplishment. That they have contributed in some great way that will be noticed by the history books. Progressives felt that every generation must use their sovereign power to establish “equal opportunity and industrial justice.” (Platform of the Progressive Party, 2009) If the goal of every generation was to ensure that everything was fair, how can one point to any type of meaningful progress. By the very nature of making things fair, you take from a group that is moving forward to one that is falling behind. When those that are at the top start to feel they are punished for their success, they will stop working as hard making it more difficult for the government to keep an equal balance.
To assist in making sure things were carried out in an equal and fair manner, Progressives pushed the view that professional social workers were better qualified and equipped to handle charitable works. (Tallant, 2001) How could an individual being selfish in nature, know who is more deserving of their charity. In having all charitable work accomplished by professionals, the government can ensure that charity was given to the most deserving groups of individuals. This also set up the frame work to distribute income from the highest on the success ladder to those at the bottom. It also creates a larger government bureaucracy where more individuals are dependant on the government for work.
With the rise of industrial capitalism, progressives felt that there were too few hands in control of the wealth. As businesses grew, corporations made huge profits while the working class man made indecent wages and worked in intolerable conditions. Progressives declared in 1912 that the purpose of business should be to secure the general prosperity of the people. The profits of business should go to the community as a whole and not to a small group of individuals. (Platform of the Progressive Party, 2009) A push was made to regulate working conditions in the various industries. If the government were to have so much control over industry, one can view them as having a say over a person’s chosen profession. If there is enough of one profession to sustain the needs of the community, there would be no room for anyone else in that profession.
Progressives believed in working within the existing framework of the government to slowly bring about the changes they desired. This is evident by their goal of changing how the members of the U.S. Senate were selected. (Platform of the Progressive Party, 2009) They were originally selected by the state legislatures. Through progressive reform, the 17th amendment was passed which changed the selection of Senators to a popular vote.
As changes wanted by progressives were made, the role of government they felt was the most proper would begin to take shape. It was felt by progressive thinkers that the people had a responsibility to put the needs of the state first. This would solve the issue of selfishness and people would always think about what is best for the community. The “origin of the state” was felt to be “the result of historical development” and that mans rights originated with the state. (West & Schambra, 2007)
If the people’s rights were derived from the state, then the state always knows what is best for the community. Centralized decision making could create better efficiencies and serve the community better as a whole. (Tallant, 2001) The less that people have to decide on, the easier it is to put the community’s needs first. This cut in decisions people would have to make didn’t end at just the basic needs of life, career, and property. The state has the right to make decisions over almost every aspect of your life. John Burgess, a noted progressive political scientist wrote, “the most fundamental and indispensable mark of statehood” was “the original, absolute, unlimited, universal power over the individual subject, and all associations of subjects.” (West & Schambra, 2007) So it wasn’t just the basic decisions mentioned above. The government is even supposed to choose your friends.
With the progressives claiming government control over so many areas of an individual’s life, why would they not foresee a huge potential backlash? After all, most Americans are ruggedly individualistic. Most people take pride in being able to determine their own path. This was especially true at the turn of the 20th century. Progressives felt the development of human reason would overcome individualism. (West & Schambra, 2007) We would essentially become smart enough to realize that we need to put aside what we want to do and concentrate on what is best for the collective good.
As the United States entered World War I, there were many programs put into place by the progressive politicians that found themselves in power. It was felt that as the country went about the great goal of spreading democracy, everyone was to do their part under national control to achieve our national goals. (Rothbard, 1989) The best way to achieve this is through nationalized programs that direct the participation of not only the community but the individual as well. You could gain a lot more popular support for your programs under the auspices of doing it for the war.
The notable leaders of the American Revolution commonly referred to as the “Founding Fathers”, similarly wanted to improve the conditions of their fellow citizens but came from a much different background. The Declaration of Independence notes that these men had lived under oppressive governments, including the British Crown which they then resided. (Jefferson, 1776) Due to this collective experience, the Founders strove to found a nation that would not limit the potential of the individual. In studying the various forms of government throughout history, the Founders felt that the right form of government is one that is responsive to the needs of all the people, not just the majority. (Madison, 1787) A pure democracy left too much to chance. It would enable a simple majority an opportunity to quash the rights of smaller groups. Our Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that every individual could exercise their God given liberties. (Madison, 1787) Through the protection of these rights, the success of individuals could lift not only themselves but also the community to a better life.
The Founding Fathers viewed all individuals as being inherently good. Most individuals in their race to improve themselves would also recognize the need to help those around them. The Founders believed that there was a “natural moral order”. (West & Schambra, 2007) As all men recognized that there is a natural law it made sense that individuals would have a strong moral compass to guide them. It is easy to follow the logic of these men when you add their belief that man’s rights came from their Creator. (Jefferson, 1776)
The founders of our nation did not always agree on the best course to secure the freedom of their fellow citizens. This is evident amongst the debate at the Constitutional Convention. Out of that debate they recognized that although individual liberty can bring about a strong difference of opinion, it is essential to life. (Madison, 1787) It was recognized at the creation of this nation that individuals were best left alone to make decisions regarding their own lives.
As mentioned above, the founders of the United States looked into many of the governments of the past. The Founders established a representative republic as the best way to preserve the freedoms they fought so hard for. It was felt a republic “would be reconcilable with the genius of the people of America.” (Madison, 1788) A republic would allow for representation by the people but would be kept from descending into mob rule as in a true democracy. The rights of the individual would be protected.
It was noted by these men that government should be derived from the people as a whole, not from a “favored class of it.” (Madison, 1788) The Founders strove to put into place checks and balances in the hopes of keeping an elite class of rulers from rising up. In their experience with Great Britain, although they were said to be represented, the majority of the people’s representatives came from the noble class. The nobles were far more interested in doing what was in their best interest than what was good for the people. Many of the Founders also felt it was “vain” to feel that enlightened statesmen would always be available to lead and that they would be unable to lead all “clashing interests” to do what is right for the common good. (Madison, 1787)
Our nation’s founders declared the first object of government is to protect “the diversity of the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate.” (Madison, 1787) All men are blessed with different talents, the government should not dictate where that talent is best put to use. An individual’s right to choose is their greatest gift. Men should be allowed the freedom to succeed in their own chosen path without government interference.
We often see the statue of justice outside our courts. In this depiction of justice, she is blindfolded. This infers that justice is to be blind. The Founders felt that justice must be balanced between opposing parties. (Madison, 1787) How can anybody say that justice is blind if the success of one individual is spread to another all in the name of fairness? Our Founding Fathers declared, “an equal division of property” to be an “improper” and “wicked project.” (Madison, 1787)
The progressive viewpoint could not be further from the Founding Fathers idea of the proper role of government. Government needed to be limited and should be concerned with preserving the freedoms of the individual. The Founders views of an individual’s rights were the complete opposite of those spouted by progressives. All men are “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” and governments “derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.” (Jefferson, 1776) If the rights of an individual come from God, they are then lent to the state to take care of the basics that need to be attended to in order to ensure an individual’s rights are not trampled upon. The Constitution was founded on the assent of the governed. (Madison, 1788)
One of the major concerns delegates of the Constitutional Convention had was the national government would overstep its bounds. That if left unchecked, eventually those freedoms they fought to preserve would be whittled away. It was decided that a Bill of Rights was needed to ensure some of the most basic rights. The 10th amendment states that powers not specifically given to the federal government by the Constitution are the purview of the states. (National Archives, 2009a)
Many of the ideals championed by progressives have slowly been implemented over the last 100 years. One of the first major reform successes enjoyed by Progressives was the prohibition of alcohol. They felt that alcohol limits the potential of mankind and should be eliminated for the greater good. (Tallant, 2001) This was a major victory as it was accomplished via the Constitutional amendment process. (National Archives, 2009a)
Since the beginning of the progressive movement it was noted that they should achieve their goals through moderate reform. A hard lesson was learned after the success of passing prohibition. These reform efforts did little more than to encourage many more Americans to break the law. It was all too much to just take away the alcohol in one fell swoop. The reform they fought so hard to win via amendment was later rescinded by that same amendment process. (National Archives, 2009a) Other than prohibition, many progressive reforms were moderate and
incremental. This made it more palatable to voters who might otherwise oppose a “fundamental shift” in the established orders. (Wisconsin Historical Society, 2004)
One of the pillars of progressivism is social justice. One of the biggest programs pointed to by progressives as reaching that goal is the “Great Society.” The entire goal of the “Great Society” was to get the poor to change their behavior. Even notable progressives have later said it did not have the effect they wanted. (West & Schambra, 2007) It has been said you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink. Just because a group of experts has said you can get a person to change their behavior if you follow a certain program, does not mean it is going to work. The point missed by many progressives was the individual’s choice on whether they want to follow that program or not.
Have progressive ideals further protected the individual rights our Founding Fathers worked so hard to protect? There are many that believe once the government has been given power over something, it seldom gives it up. For example, many of the policies implemented during World War I as necessary to the war effort disappeared, with the exception of the income tax and the Federal Reserve. (Anderson, 2009) The government now controls the regulatory flow of the money supply, and everything you make isn’t yours anymore. Depending on what state you live in you may pay more or less than your fellow citizens. As you go up the economic scale and achieve success, you have to pay a larger percentage of your income to the government. This goes against the Founders’ belief that income should not be taken from one man and given to another. As previously noted, the founders believed that social justice was evil.
In looking to the progressive ideal that the people need guidance in their decisions by experts, one need only look to the increasing size of what some refer to as the “nanny state” style of government. A law meant to catch methamphetamine users nabs a grandmother buying cold medicine for separate family members. (Trigg, 2009) The State of California is increasing regulation over large televisions by requiring them to be more energy efficient. (Lifsher, 2009) A 12-year old and his mother are violating school policy by biking to school. They feel they have a right to decide how he will get to school. (Yusko, 2009) All of these show a gradual loss of individual control of one’s decision making process to serve the greater good of the community.
In comparing the differing ideals of these two groups, one can see a fundamental difference. Progressives feel the state and the experts know what is best for the greater good and therefore have the duty to reign in the individual. The Founding Fathers believed that man was best left alone to his own devices. The greatest goal of the Founders was to ensure that individual liberty was protected. The greatest goal of the progressive movement has been to make everything fair and equal.
The use of individual rights and the ability to improve upon ones circumstances is one of the largest differences between our nation and others. The more freedom an individual has, the higher they can reach. This was the original intent of the Founding Fathers. Progressive ideals and policies enacted go completely in the opposite direction and have slowly chipped away at those individual rights. Today’s ordinary American relates more to the ideals of our Founding Fathers than to the “Greater Good” approach of progressivism. This is evident by their strong attachment to “property rights, self-reliance” and a “wariness of university-certified ‘experts.” (West & Schambra, 2007)
The Progressive movement started in the universities of America in the late 19th century with several ideals and goals in mind. Due to the many ills that came about with the progress made throughout the world from the Industrial Revolution, progressives felt that people were either too selfish or not intelligent enough to notice these ills and the obvious solutions to them. By putting the needs of the state or community first, elite progressives could lead the people to where history was taking us. Everything would be fair and equal. The Founding Fathers showed us that individual liberties enjoyed by the people would propel these individuals to newer and greater heights. If government were to remain small and protect the differences that exist among men, then as individuals lifted themselves up they would lift up the community. Government control was best left to representatives selected from the peoples own communities, not by a body of elite experts. The progressive ideals and programs reviewed here from prohibition, the income tax, and attempts at social engineering such as the “Great Society” have chipped away slowly at some of those liberties that were once enjoyed by Americans. As more and more progressive ideals are implemented through government regulation, the further we are taken from the intent of the founders in keeping government small, and more of the people’s liberties no matter how small, will be slowly lost.
References
Anderson, W. (2009). The legacy of progressivism. Foundation for Economic Freedom. Retrieved October 10, 2009, from
http://fee.org/articles/not-so-fast/legacy-progressivism/
Chace, J (2004). 1912 Progressivism’s high tide. Smithsonian, Vol. 35 Issue 7, 57-59 Retrieved October 9, 2009 from the Academic Search Complete database
Jefferson, T. (1776). The Declaration of Independence.
Retrieved November 10, 2009, from
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm
Lifsher, M. (2009). California appears poised to be first to ban power-guzzzling big- screen tvs. The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved October 14, 2009, from
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-bigtvs14-2009oct14,0,4908205.story
Madison, J. (1787). The union as a safeguard against domestic faction and
insurrection. The Independent Journal.
Retrieved October 9, 2009 from
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed10.htm
Madison, J. (1788). The conformity of the plan to republican principles The
Independent Journal. Retrieved October 9, 2009, from
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed39.htm
Platform of the Progressive Party (2009) Great Neck, NY: Great Neck Publishing.
Retrieved October 9, 2009 from the Academic Search Complete database
Rothbard, M. (1989). World war I as fulfillment: Power and the intellectuals The
Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. IX, No. 1 (Winter 1989). Retrieved
October 10, 2009, from
http://mises.org/journals/jls/9_1/9_1_5.pdf
Tallant, H. (2001). Progressivism (1900-1920). Retrieved October 15, 2009,from
http://spider.georgetowncollege.edu/htallant/courses/his225/progmovt.htm
Trigg, L. (2009). Wabash valley woman didn’t realize second cold medicine purchase
violated drug laws. The Tribune-Star. Retrieved September 3, 2009, from
http://www.tribstar.com/local/local_story_246225916.html
U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. (2009a). Bill of rights.
Retrieved November 9, 2009, from
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. (2009b). Teaching with documents: Political cartoons illustrating progressivism and the election of 1912.
Retrieved October 15, 2009, from
http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/election-cartoons/
West, T., Schambra, W. (2007). The progressive movement and the transformation of
american politics. Retrieved October 15, 2009, from http://www.heritage.org/Research/Thought/fp12.cfm
Wisconsin historical society. (2004). Progressivism and the wisconsin idea.
Retrieved October 15, 2009, from
http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/turningpoints/tp-036/
Yusko, D. (2009). School district could backpedal on policy. Times Union Retrieved
September 29, 2009, from
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=847190
Monday, December 28, 2009
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Shredding the Constitution
Well, it has finally happened. The Executive branch is pretty much shredding the Constitution and admitting to it. Well, the anointed one isn't exactly dancing around the west lawn of the white house ripping up a copy shouting yahoo! Pretty close though.
Last week the EPA ruled that CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) was a dangerous polutant and a threat to the population. I find that amusing because whenever I exhale a breath it means I am creating a danger to myself and my family. It's like saying, you better watch out or i'll breathe on you!They then stated that they don't have to wait for congress to pass a cap and trade law, they can just "regulate" it. This is a push by progressives to bully congress, in particular the Senate, to pass extremely damaging legislation that will produce no visible benefit.
The head of the EPA announced in Copenhagen, say it with me...Co pen hog in... that the President did not need for Congress to pass a cap and trade law or to sign off on any international agreement the President may want to sign. This goes expressly against the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution. It states that the President may enter treaties or agreements with foreign nations only with the advice of the Senate, which has to have a 2/3 majority to approve it.
In further opinion on this, progressive think tanks are stating the President doesn't need the approval of Congress to enact any changes outlined in Co pen hog in because he can issue an executive order. Hmmmmm, sounds a lot like the king making a decree. Our founding fathers did not want to be Europe or use their system of government. They intentionally set up our nation as they did to shed the old ways that hold individuals back. Now the President and several progressives in Congress are all trying to swim back to Europe and be like them.
Next on the Constitutional shredding list is Congress itself. Yep, when asked by reporters where in the Constitution it allows the goverment to mandate that you have to buy something, here are a couple responses.
Nancy Pelosi, "Are you serious, are you serious?" She really did say it two times.
Mary Landrieu from Louisiana, the $300 million dollar woman, "We have constitutional lawyers on our staff that can handle that."
Ok, the oath of office states they will protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. That is their sole job responsibility. You would think they could tell you what is in that simple document. After two hundred years it has gone from 13 pages to 17. That is a drop in the bucket compared to 2,000 page congressional bills.
I just wanted to close out making a mention of government math. His exaltedness stated that if we don't pass healthcare and spend the money (it's $2.5 trillion) the nation will go bankrupt. In what universe do you avoid bankruptcy by spending $2,500,000,000,000? It seriously boggles the mind. It'd be like telling your spouse the debt collectors will stop calling only if we buy 100 billion xbox 360s. Oh yeah, as of this posting the government has officially reached the debt ceiling. They even raised the ceiling with the so called stimulus bill passed at the beginning of the year. According to Congress' own rules they can't borrow any more money. I wonder if our elected representatives would stop receiving their paycheck until we brought it down. I doubt it. They are looking for some excuse to raise it again.
By the way, the debt ceiling is $12.104 trillion. The current national debt is $12.135 trillion. That is just what is on that set of books. The government engages in accounting methods that would make Enron look like the Salvation Army. The total debt that we Americans are on the hook for, including unfunded liabilities like medicare and social security, is right around $200 trillion. That is over $350,000 per citizen. If anyone has that kind of change lying around please send it my way. :-)
Remember to keep yourself informed, and don't be afraid to speak out!
Last week the EPA ruled that CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) was a dangerous polutant and a threat to the population. I find that amusing because whenever I exhale a breath it means I am creating a danger to myself and my family. It's like saying, you better watch out or i'll breathe on you!They then stated that they don't have to wait for congress to pass a cap and trade law, they can just "regulate" it. This is a push by progressives to bully congress, in particular the Senate, to pass extremely damaging legislation that will produce no visible benefit.
The head of the EPA announced in Copenhagen, say it with me...Co pen hog in... that the President did not need for Congress to pass a cap and trade law or to sign off on any international agreement the President may want to sign. This goes expressly against the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution. It states that the President may enter treaties or agreements with foreign nations only with the advice of the Senate, which has to have a 2/3 majority to approve it.
In further opinion on this, progressive think tanks are stating the President doesn't need the approval of Congress to enact any changes outlined in Co pen hog in because he can issue an executive order. Hmmmmm, sounds a lot like the king making a decree. Our founding fathers did not want to be Europe or use their system of government. They intentionally set up our nation as they did to shed the old ways that hold individuals back. Now the President and several progressives in Congress are all trying to swim back to Europe and be like them.
Next on the Constitutional shredding list is Congress itself. Yep, when asked by reporters where in the Constitution it allows the goverment to mandate that you have to buy something, here are a couple responses.
Nancy Pelosi, "Are you serious, are you serious?" She really did say it two times.
Mary Landrieu from Louisiana, the $300 million dollar woman, "We have constitutional lawyers on our staff that can handle that."
Ok, the oath of office states they will protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. That is their sole job responsibility. You would think they could tell you what is in that simple document. After two hundred years it has gone from 13 pages to 17. That is a drop in the bucket compared to 2,000 page congressional bills.
I just wanted to close out making a mention of government math. His exaltedness stated that if we don't pass healthcare and spend the money (it's $2.5 trillion) the nation will go bankrupt. In what universe do you avoid bankruptcy by spending $2,500,000,000,000? It seriously boggles the mind. It'd be like telling your spouse the debt collectors will stop calling only if we buy 100 billion xbox 360s. Oh yeah, as of this posting the government has officially reached the debt ceiling. They even raised the ceiling with the so called stimulus bill passed at the beginning of the year. According to Congress' own rules they can't borrow any more money. I wonder if our elected representatives would stop receiving their paycheck until we brought it down. I doubt it. They are looking for some excuse to raise it again.
By the way, the debt ceiling is $12.104 trillion. The current national debt is $12.135 trillion. That is just what is on that set of books. The government engages in accounting methods that would make Enron look like the Salvation Army. The total debt that we Americans are on the hook for, including unfunded liabilities like medicare and social security, is right around $200 trillion. That is over $350,000 per citizen. If anyone has that kind of change lying around please send it my way. :-)
Remember to keep yourself informed, and don't be afraid to speak out!
Monday, December 7, 2009
Smearing Donahue?
.... no, not that Donahue.
In Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" he talks about smearing the other side. The basics is this. You know you cannot win in a debate of ideas. You do not have the truth on your side. Therefore, you take out the other side personally to make them less effective in spreading their message.
I see things in the news now and then that remind me of this. There were two today but the latest nugget was this one.
It basically goes like this. The CEO of the Chamber of Commerce, the institution charged with promoting business in America, had the gall to stand up against both Health Care Reform and Climate Change initiatives. Mr. Donohue is right in that both of these measures will kill economic growth in the U.S. Just about completely. Once again, the progressives on the left cannot argue and debate based upon facts, so they just smear.
Someone else who touched on this today was Glenn Beck. He mentioned how he spoke with his family before he set out to expose everything that he has in the past year and said, look, these people are going to come after me for what I am going to say. He is right. Progressives from all sides of the aisle come after him regularly. Do they actually say he said something wrong? If so, do they point out his errors? Of course not. All they do is try to make fun of him. They try to smear and make him look like an idiot.
Progressive elites have no facts to back up what they are trying to ram down our throats. Now that the people are actually paying attention, they are having a hard time justifying. They cook the books, see Climategate, and they inflate the numbers to try to make their cause look just. They use the touchy feely arguments, but most of us believe you should be able to pull yourself up and improve your lives. So, they call you every name in the book to try and silence you. I read in a comment thread today someone say that calling people racist for not agreeing with something has lost pretty much all credibility. I do believe I agree.
Remember, keep yourself informed and don't be afraid to speak out.
In Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" he talks about smearing the other side. The basics is this. You know you cannot win in a debate of ideas. You do not have the truth on your side. Therefore, you take out the other side personally to make them less effective in spreading their message.
I see things in the news now and then that remind me of this. There were two today but the latest nugget was this one.
It basically goes like this. The CEO of the Chamber of Commerce, the institution charged with promoting business in America, had the gall to stand up against both Health Care Reform and Climate Change initiatives. Mr. Donohue is right in that both of these measures will kill economic growth in the U.S. Just about completely. Once again, the progressives on the left cannot argue and debate based upon facts, so they just smear.
Someone else who touched on this today was Glenn Beck. He mentioned how he spoke with his family before he set out to expose everything that he has in the past year and said, look, these people are going to come after me for what I am going to say. He is right. Progressives from all sides of the aisle come after him regularly. Do they actually say he said something wrong? If so, do they point out his errors? Of course not. All they do is try to make fun of him. They try to smear and make him look like an idiot.
Progressive elites have no facts to back up what they are trying to ram down our throats. Now that the people are actually paying attention, they are having a hard time justifying. They cook the books, see Climategate, and they inflate the numbers to try to make their cause look just. They use the touchy feely arguments, but most of us believe you should be able to pull yourself up and improve your lives. So, they call you every name in the book to try and silence you. I read in a comment thread today someone say that calling people racist for not agreeing with something has lost pretty much all credibility. I do believe I agree.
Remember, keep yourself informed and don't be afraid to speak out.
I Like This Old Guy
I looked this up on Snopes and this guy is for real.
95 Year Old WWII Sailor Tells OBAMA to "Shape Up or Ship Out...
Wow! Read this one. It is really good. And this gentleman says it just like it is.
This venerable and much honored WW II vet is well known in Hawaii for his seventy-plus years of service to patriotic organizations and causes all over the country. A humble man without a political bone in his body, he has never spoken out before about a government official, until now. He dictated this letter to a friend, signed it and mailed it to the president.
Dear President Obama,
My name is Harold Estes, approaching 95 on December 13 of this year. People meeting me for the first time don't believe my age because I remain wrinkle free and pretty much mentally alert.
I enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1934 and served proudly before, during and after WW II retiring as a Master Chief Bos'n Mate. Now I live in a "rest home" located on the western end of Pearl Harbor , allowing me to keep alive the memories of 23 years of service to my country..
One of the benefits of my age, perhaps the only one, is to speak my mind, blunt and direct even to the head man.
So here goes.
I am amazed, angry and determined not to see my country die before I do, but you seem hell bent not to grant me that wish.
I can't figure out what country you are the president of.
You fly around the world telling our friends and enemies despicable lies like:
" We're no longer a Christian nation"
" America is arrogant" - (Your wife even
announced to the world," America is mean-
spirited. " Please tell her to try preaching
that nonsense to 23 generations of our
war dead buried all over the globe who
died for no other reason than to free a
whole lot of strangers from tyranny and
hopelessness.)
I'd say shame on the both of you, but I don't think you like America, nor do I see an ounce of gratefulness in anything you do, for the obvious gifts this country has given you. To be without shame or gratefulness is a dangerous thing for a man sitting in the White House.
After 9/11 you said," America hasn't lived up to her ideals."
Which ones did you mean? Was it the notion of personal liberty that 11,000 farmers and shopkeepers died for to win independence from the British? Or maybe the ideal that no man should be a slave to another man, that 500,000 men died for in the Civil War? I hope you didn't mean the ideal 470,000 fathers, brothers, husbands, and a lot of fellas I knew personally died for in WWII, because we felt real strongly about not letting any nation push us around, because we stand for freedom.
I don't think you mean the ideal that says equality is better than discrimination. You know the one that a whole lot of white people understood when they helped to get you elected.
Take a little advice from a very old geezer, young man.
Shape up and start acting like an American. If you don't, I'll do what I can to see you get shipped out of that fancy rental on Pennsylvania Avenue . You were elected to lead not to bow, apologize and kiss the hands of murderers and corrupt leaders who still treat their people like slaves.
And just who do you think you are telling the American people not to jump to conclusions and condemn that Muslim major who killed 13 of his fellow soldiers and wounded dozens more. You mean you don't want us to do what you did when that white cop used force to subdue that black college professor in Massachusetts , who was putting up a fight? You don't mind offending the police calling them stupid but you don't want us to offend Muslim fanatics by calling them what they are, terrorists.
One more thing. I realize you never served in the military and never had to defend your country with your life, but you're the Commander-in-Chief now, son. Do your job. When your battle-hardened field General asks you for 40,000 more troops to complete the mission, give them to him. But if you're not in this fight to win, then get out. The life of one American soldier is not worth the best political strategy you're thinking of.
You could be our greatest president because you face the greatest challenge ever presented to any president.
You're not going to restore American greatness by bringing back our bloated economy. That's not our greatest threat. Losing the heart and soul of who we are as Americans is our big fight now.
And I sure as hell don't want to think my president is the enemy in this final battle.
Sincerely,
Harold B. Estes
When a 95 year old hero of the "the Greatest Generation" stands up and speaks out like this, I think we owe it to him to send his words to as many Americans as we can. Please pass it on.
95 Year Old WWII Sailor Tells OBAMA to "Shape Up or Ship Out...
Wow! Read this one. It is really good. And this gentleman says it just like it is.
This venerable and much honored WW II vet is well known in Hawaii for his seventy-plus years of service to patriotic organizations and causes all over the country. A humble man without a political bone in his body, he has never spoken out before about a government official, until now. He dictated this letter to a friend, signed it and mailed it to the president.
Dear President Obama,
My name is Harold Estes, approaching 95 on December 13 of this year. People meeting me for the first time don't believe my age because I remain wrinkle free and pretty much mentally alert.
I enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1934 and served proudly before, during and after WW II retiring as a Master Chief Bos'n Mate. Now I live in a "rest home" located on the western end of Pearl Harbor , allowing me to keep alive the memories of 23 years of service to my country..
One of the benefits of my age, perhaps the only one, is to speak my mind, blunt and direct even to the head man.
So here goes.
I am amazed, angry and determined not to see my country die before I do, but you seem hell bent not to grant me that wish.
I can't figure out what country you are the president of.
You fly around the world telling our friends and enemies despicable lies like:
" We're no longer a Christian nation"
" America is arrogant" - (Your wife even
announced to the world," America is mean-
spirited. " Please tell her to try preaching
that nonsense to 23 generations of our
war dead buried all over the globe who
died for no other reason than to free a
whole lot of strangers from tyranny and
hopelessness.)
I'd say shame on the both of you, but I don't think you like America, nor do I see an ounce of gratefulness in anything you do, for the obvious gifts this country has given you. To be without shame or gratefulness is a dangerous thing for a man sitting in the White House.
After 9/11 you said," America hasn't lived up to her ideals."
Which ones did you mean? Was it the notion of personal liberty that 11,000 farmers and shopkeepers died for to win independence from the British? Or maybe the ideal that no man should be a slave to another man, that 500,000 men died for in the Civil War? I hope you didn't mean the ideal 470,000 fathers, brothers, husbands, and a lot of fellas I knew personally died for in WWII, because we felt real strongly about not letting any nation push us around, because we stand for freedom.
I don't think you mean the ideal that says equality is better than discrimination. You know the one that a whole lot of white people understood when they helped to get you elected.
Take a little advice from a very old geezer, young man.
Shape up and start acting like an American. If you don't, I'll do what I can to see you get shipped out of that fancy rental on Pennsylvania Avenue . You were elected to lead not to bow, apologize and kiss the hands of murderers and corrupt leaders who still treat their people like slaves.
And just who do you think you are telling the American people not to jump to conclusions and condemn that Muslim major who killed 13 of his fellow soldiers and wounded dozens more. You mean you don't want us to do what you did when that white cop used force to subdue that black college professor in Massachusetts , who was putting up a fight? You don't mind offending the police calling them stupid but you don't want us to offend Muslim fanatics by calling them what they are, terrorists.
One more thing. I realize you never served in the military and never had to defend your country with your life, but you're the Commander-in-Chief now, son. Do your job. When your battle-hardened field General asks you for 40,000 more troops to complete the mission, give them to him. But if you're not in this fight to win, then get out. The life of one American soldier is not worth the best political strategy you're thinking of.
You could be our greatest president because you face the greatest challenge ever presented to any president.
You're not going to restore American greatness by bringing back our bloated economy. That's not our greatest threat. Losing the heart and soul of who we are as Americans is our big fight now.
And I sure as hell don't want to think my president is the enemy in this final battle.
Sincerely,
Harold B. Estes
When a 95 year old hero of the "the Greatest Generation" stands up and speaks out like this, I think we owe it to him to send his words to as many Americans as we can. Please pass it on.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
There Ain't Nobody Here But Us Chickens
Amidst the swirling thoughts of my brain today with all that is going on, it was nice not to have it pounded by H1N1. Sorry, ADD moment. Back to my swirling thoughts. I was thinking about one of my favorite songs to dance to. There Ain't Nobody Here But Us Chickens by Louis Jordan. I thought it was a nice little view on the President's 1 billionth prime time address. (I was mad because they preempted A Charlie Brown Christmas).
Here you have the leader of the mightiest nation on earth say in one breath, i'm going to send half the troops my field commander requested, and then in the next say, we are going to start bringing them home in 18 months. If I were the enemy I would just lay low until the 18 months is up and we're good and gone and then start wreaking havoc.
I can imagine our soldiers going door to door doing searches for insurgents and they hear from the other side, "there ain't nobody here but us chickens." Oh, that's right, our soldiers have to give residents advanced notice of when they will be carrying out a surprise search. The Washington Examiner has put together a list of the rules of engagement that our troops must follow in this war against the terrorists who attacked us on our own soil. I have yet had a chance to read the entire thing, but besides this nugget just discussed were a couple I have picked out.
To engage an insurgent placing an IED, said insurgent must be actively setting up the IED. If they catch him and can't engage until he is walking away, they are too late.
Before engaging the enemy they must be able to show that the enemy is about to fire on them first. I could understand this one in the cold war when you didn't want the Soviets to nuke us, but we have actively declared war against these guys.
If you are going to fire on any insurgents, you cannot do so if they are in proximity to any civilians.
No wonder the only time the President got any applause last night was when he voiced support for our men and women in uniform. Here's a little hint, they weren't applauding him, but their fellow servicemen. He looked extremely uncomfortable giving this speach in front of this crowd and it looked like a lot of people were falling asleep.
I love our men and women in uniform. I have family members that are currently serving. They need leadership back home that is going to have the backbone to get the job done right. If you are not going to give the support that your hand picked general has asked for, then don't wait 18 months to bring our troops home. Bring them home now. Otherwise, what are they fighting and dieing for over there. Don't get me wrong, I want to get the scum who attacked us and get the job done right. However, if you don't want to give the troops what they need to get it done then don't waste their time. General McChrystal asked for 60,000 additional troops with 40,000 being the minimum. He needs these troops immediately. Obama is going to send 30,000 across the next 5 months. The media spin on this is that 30,000 out of the 40,000 requested isn't that bad. They are conveniently forgetting the fact the real numbers requested was much higher.
Abraham Lincoln was constantly ridiculed for his handling of the Civil War when it began. He constantly stood by the decisions of his generals and gave them what they said they needed. Lincoln did fire the generals that didn't get the job done and finally found success with Grant. If President Obama doesn't agree with how his chosen general wants to run the war, then fire him and get somebody that you do like.
Our enemies are being given the blueprint by our own leaders on how to defeat us. When you go to war, especially as the most powerful nation on earth....you decide you are going to win, pound the enemy with everything you have, get the job done as quickly as possible, and get out. If we actually went after our enemies with the full power we possess they would think twice about attacking us. That is the big stick part of speak softly but carry a big stick.
At the end of the day, I believe it is our national leaders crying to the world, "there ain't nobody here but us chickens."
Remember to keep yourself informed and don't be afraid to speak out.
Here you have the leader of the mightiest nation on earth say in one breath, i'm going to send half the troops my field commander requested, and then in the next say, we are going to start bringing them home in 18 months. If I were the enemy I would just lay low until the 18 months is up and we're good and gone and then start wreaking havoc.
I can imagine our soldiers going door to door doing searches for insurgents and they hear from the other side, "there ain't nobody here but us chickens." Oh, that's right, our soldiers have to give residents advanced notice of when they will be carrying out a surprise search. The Washington Examiner has put together a list of the rules of engagement that our troops must follow in this war against the terrorists who attacked us on our own soil. I have yet had a chance to read the entire thing, but besides this nugget just discussed were a couple I have picked out.
To engage an insurgent placing an IED, said insurgent must be actively setting up the IED. If they catch him and can't engage until he is walking away, they are too late.
Before engaging the enemy they must be able to show that the enemy is about to fire on them first. I could understand this one in the cold war when you didn't want the Soviets to nuke us, but we have actively declared war against these guys.
If you are going to fire on any insurgents, you cannot do so if they are in proximity to any civilians.
No wonder the only time the President got any applause last night was when he voiced support for our men and women in uniform. Here's a little hint, they weren't applauding him, but their fellow servicemen. He looked extremely uncomfortable giving this speach in front of this crowd and it looked like a lot of people were falling asleep.
I love our men and women in uniform. I have family members that are currently serving. They need leadership back home that is going to have the backbone to get the job done right. If you are not going to give the support that your hand picked general has asked for, then don't wait 18 months to bring our troops home. Bring them home now. Otherwise, what are they fighting and dieing for over there. Don't get me wrong, I want to get the scum who attacked us and get the job done right. However, if you don't want to give the troops what they need to get it done then don't waste their time. General McChrystal asked for 60,000 additional troops with 40,000 being the minimum. He needs these troops immediately. Obama is going to send 30,000 across the next 5 months. The media spin on this is that 30,000 out of the 40,000 requested isn't that bad. They are conveniently forgetting the fact the real numbers requested was much higher.
Abraham Lincoln was constantly ridiculed for his handling of the Civil War when it began. He constantly stood by the decisions of his generals and gave them what they said they needed. Lincoln did fire the generals that didn't get the job done and finally found success with Grant. If President Obama doesn't agree with how his chosen general wants to run the war, then fire him and get somebody that you do like.
Our enemies are being given the blueprint by our own leaders on how to defeat us. When you go to war, especially as the most powerful nation on earth....you decide you are going to win, pound the enemy with everything you have, get the job done as quickly as possible, and get out. If we actually went after our enemies with the full power we possess they would think twice about attacking us. That is the big stick part of speak softly but carry a big stick.
At the end of the day, I believe it is our national leaders crying to the world, "there ain't nobody here but us chickens."
Remember to keep yourself informed and don't be afraid to speak out.
Monday, November 30, 2009
A Cross Posting
Thought I would cross post this article here. It brings up a lot of good points to think about. I will have some more things to discuss throughout the week. As always, keep yourself informed and don't be afraid to speak out.
Are these The Actions Of A President Who Loves His Country?
By Doug Patton
November 30, 2009 I have grown weary of pretending that Barack Obama has anything but disdain for the United States of America. So let us ask the question on all of our minds: Are the actions of this president those of a man committed to what is best for his country?
With small business, the engine of our economy, on the ropes, Obama and his myrmidons in Congress are trying to ram through a health care reform bill that will, in the words of Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn, bring about our "fiscal ruin."
Is this the action of a president committed to doing what is best for his country?
Obama continues to push his "Cap and Trade" legislation, with all the taxes, fees, energy price increases and restrictions on freedom that inevitably accompany it, on the strength of junk science that is being discredited every day. A growing number of reputable scientists are expressing doubt that global warming even exists, and recently a hacker or a whistleblower made public thousands of insider e-mails showing that climate change advocates know the whole thing is a scam. Yet the president intends to go to the Copenhagen climate conference and pretend that none of this ever happened.
Is this the action of a president committed to doing what is best for his country?
So preoccupied with his domestic agenda is this president, that an urgent request for more troops from Gen. Stanley McChrystal, his hand-picked commander in Afghanistan, has been collecting dust on his desk in the Oval Office since August. It is now almost December. Gen. McChrystal has said that anything less than 40,000 troops will guarantee failure, so naturally Obama will send fewer than that.
Is this the action of a president committed to doing what is best for his country?
Obama was quick to jump to conclusions when Harvard Professor Henry Gates was arrested breaking into his own house. Although he admitted that he didn't have all the facts, the president nonetheless proclaimed that the police "acted stupidly." Yet when an Islamist fanatic in our own armed forces murdered 13 innocent people at Fort Hood, Texas, in an obvious act of terror, we were told by our president not to jump to conclusions.
Is this the action of a president committed to doing what is best for his country?
The president and his attorney general, Eric Holder, have decided that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, along with his fellow terrorists, will get a trial in civilian court in New York City, with all the rights afforded American citizens under the U.S. Constitution. This outrageous decision even caused some in the generally uncritical media to question its wisdom, whereupon both Obama and Holder immediately poisoned the jury pool by pronouncing the defendants "guilty" and promising that they will be executed.
Is this the action of a president committed to doing what is best for his country?
And finally, there is the tale of Matthew McCabe, Jonathan Keefe and Julio Hertas, three Navy SEALs who should be receiving commendations from their commander in chief, but who, sadly, will instead receive court-martials. The charge? They gave the most wanted terrorist in all of Iraq a boo-boo on his lip! That's right. The man responsible for murdering four American contractors in March of 2004, mutilating and burning their bodies, dragging them through the streets of Fallujah and hanging what was left of them from a bridge over the Euphrates River for the world press to dutifully photograph, was finally captured by these three brave Navy SEALs. But in the course of subduing him, apparently he got slugged in the mouth. Do you care? I know I don't. But apparently our politically correct military does, from the commander in chief on down. Obama pardoned a turkey last week, but heroes he court-martials.
For the last time, I ask you, are these the actions of a president committed to doing what is best for his country?
---
Doug Patton is a freelance columnist who has served as a political speechwriter and public policy advisor. His work has been published in newspapers across the country, such as the Washington Times and the Tampa Tribune, on web sites such as Human Events Online and GOPUSA.com, where he is a senior writer and state editor, and featured on the Mike Gallager and Sean Hannity radio shows. Readers can e-mail him at dougpatton@cox.net.
Are these The Actions Of A President Who Loves His Country?
By Doug Patton
November 30, 2009 I have grown weary of pretending that Barack Obama has anything but disdain for the United States of America. So let us ask the question on all of our minds: Are the actions of this president those of a man committed to what is best for his country?
With small business, the engine of our economy, on the ropes, Obama and his myrmidons in Congress are trying to ram through a health care reform bill that will, in the words of Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn, bring about our "fiscal ruin."
Is this the action of a president committed to doing what is best for his country?
Obama continues to push his "Cap and Trade" legislation, with all the taxes, fees, energy price increases and restrictions on freedom that inevitably accompany it, on the strength of junk science that is being discredited every day. A growing number of reputable scientists are expressing doubt that global warming even exists, and recently a hacker or a whistleblower made public thousands of insider e-mails showing that climate change advocates know the whole thing is a scam. Yet the president intends to go to the Copenhagen climate conference and pretend that none of this ever happened.
Is this the action of a president committed to doing what is best for his country?
So preoccupied with his domestic agenda is this president, that an urgent request for more troops from Gen. Stanley McChrystal, his hand-picked commander in Afghanistan, has been collecting dust on his desk in the Oval Office since August. It is now almost December. Gen. McChrystal has said that anything less than 40,000 troops will guarantee failure, so naturally Obama will send fewer than that.
Is this the action of a president committed to doing what is best for his country?
Obama was quick to jump to conclusions when Harvard Professor Henry Gates was arrested breaking into his own house. Although he admitted that he didn't have all the facts, the president nonetheless proclaimed that the police "acted stupidly." Yet when an Islamist fanatic in our own armed forces murdered 13 innocent people at Fort Hood, Texas, in an obvious act of terror, we were told by our president not to jump to conclusions.
Is this the action of a president committed to doing what is best for his country?
The president and his attorney general, Eric Holder, have decided that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, along with his fellow terrorists, will get a trial in civilian court in New York City, with all the rights afforded American citizens under the U.S. Constitution. This outrageous decision even caused some in the generally uncritical media to question its wisdom, whereupon both Obama and Holder immediately poisoned the jury pool by pronouncing the defendants "guilty" and promising that they will be executed.
Is this the action of a president committed to doing what is best for his country?
And finally, there is the tale of Matthew McCabe, Jonathan Keefe and Julio Hertas, three Navy SEALs who should be receiving commendations from their commander in chief, but who, sadly, will instead receive court-martials. The charge? They gave the most wanted terrorist in all of Iraq a boo-boo on his lip! That's right. The man responsible for murdering four American contractors in March of 2004, mutilating and burning their bodies, dragging them through the streets of Fallujah and hanging what was left of them from a bridge over the Euphrates River for the world press to dutifully photograph, was finally captured by these three brave Navy SEALs. But in the course of subduing him, apparently he got slugged in the mouth. Do you care? I know I don't. But apparently our politically correct military does, from the commander in chief on down. Obama pardoned a turkey last week, but heroes he court-martials.
For the last time, I ask you, are these the actions of a president committed to doing what is best for his country?
---
Doug Patton is a freelance columnist who has served as a political speechwriter and public policy advisor. His work has been published in newspapers across the country, such as the Washington Times and the Tampa Tribune, on web sites such as Human Events Online and GOPUSA.com, where he is a senior writer and state editor, and featured on the Mike Gallager and Sean Hannity radio shows. Readers can e-mail him at dougpatton@cox.net.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Progressive Corruption
So, the progressives have been having a field day the last 100 years working to tear down what our founding fathers have established. They tend to do lots of things in secret. One of the things I mention in my upcoming research paper, I promise I will have it written by next week and will post when it is graded, is the progressive need to pass legislation and shifts in the direction of the country in little pieces at a time. If they do it all in one swoop, they know the people will reject it. I believe this is what has happened in the last year. They have tried so hard to pass as much as they can as fast as possible, it jolted the people awake.
So, what does one do if you are a progressive and you are losing public support? You start to hide things in the shadows of course. In the past, legislators would hide things in bills to pay each other off and deny it if caught. This last weekend however, we saw the death of shame in Washington....please, let's have a moment of silence. Senator Landrieu from Louisiana admitted to being bought off by Harry Reid to the tune of $300 million to her state if she would vote to bring the health care bill to the floor for debate. It was originally thought to have been $100 million dollars. She got up in front of the entire Senate and said, actually it was $300 million. I know, we Nevadans have to work harder to kick him out of office. I did see a great sign over the freeway the other day. It said, "Reid the Bill."
Progressive corruption isn't limited to just the politicians. It of course has been entwined in some of the worlds greatest institutions of higher learning. Last week some hackers broke into the University of Anglia in Britain and obtained a whole lot of data. As my son would say, la lots of data. In it, they mention covering up and deleting evidence that would discredit man made global warming. They discuss how to silence global warming skeptics and that it would be better to destroy information then to comply with Freedom of Information Act requests. Particularly the one available in Britain that a lot of people don't know about. John Lott gives a good breakdown. Why should you be concerned about this? Because progressives are using "scientific" consesus to push global warming legislation that will cost trillions of dollars and exert international control over sovereign nations.
For some reason I don't find it surprising that there would be corruption in the halls of academia. Progressives started their movement in the Universities and feel strongly that the people should be guided by scientific experts. However, I do believe most Americans to be untrusting of "university certified" experts. It has been the work of Elite Experts over the last 100 plus years that have brought us down into all the messes we are facing.
I know everything seems like a jumble right now that is impossible to fix. Just remember that if we as individuals and families take some baby steps together, we can slowly fix this great nation of ours. Remember to keep yourself informed and speak out. Don't let anyone shame you into silence. Senator Landrieu didn't.
So, what does one do if you are a progressive and you are losing public support? You start to hide things in the shadows of course. In the past, legislators would hide things in bills to pay each other off and deny it if caught. This last weekend however, we saw the death of shame in Washington....please, let's have a moment of silence. Senator Landrieu from Louisiana admitted to being bought off by Harry Reid to the tune of $300 million to her state if she would vote to bring the health care bill to the floor for debate. It was originally thought to have been $100 million dollars. She got up in front of the entire Senate and said, actually it was $300 million. I know, we Nevadans have to work harder to kick him out of office. I did see a great sign over the freeway the other day. It said, "Reid the Bill."
Progressive corruption isn't limited to just the politicians. It of course has been entwined in some of the worlds greatest institutions of higher learning. Last week some hackers broke into the University of Anglia in Britain and obtained a whole lot of data. As my son would say, la lots of data. In it, they mention covering up and deleting evidence that would discredit man made global warming. They discuss how to silence global warming skeptics and that it would be better to destroy information then to comply with Freedom of Information Act requests. Particularly the one available in Britain that a lot of people don't know about. John Lott gives a good breakdown. Why should you be concerned about this? Because progressives are using "scientific" consesus to push global warming legislation that will cost trillions of dollars and exert international control over sovereign nations.
For some reason I don't find it surprising that there would be corruption in the halls of academia. Progressives started their movement in the Universities and feel strongly that the people should be guided by scientific experts. However, I do believe most Americans to be untrusting of "university certified" experts. It has been the work of Elite Experts over the last 100 plus years that have brought us down into all the messes we are facing.
I know everything seems like a jumble right now that is impossible to fix. Just remember that if we as individuals and families take some baby steps together, we can slowly fix this great nation of ours. Remember to keep yourself informed and speak out. Don't let anyone shame you into silence. Senator Landrieu didn't.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Freedom of Speach and the Voice of Opposition
There are a few things I have thought about the last couple of weeks that really hit home hard. Kind of like opening the eyes more and more. Some of that has been from my research on my paper, you guys are going to love it. It seems that nothing changes from the Progressive view of things. Same goals for the last 130 years. Other stuff has been from paying attention to events and things that are happening in this great country of ours. The quote below from Frederick Douglas pretty much sums up my biggest concern at the moment.
"Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one's thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they first of all strike down."
It seems that anyone who dares to utter any thought that is against what President Obama and his allies are trying to shove down our throats is labeled as a racist, corrupt, trying to keep the status quo, a luny, or just being the voice of no trying to stop what they are trying to do. As my wife would say, that is just craptastic. Of course there are people trying to stop what they are doing. If you don't agree with something, you stand up and say no!
It seems that anyone who is standing up and asking questions. Even if just to get more clarification, they are being personally attacked. It seems that nobody likes a voice of opposition when your group is in power. If you show up to a town hall meeting or a tea party they label you as astroturf. They try to use the things they have control over that you want access to, to stifle your voice. Hmmm, don't seem to see lots of people at tea parties wearing color coordinated clothing. Which brings me to one of the things that has me in an outrage. First is the quote below from Andy Stern. He is the President of the Service Employees International Union.
"We're trying to use the power of persuasion. And if that doesn't work, we'll use the persuasion of power."
To get an idea of what that looks like, lets look at the case of Kenneth Gladney who was assaulted by SEIU members outside a town hall meeting in August. This story has come to light again because the police report was just released. Mr. Gladney was handing out American Flags outside of a townhall meeting in St. Louis. He was assaulted by purple shirt wearing, that's how you identify SEIU members. They wear purple shirts when they are organized at a gathering that say SEIU on them. Anyways, this man was physically assaulted for nothing more than exercising his first ammendment rights. Interestingly enough, although there is video and witness statements of the incident, no charges have been filed against these men. Maybe they were angry because he was a black conservative and that just blew their mind. Just remember what Mr. Stern said, the persuasion of power.
Another thing that got me thinking is net neutrality. This basically is a stepping stone that allows the government in to regulate the internet. They want to make share that all content from a varitey of sources is easily accesible to all people. That sounds all nice and fluffy on the outside, but it is about regulating content. The internet is the most free place in the world to express your opinions. I would hate to think that they could say, oh we need to cut down traffic to this blog, but another should be able to get more traffic based solely on what they view as acceptable content.
On a final note, for those saying that I am just fighting to stop what the President is trying to do when it comes to healthcare (although you can see from my previous post I have suggested many alternatives that don't infringe upon anyones free will) the Republican leadership in the house released their own version of a health care bill. It's only 230 pages compared to the 1,990 page bill that Ms. Pelosi has introduced. So at least we know our congressional leaders will have time to read it. It does not require employers to purchase insurance for their employees and it does not have the individual mandate either. This means they are respecting your free will. It will increase incentives for people who use health savings accounts (something the democrat bill is looking to penalize), it caps non-economic injury rewards in malpractice suits at 250k, provides incentives to states to drive down the cost of health insurance, and the biggy, it allows you to purchase insurance across state lines. All of these would bring down cost and the last one would bring true competition into the marketplace.
Oh, total ADD moment here. Last week when Nancy Pelosi was asked in a press conference if the individual mandate violated the Constitution her response was, "Are you serious?" Since when is a question about the Constitution asked of someone who swore an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution" not a serious question?
Remember to keep voicing your thoughts and opinions. Let those around you know what is going on and speak up. A voice of opposition is a good thing. It allows you the opportunity to slow down and think. As Mr. Douglass said, you cannot have liberty without the ability to exercise the most basic right of free speech.
"Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one's thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they first of all strike down."
It seems that anyone who dares to utter any thought that is against what President Obama and his allies are trying to shove down our throats is labeled as a racist, corrupt, trying to keep the status quo, a luny, or just being the voice of no trying to stop what they are trying to do. As my wife would say, that is just craptastic. Of course there are people trying to stop what they are doing. If you don't agree with something, you stand up and say no!
It seems that anyone who is standing up and asking questions. Even if just to get more clarification, they are being personally attacked. It seems that nobody likes a voice of opposition when your group is in power. If you show up to a town hall meeting or a tea party they label you as astroturf. They try to use the things they have control over that you want access to, to stifle your voice. Hmmm, don't seem to see lots of people at tea parties wearing color coordinated clothing. Which brings me to one of the things that has me in an outrage. First is the quote below from Andy Stern. He is the President of the Service Employees International Union.
"We're trying to use the power of persuasion. And if that doesn't work, we'll use the persuasion of power."
To get an idea of what that looks like, lets look at the case of Kenneth Gladney who was assaulted by SEIU members outside a town hall meeting in August. This story has come to light again because the police report was just released. Mr. Gladney was handing out American Flags outside of a townhall meeting in St. Louis. He was assaulted by purple shirt wearing, that's how you identify SEIU members. They wear purple shirts when they are organized at a gathering that say SEIU on them. Anyways, this man was physically assaulted for nothing more than exercising his first ammendment rights. Interestingly enough, although there is video and witness statements of the incident, no charges have been filed against these men. Maybe they were angry because he was a black conservative and that just blew their mind. Just remember what Mr. Stern said, the persuasion of power.
Another thing that got me thinking is net neutrality. This basically is a stepping stone that allows the government in to regulate the internet. They want to make share that all content from a varitey of sources is easily accesible to all people. That sounds all nice and fluffy on the outside, but it is about regulating content. The internet is the most free place in the world to express your opinions. I would hate to think that they could say, oh we need to cut down traffic to this blog, but another should be able to get more traffic based solely on what they view as acceptable content.
On a final note, for those saying that I am just fighting to stop what the President is trying to do when it comes to healthcare (although you can see from my previous post I have suggested many alternatives that don't infringe upon anyones free will) the Republican leadership in the house released their own version of a health care bill. It's only 230 pages compared to the 1,990 page bill that Ms. Pelosi has introduced. So at least we know our congressional leaders will have time to read it. It does not require employers to purchase insurance for their employees and it does not have the individual mandate either. This means they are respecting your free will. It will increase incentives for people who use health savings accounts (something the democrat bill is looking to penalize), it caps non-economic injury rewards in malpractice suits at 250k, provides incentives to states to drive down the cost of health insurance, and the biggy, it allows you to purchase insurance across state lines. All of these would bring down cost and the last one would bring true competition into the marketplace.
Oh, total ADD moment here. Last week when Nancy Pelosi was asked in a press conference if the individual mandate violated the Constitution her response was, "Are you serious?" Since when is a question about the Constitution asked of someone who swore an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution" not a serious question?
Remember to keep voicing your thoughts and opinions. Let those around you know what is going on and speak up. A voice of opposition is a good thing. It allows you the opportunity to slow down and think. As Mr. Douglass said, you cannot have liberty without the ability to exercise the most basic right of free speech.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
God and Freewill
A couple weeks ago I was discussing the issue of health care with a good friend of mine. At the end of the conversation I think we just agreed to disagree on this issue. There was something that he said though that bothered me a bit, I think mostly because it caught me off guard and I felt I didn’t have the time to articulate a good response. He was surprised that I don’t support the current health care legislation and government run health care in general due to the fact that I am religious. He made the comment he felt Jesus would want everyone to have health care.
Here is why I disagree with that statement. The GREATEST gift that God has given man is his agency, that is, man’s ability to decide for himself. He views this gift with such reverence that He does not interfere with it. People often state, if there is a God, why is there so much suffering in the world? Why do we have murderers and bad people, etc? It is because of God’s respect for our agency that these things are allowed to happen. He will not interfere with your free will even if your decision will adversely affect someone else. You look at some of the big examples like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. All were mass murderers. They were allowed to exercise their agency. On the flip side, you have people like Mother Theresa who exercised her agency to help millions.
So now we come back to health care. A government run health care plan does not allow me the free will to choose my health coverage or whether or not I even want to have health insurance. The current health legislation has mandates that require you to buy health insurance or face a fee. If you don’t pay that penalty fee the IRS is going to put you in jail. There are also mandates that require businesses to offer coverage to their employees or face a fine. Both of these eliminate somebody’s free will to decide what is best for them or for their company. In a government run single payer system, the government decides what treatment is available to me based upon the cost. That does not allow my doctor to work with me to decide what is in my best interest, regardless of cost.
In the beginning of the Bible we read that God stated to Adam, “By the sweat of thy brow thou shalt eat, all the days of your life.” I believe that we have agency to make our own choices. No matter what our circumstances may be, we have the ability to pull ourselves out of them and make our own way. I do not believe it is the job of the government or anyone else for that matter to take care of me or my family, even if we are struggling. I have been in that struggling position in the past and it has just motivated me to make things better of my own accord.
This does not mean that I do not believe in being charitable and helping others out. It is through service that we learn to put others needs before our own. However, this is something that should be done individually. It is not the job of the government to take over acts of charitable service. We do a lot to help those in our community. We do it with an eye to assisting them and helping them to get back on their feet so they can be self sufficient. There is a lot to be said for the pride that someone feels in getting back on their feet and being able to take care of themselves.
I won’t interfere with someone else’s agency. Although I do not believe that several things some of my friends may or may not do are correct. I do not judge them and push them to live their lives a certain way. They are free to make their own choices. The job of the government is to protect me from enemies that will do me physical harm and impede my agency. It is not their job to provide for anyone’s social needs.
Coming back to Jesus wanting everyone to have healthcare; there is not a problem with people having access to health care in this country. Anyone can get the care that they need. The current debate is about how it will be paid for. If we allow people the freedom to make their own choices, we will have the innovation America is famous for click into effect and there will be ways found to bring down the cost without government intervention.
Here is why I disagree with that statement. The GREATEST gift that God has given man is his agency, that is, man’s ability to decide for himself. He views this gift with such reverence that He does not interfere with it. People often state, if there is a God, why is there so much suffering in the world? Why do we have murderers and bad people, etc? It is because of God’s respect for our agency that these things are allowed to happen. He will not interfere with your free will even if your decision will adversely affect someone else. You look at some of the big examples like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. All were mass murderers. They were allowed to exercise their agency. On the flip side, you have people like Mother Theresa who exercised her agency to help millions.
So now we come back to health care. A government run health care plan does not allow me the free will to choose my health coverage or whether or not I even want to have health insurance. The current health legislation has mandates that require you to buy health insurance or face a fee. If you don’t pay that penalty fee the IRS is going to put you in jail. There are also mandates that require businesses to offer coverage to their employees or face a fine. Both of these eliminate somebody’s free will to decide what is best for them or for their company. In a government run single payer system, the government decides what treatment is available to me based upon the cost. That does not allow my doctor to work with me to decide what is in my best interest, regardless of cost.
In the beginning of the Bible we read that God stated to Adam, “By the sweat of thy brow thou shalt eat, all the days of your life.” I believe that we have agency to make our own choices. No matter what our circumstances may be, we have the ability to pull ourselves out of them and make our own way. I do not believe it is the job of the government or anyone else for that matter to take care of me or my family, even if we are struggling. I have been in that struggling position in the past and it has just motivated me to make things better of my own accord.
This does not mean that I do not believe in being charitable and helping others out. It is through service that we learn to put others needs before our own. However, this is something that should be done individually. It is not the job of the government to take over acts of charitable service. We do a lot to help those in our community. We do it with an eye to assisting them and helping them to get back on their feet so they can be self sufficient. There is a lot to be said for the pride that someone feels in getting back on their feet and being able to take care of themselves.
I won’t interfere with someone else’s agency. Although I do not believe that several things some of my friends may or may not do are correct. I do not judge them and push them to live their lives a certain way. They are free to make their own choices. The job of the government is to protect me from enemies that will do me physical harm and impede my agency. It is not their job to provide for anyone’s social needs.
Coming back to Jesus wanting everyone to have healthcare; there is not a problem with people having access to health care in this country. Anyone can get the care that they need. The current debate is about how it will be paid for. If we allow people the freedom to make their own choices, we will have the innovation America is famous for click into effect and there will be ways found to bring down the cost without government intervention.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
With an Idiot here and an Idiot There…
..Here an idiot there an idiot everywhere an idiot. If Ol’ McDonald were a progressive, he would have a farm full of idiots. Regardless of the fact that there are idiots of every stripe and persuasion, I believe progressivism has cultivated an even higher number of them.
I recently finished reading “Arguing With Idiots” by Glenn Beck. The great thing about this book is the pages and pages of sources in the back. It makes it easy to do your own verification. He tackles many issues from the second amendment to health care to progressive ideals in general. Over all, I would say it is a solid look at how progressives in the past and today’s progressives have constantly fought to erode the constitution and our individual liberties. This of course spoon feeds the arguments your idiot friends may bring about. In opening Beck states that he is not singling out a particular group of people, just the idiotic arguments that are spouted off by whomever in regards to some of these vital issues. It diffuses these arguments with facts and attempts to educate in general on the founding of our country, the rights and responsibilities we have, and to help others realize the government is not there to take care of everyone. People are personally responsible for their lives.
On to the other idiots I have read about recently. I really want to address the elite idiots. These are the people who through either accumulation of money, power, or celebrity feel they are in a position to dictate to the rest of us how things should be. Recently Roman Polanski was arrested on an outstanding U.S. Warrant in Switzerland. The Swiss did the right thing. This man drugged and raped a 13 year old girl in 1977. Although he pled guilty, when it came time to sentencing, Mr. Polanski decided to just skip the country. Now all the elites in Hollywood are saying, oh he served his time, let him go. Served his time? I don’t recall seeing him listed as a resident of the California Penal System. Of course, he probably fled knowing that his fellow residents in the system would treat him just as well as he treated that little girl. The elite say he is an important artist and great director. He has contributed so much to our modern culture. What a load of crap! If you did the crime you have to do the time. Ironically, these elites such as Harvey Weinstein say that if the Swiss don’t release Polanski it would be a miscarriage of justice.
How do the Hollywood Elite and the Political Elite tie in together? They both believe the progressive notion that the general population is too dumb to make decisions for themselves and that they must be directed by a group of “experts.” I really don’t see people like Lindsay Lohan or Britney Spears as “experts” on life and how you should live it. I know that’s a bit of a stretch in my example, but it’s the attitude amongst the elite in general that they know what is best that causes our issues. I believe that entertainers are there to entertain me and not spout political opinions at me in the midst of a performance (Dixie Chicks, U2, and several others). I FIRMLY believe that the representatives we send to run the government are there to do my bidding. They are not there to dictate how I should live my life.
Of course, now I see the fusion of the two. The President is currently in Denmark along with Oprah to try to get the 2016 Olympics brought to Chicago. I think maybe he should be at home discussing strategy with his generals regarding the two wars we are in and the possibility of Iran cause all sorts of chaos. Oh yeah, there is also that tiny little matter of the economy in shambles. Well, I wouldn’t want him to miss the chance to hang out with his buddy Oprah on Air Force One. Maybe they can give each other some book recommendations.
I recently finished reading “Arguing With Idiots” by Glenn Beck. The great thing about this book is the pages and pages of sources in the back. It makes it easy to do your own verification. He tackles many issues from the second amendment to health care to progressive ideals in general. Over all, I would say it is a solid look at how progressives in the past and today’s progressives have constantly fought to erode the constitution and our individual liberties. This of course spoon feeds the arguments your idiot friends may bring about. In opening Beck states that he is not singling out a particular group of people, just the idiotic arguments that are spouted off by whomever in regards to some of these vital issues. It diffuses these arguments with facts and attempts to educate in general on the founding of our country, the rights and responsibilities we have, and to help others realize the government is not there to take care of everyone. People are personally responsible for their lives.
On to the other idiots I have read about recently. I really want to address the elite idiots. These are the people who through either accumulation of money, power, or celebrity feel they are in a position to dictate to the rest of us how things should be. Recently Roman Polanski was arrested on an outstanding U.S. Warrant in Switzerland. The Swiss did the right thing. This man drugged and raped a 13 year old girl in 1977. Although he pled guilty, when it came time to sentencing, Mr. Polanski decided to just skip the country. Now all the elites in Hollywood are saying, oh he served his time, let him go. Served his time? I don’t recall seeing him listed as a resident of the California Penal System. Of course, he probably fled knowing that his fellow residents in the system would treat him just as well as he treated that little girl. The elite say he is an important artist and great director. He has contributed so much to our modern culture. What a load of crap! If you did the crime you have to do the time. Ironically, these elites such as Harvey Weinstein say that if the Swiss don’t release Polanski it would be a miscarriage of justice.
How do the Hollywood Elite and the Political Elite tie in together? They both believe the progressive notion that the general population is too dumb to make decisions for themselves and that they must be directed by a group of “experts.” I really don’t see people like Lindsay Lohan or Britney Spears as “experts” on life and how you should live it. I know that’s a bit of a stretch in my example, but it’s the attitude amongst the elite in general that they know what is best that causes our issues. I believe that entertainers are there to entertain me and not spout political opinions at me in the midst of a performance (Dixie Chicks, U2, and several others). I FIRMLY believe that the representatives we send to run the government are there to do my bidding. They are not there to dictate how I should live my life.
Of course, now I see the fusion of the two. The President is currently in Denmark along with Oprah to try to get the 2016 Olympics brought to Chicago. I think maybe he should be at home discussing strategy with his generals regarding the two wars we are in and the possibility of Iran cause all sorts of chaos. Oh yeah, there is also that tiny little matter of the economy in shambles. Well, I wouldn’t want him to miss the chance to hang out with his buddy Oprah on Air Force One. Maybe they can give each other some book recommendations.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
There Ain't No Party Like a Despot Party....
....Cause a Despot Party Don’t Stop!
Today’s post is dedicated to my favorite Garanimals wearing dictator and despot, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I do honestly think he and Kim Jong Il share the same tailor. Today was the big day of giant, fluffy, I’m better than you speeches by world leaders at the U.N. Well, except for our president. He couldn’t help but say everybody is better than us and we’re a bunch of racist nut jobs. Well not exactly, but he did continue the 2009 World Apology Tour. Can’t we all just get along?
So, getting back to the despots, all sorts of them spoke today. In leading up to the day’s speeches our despot of the day continued to deny the holocaust (saying it was a clever Jewish ruse to get the West to set up the State of Israel), called for Israel to be wiped from the map, and mentioned the 12th Imam.
So, what do we know about the 12th Imam?
He is the Shiite Islam Messiah (al Mahdi). It is said that before he returns there must be 3 years of horrendous world chaos, tyranny, and oppression. Mr. Ahmadenijad believes it to be his personal responsibility to help prepare the world for his coming. Hence, he must spread as much chaos and destruction as possible to speed up the Imam’s return. He claims he was “directed by Allah to pave the way for the glorious appearance of the Mahdi.”
There are many in our government who really don’t take this too seriously. Some of our leaders give only lip service to religious beliefs, therefore they think, hey, Garanimals boy is just another politician, he really doesn’t believe in all that stuff. I hate to say it, but this man truly believes in his calling. I think it underscores his obsession with getting the bomb.
I believe we must do everything in our power to keep Iran from getting nukes. They already have great short to medium long range missile capabilities, this allows them to strike Israel (wipe it off the map) and a good portion of Eastern Europe. Good thing we just canceled that missile shield eh. They are just a couple years away from acquiring long range intercontinental ballistic missiles. This would allow them to strike pretty much anyone.
While I do believe we should never take the option of force off the table, there are some things that can be done to stop them in their tracks without military intervention. There is a great deal of political unrest in Iran, particularly amongst the younger generations. By taking the primary opposition group People’s Mujahideen Organization of Iran (PMOI) off the terror list, it would allow them to get the financial support they need to make a difference in Iran. In the 1980’s as a concession to Iran, the U.S. and most of Europe agreed to list them as a terrorist organization. In January of this year the EU delisted them allowing their assets to be unfrozen. There are some in congress calling to do the same but it has not moved forward.
The next thing we can do is to enact an embargo against their imported gasoline supplies. I know it sounds weird, but one of the world’s largest oil producers lacks the refining capacity to support their own needs. They have to import a large portion of their gasoline supplies. This would create an already more difficult situation for the current regime as there are already gasoline shortages.
Although this last one would do wonders and be a good non-military option it most likely will not happen. Russia has said they will no longer support any more sanctions against Iran and we just kowtowed to their request to scrap our missile shield in Europe without getting anything in return. Oh, except for GE getting a high level meeting with Vlad that very afternoon. Why would Russia cut off one of its biggest trading partners? They are supplying the Iranians with nuclear technology and the surface to air missile systems necessary to protect the facilities.
As the President continues to display weakness and give away our bargaining chips for nothing in return and Israel prepares to take the only option left to protect themselves; the world’s leading dictators are getting together at a Starbucks in Manhattan to plot out the end of Western Civilization.
Today’s post is dedicated to my favorite Garanimals wearing dictator and despot, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I do honestly think he and Kim Jong Il share the same tailor. Today was the big day of giant, fluffy, I’m better than you speeches by world leaders at the U.N. Well, except for our president. He couldn’t help but say everybody is better than us and we’re a bunch of racist nut jobs. Well not exactly, but he did continue the 2009 World Apology Tour. Can’t we all just get along?
So, getting back to the despots, all sorts of them spoke today. In leading up to the day’s speeches our despot of the day continued to deny the holocaust (saying it was a clever Jewish ruse to get the West to set up the State of Israel), called for Israel to be wiped from the map, and mentioned the 12th Imam.
So, what do we know about the 12th Imam?
He is the Shiite Islam Messiah (al Mahdi). It is said that before he returns there must be 3 years of horrendous world chaos, tyranny, and oppression. Mr. Ahmadenijad believes it to be his personal responsibility to help prepare the world for his coming. Hence, he must spread as much chaos and destruction as possible to speed up the Imam’s return. He claims he was “directed by Allah to pave the way for the glorious appearance of the Mahdi.”
There are many in our government who really don’t take this too seriously. Some of our leaders give only lip service to religious beliefs, therefore they think, hey, Garanimals boy is just another politician, he really doesn’t believe in all that stuff. I hate to say it, but this man truly believes in his calling. I think it underscores his obsession with getting the bomb.
I believe we must do everything in our power to keep Iran from getting nukes. They already have great short to medium long range missile capabilities, this allows them to strike Israel (wipe it off the map) and a good portion of Eastern Europe. Good thing we just canceled that missile shield eh. They are just a couple years away from acquiring long range intercontinental ballistic missiles. This would allow them to strike pretty much anyone.
While I do believe we should never take the option of force off the table, there are some things that can be done to stop them in their tracks without military intervention. There is a great deal of political unrest in Iran, particularly amongst the younger generations. By taking the primary opposition group People’s Mujahideen Organization of Iran (PMOI) off the terror list, it would allow them to get the financial support they need to make a difference in Iran. In the 1980’s as a concession to Iran, the U.S. and most of Europe agreed to list them as a terrorist organization. In January of this year the EU delisted them allowing their assets to be unfrozen. There are some in congress calling to do the same but it has not moved forward.
The next thing we can do is to enact an embargo against their imported gasoline supplies. I know it sounds weird, but one of the world’s largest oil producers lacks the refining capacity to support their own needs. They have to import a large portion of their gasoline supplies. This would create an already more difficult situation for the current regime as there are already gasoline shortages.
Although this last one would do wonders and be a good non-military option it most likely will not happen. Russia has said they will no longer support any more sanctions against Iran and we just kowtowed to their request to scrap our missile shield in Europe without getting anything in return. Oh, except for GE getting a high level meeting with Vlad that very afternoon. Why would Russia cut off one of its biggest trading partners? They are supplying the Iranians with nuclear technology and the surface to air missile systems necessary to protect the facilities.
As the President continues to display weakness and give away our bargaining chips for nothing in return and Israel prepares to take the only option left to protect themselves; the world’s leading dictators are getting together at a Starbucks in Manhattan to plot out the end of Western Civilization.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
The Cost of Progressive Ideals
As has previously been mentioned, I am currently writing a research paper on Progressivism. Although I am taking a general approach to flushing out some of my ideas through this blog, I won’t post my paper until after it is graded. I would hate for the graders to do a Google search and find my own paper, on my own blog, and think I plagiarized it. That being said, I think I will just throw out some similar ideas to the ones I am incorporating into the paper and flush them out a bit here.
One of the tenants of Progressivism is to use the general rally cry of war to further social causes and attempt to treat social ills. In their early days they discovered that nothing rallied a nation together as the cry of war. It allows the government to access the great resources of the nation to push towards a common goal. At that point in history, people didn’t look to the national government to help cure social ills. They rightly felt it was the responsibility of their local community to address any social problems that may arise (poverty, crime, etc.).
With the above strategy in mind, Progressives set out to cure the modern social ills of the day. Their first major success in getting the nation to agree on the solution of a problem was met with prohibition. Progressive politicians with the help of pressure put on the U.S. Senate from the Temperance Movement passed the 18th Amendment on January 16, 1919 and it took effect a year later. We can see that “The Noble Experiment” although well intentioned was a failure in the end. It was repealed by the ratification of the 21st Amendment on December 5, 1933. If you doubt Prohibition failed to have the effect they intended, remember the decade in which it was active has been dubbed “The Roaring 20’s.” It was a time when bootleg licker and speakeasy’s were the norm for many cities.
The Temperance Movement was the first social “war” against anything. As you move through the history of the 20th century you can see other wars; the war on poverty, the war on drugs, and the war on terror are just a few. To get a look at the modern cost of one of these “wars”, let’s take a look at the War on Poverty.
Welfare spending has grown enormously since President Johnson declared a war on poverty in 1964. For our analysis we will look at means-tested welfare; aid that provides assistance deliberately and exclusively to poor and lower-income people. The examples would be food stamps, public housing, Medicaid, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Although this all works towards a noble cause, it puts much more of a strain on the nation than if these issues were handled in our local communities.
The data discussed is from a Heritage Foundation report published this morning by Robert Rector, Katherine Bradley, Rachel Sheffield, and Helen DeVos. On average, welfare spending comes out to about $7,000 per year for each poor person or $28,000 for a low income family of four. When President Johnson started the war on poverty, means-tested welfare spending was 1.2% of GDP. In FY 2008 it reached 5% of GDP. This is obviously a significant increase. If total means-tested welfare spending were given to those below the poverty line in cash, the amount spent would equal 4 times the amount needed to bring these families above the poverty line.
Why do they not just give the families cash and save the taxpayer some money? It comes down to control. Remember that progressives believe that the people are either too stupid to know what is best for them or too selfish to do what would be in the best interest of their community, or in their view, the nation. If they just gave the cash to the poor, at some point they might not be as dependant on the state to fulfill the needs that some of those programs fill. For instance, if someone had the money to choose where they wanted to live, why would they want to live in a government housing project? Another component is public opinion. If the average taxpayer discovered the government was giving these people cash, they would demand accountability and an end to those people being on the government dole. They would demand these people pick themselves up and improve their own situation. If that were the case, the progressive elements in the government would lose their influence over a substantial portion of their voting bloc.
“Since 1964, the government has spent $15.9 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars) on means-tested welfare. In comparison, the cost of all other wars in U.S. history was $6.4 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars).” I really can’t see the “progress” touted in this “war” nor can I see any potential sign of victory in the near future if this particular “war” is continued in the manner as it is now. That is because progressives believe that everything should be “fair.” You have to redistribute the wealth of others to those that don’t have as much.
Speaking of “spreading the wealth,” “Under President Obama, government will spend more on welfare in a single year than President George W. Bush spent on the war in Iraq during his entire presidency. According to the Congressional Research Service, the cost of the Iraq war through the end of the Bush Administration was around $622 billion. By contrast, annual federal and state means-tested welfare spending will reach $888 billion in FY 2010. Federal welfare spending alone will equal $697 billion in that year.”
There is a quote penned by Adrian Rogers in 1931 that has gained a lot of traction recently by those concerned with spending on this particular war.
“You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. No government can give anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”
For a great breakdown of what it means to be poor in America, read this additional article by Mr. Rector that reveals these stunning facts:
Nearly 40 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. On average, this is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Eighty-four percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Nearly two-thirds of the poor have cable or satellite TV.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded; two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The typical poor American has as much or more living space than the average individual living in most European countries. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-eight percent of poor households have a color television; two-thirds own two or more color televisions.
Eighty-two percent own microwave ovens; 67 percent have a DVD player; 73 percent have a VCR; 47 percent have a computer.
As a closing thought, consider the following statement from Benjamin Franklin.
“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”
As noted, one of the major “wars” launched by progressives failed and things were sent back to how they were, and another is failing miserably. Be careful for their next war which appears to be the War on Obesity. I don’t believe they will all out ban certain things, but I do believe they will attempt to regulate these items in a way to make them more costly; therefore “nudging” us away from them. Progressives may be good at the touchy feely, but their basic ideas and beliefs work to strip away the freedoms we have for the benefit of the all knowing state.
One of the tenants of Progressivism is to use the general rally cry of war to further social causes and attempt to treat social ills. In their early days they discovered that nothing rallied a nation together as the cry of war. It allows the government to access the great resources of the nation to push towards a common goal. At that point in history, people didn’t look to the national government to help cure social ills. They rightly felt it was the responsibility of their local community to address any social problems that may arise (poverty, crime, etc.).
With the above strategy in mind, Progressives set out to cure the modern social ills of the day. Their first major success in getting the nation to agree on the solution of a problem was met with prohibition. Progressive politicians with the help of pressure put on the U.S. Senate from the Temperance Movement passed the 18th Amendment on January 16, 1919 and it took effect a year later. We can see that “The Noble Experiment” although well intentioned was a failure in the end. It was repealed by the ratification of the 21st Amendment on December 5, 1933. If you doubt Prohibition failed to have the effect they intended, remember the decade in which it was active has been dubbed “The Roaring 20’s.” It was a time when bootleg licker and speakeasy’s were the norm for many cities.
The Temperance Movement was the first social “war” against anything. As you move through the history of the 20th century you can see other wars; the war on poverty, the war on drugs, and the war on terror are just a few. To get a look at the modern cost of one of these “wars”, let’s take a look at the War on Poverty.
Welfare spending has grown enormously since President Johnson declared a war on poverty in 1964. For our analysis we will look at means-tested welfare; aid that provides assistance deliberately and exclusively to poor and lower-income people. The examples would be food stamps, public housing, Medicaid, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Although this all works towards a noble cause, it puts much more of a strain on the nation than if these issues were handled in our local communities.
The data discussed is from a Heritage Foundation report published this morning by Robert Rector, Katherine Bradley, Rachel Sheffield, and Helen DeVos. On average, welfare spending comes out to about $7,000 per year for each poor person or $28,000 for a low income family of four. When President Johnson started the war on poverty, means-tested welfare spending was 1.2% of GDP. In FY 2008 it reached 5% of GDP. This is obviously a significant increase. If total means-tested welfare spending were given to those below the poverty line in cash, the amount spent would equal 4 times the amount needed to bring these families above the poverty line.
Why do they not just give the families cash and save the taxpayer some money? It comes down to control. Remember that progressives believe that the people are either too stupid to know what is best for them or too selfish to do what would be in the best interest of their community, or in their view, the nation. If they just gave the cash to the poor, at some point they might not be as dependant on the state to fulfill the needs that some of those programs fill. For instance, if someone had the money to choose where they wanted to live, why would they want to live in a government housing project? Another component is public opinion. If the average taxpayer discovered the government was giving these people cash, they would demand accountability and an end to those people being on the government dole. They would demand these people pick themselves up and improve their own situation. If that were the case, the progressive elements in the government would lose their influence over a substantial portion of their voting bloc.
“Since 1964, the government has spent $15.9 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars) on means-tested welfare. In comparison, the cost of all other wars in U.S. history was $6.4 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars).” I really can’t see the “progress” touted in this “war” nor can I see any potential sign of victory in the near future if this particular “war” is continued in the manner as it is now. That is because progressives believe that everything should be “fair.” You have to redistribute the wealth of others to those that don’t have as much.
Speaking of “spreading the wealth,” “Under President Obama, government will spend more on welfare in a single year than President George W. Bush spent on the war in Iraq during his entire presidency. According to the Congressional Research Service, the cost of the Iraq war through the end of the Bush Administration was around $622 billion. By contrast, annual federal and state means-tested welfare spending will reach $888 billion in FY 2010. Federal welfare spending alone will equal $697 billion in that year.”
There is a quote penned by Adrian Rogers in 1931 that has gained a lot of traction recently by those concerned with spending on this particular war.
“You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. No government can give anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”
For a great breakdown of what it means to be poor in America, read this additional article by Mr. Rector that reveals these stunning facts:
Nearly 40 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. On average, this is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Eighty-four percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Nearly two-thirds of the poor have cable or satellite TV.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded; two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The typical poor American has as much or more living space than the average individual living in most European countries. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-eight percent of poor households have a color television; two-thirds own two or more color televisions.
Eighty-two percent own microwave ovens; 67 percent have a DVD player; 73 percent have a VCR; 47 percent have a computer.
As a closing thought, consider the following statement from Benjamin Franklin.
“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”
As noted, one of the major “wars” launched by progressives failed and things were sent back to how they were, and another is failing miserably. Be careful for their next war which appears to be the War on Obesity. I don’t believe they will all out ban certain things, but I do believe they will attempt to regulate these items in a way to make them more costly; therefore “nudging” us away from them. Progressives may be good at the touchy feely, but their basic ideas and beliefs work to strip away the freedoms we have for the benefit of the all knowing state.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Chain Letter
Although this came in via email, I think it sums up the feelings of a large number of Americans.
Dear Mr. President:
I'm planning to move my family and extended family into Mexico for my health, and I would like to ask you to assist me. We're planning to simply walk across the border from the U.S. into Mexico , and we'll need your help to make a few arrangements. We plan to skip all the legal stuff like visas, passports, immigration quotas and laws. I'm sure they handle those things the same way you do here. So, would you mind telling your buddy, President Calderon, thatI'm on my way over?
Please let him know that I will be expecting the following:
1. Free medical care for my entire family.
2. English-speaking government bureaucrats for all services I might need, whether I use them or not.
3. Please print all Mexican government forms in English.
4. I want my grandkids to be taught Spanish by English-speaking (bi-lingual) teachers.
5. Tell their schools they need to include classes on American culture and history.
6. I want my grandkids to see the American flag on one of the flag poles at their school.
7. Please plan to feed my grandkids at school for both breakfast and lunch.
8. I will need a local Mexican driver's license so I can get easy access to government services.
9. I do plan to get a car and drive in Mexico , but, I don't plan to purchase car insurance, and I probably won't make any special effort to learn local traffic laws.
10. In case one of the Mexican police officers does not get the memo from their president to leave me alone, please be sure that every patrol car has at least one English-speaking officer.
11. I plan to fly the U.S. flag from my house top, put U S. flag decals on my car, and have a gigantic celebration on July 4th. I do not want any complaints or negative comments from the locals.
12. I would also like to have a nice job without paying any taxes, or have any labor or tax laws enforced on any business I may start.
13. Please have the president tell all the Mexican people to be extremely nice and never say critical things about me or my family, or about the strain we might place on their economy.
14. I want to receive free food stamps.
15. Naturally, I'll expect free rent subsidies.
16. I'll need Income tax credits so although I don't pay Mexican Taxes, I'll receive money from the government.
17. Please arrange it so that the Mexican Gov't pays $ 4,500 to help me buy a new car.
18. Oh yes, I almost forgot, please enroll me free into the Mexican Social Security program so that I'll get a monthly income in retirement.
I know this is an easy request because you already do all these things for all his people who walk over to the U.S. from Mexico . I am sure that President Calderon won't mind returning the favor if you ask him nicely.
Thank you so much for your kind help.
You're the man!!!
Dear Mr. President:
I'm planning to move my family and extended family into Mexico for my health, and I would like to ask you to assist me. We're planning to simply walk across the border from the U.S. into Mexico , and we'll need your help to make a few arrangements. We plan to skip all the legal stuff like visas, passports, immigration quotas and laws. I'm sure they handle those things the same way you do here. So, would you mind telling your buddy, President Calderon, thatI'm on my way over?
Please let him know that I will be expecting the following:
1. Free medical care for my entire family.
2. English-speaking government bureaucrats for all services I might need, whether I use them or not.
3. Please print all Mexican government forms in English.
4. I want my grandkids to be taught Spanish by English-speaking (bi-lingual) teachers.
5. Tell their schools they need to include classes on American culture and history.
6. I want my grandkids to see the American flag on one of the flag poles at their school.
7. Please plan to feed my grandkids at school for both breakfast and lunch.
8. I will need a local Mexican driver's license so I can get easy access to government services.
9. I do plan to get a car and drive in Mexico , but, I don't plan to purchase car insurance, and I probably won't make any special effort to learn local traffic laws.
10. In case one of the Mexican police officers does not get the memo from their president to leave me alone, please be sure that every patrol car has at least one English-speaking officer.
11. I plan to fly the U.S. flag from my house top, put U S. flag decals on my car, and have a gigantic celebration on July 4th. I do not want any complaints or negative comments from the locals.
12. I would also like to have a nice job without paying any taxes, or have any labor or tax laws enforced on any business I may start.
13. Please have the president tell all the Mexican people to be extremely nice and never say critical things about me or my family, or about the strain we might place on their economy.
14. I want to receive free food stamps.
15. Naturally, I'll expect free rent subsidies.
16. I'll need Income tax credits so although I don't pay Mexican Taxes, I'll receive money from the government.
17. Please arrange it so that the Mexican Gov't pays $ 4,500 to help me buy a new car.
18. Oh yes, I almost forgot, please enroll me free into the Mexican Social Security program so that I'll get a monthly income in retirement.
I know this is an easy request because you already do all these things for all his people who walk over to the U.S. from Mexico . I am sure that President Calderon won't mind returning the favor if you ask him nicely.
Thank you so much for your kind help.
You're the man!!!
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Progressive Research Paper
I am currently starting a research paper for my English class. I have decided to carry on the theme I started with my last post and address Progressivism. As it goes along with the intent of my blog I figured I would share my research and paper with you. I also figured it would be good to get as much feedback as possible.
Here is my general thesis as it stands.
Progressive Ideals Are At Odds With The Intent of The Founding Fathers
I have drafted out the following as some potential talking points or areas to cover.
What are the tenants of progressivism?
What is the history of progressivism?
What was the intent of the founding fathers regarding the scope of national/central government?
What were poverty levels before progressivism flourished?
What was community involvement like before progressivism flourished?
What are poverty levels like now?
What is community involvement like now?
How have both major political parties used progressive ideals to push their agendas?
How do the ideals of progressivism affect individual rights?
What was the intent of the founding fathers in regards to individual rights? Are they more important than the rights of the state?
How did natural law formulate the beliefs of the founders in regards to individual rights?
How does this contrast with the progressive belief that there is no natural law?
Some of the above ideas have been drafted out as I read some of my research. As this is a fluid project I am working on across the next month it will obviously change. Any of your ideas on the above mentioned topics and anything else I post would be greatly appreciated.
Here is my general thesis as it stands.
Progressive Ideals Are At Odds With The Intent of The Founding Fathers
I have drafted out the following as some potential talking points or areas to cover.
What are the tenants of progressivism?
What is the history of progressivism?
What was the intent of the founding fathers regarding the scope of national/central government?
What were poverty levels before progressivism flourished?
What was community involvement like before progressivism flourished?
What are poverty levels like now?
What is community involvement like now?
How have both major political parties used progressive ideals to push their agendas?
How do the ideals of progressivism affect individual rights?
What was the intent of the founding fathers in regards to individual rights? Are they more important than the rights of the state?
How did natural law formulate the beliefs of the founders in regards to individual rights?
How does this contrast with the progressive belief that there is no natural law?
Some of the above ideas have been drafted out as I read some of my research. As this is a fluid project I am working on across the next month it will obviously change. Any of your ideas on the above mentioned topics and anything else I post would be greatly appreciated.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Progressives and Free Choice
I have been looking into and doing a lot of thinking on the origin of some people's ideas that the principles enshrined in the Constitution are outdated. It comes down to the Progressive Movement which started in the late 19th century. I think the following quote captures the thoughts of Progressives quite well.
Seventy-two years ago, in 1937 at the height of the New Deal, Walter Lippmann, a repentant Progressive, noted that:
"[W]hile the partisans who are now fighting for the mastery of the modern world wear shirts of different colors, their weapons are drawn from the same armory, their doctrines are variations of the same theme and they go forth to battle singing the same tune with slightly different words....
Throughout the world, in the name of progress, men who call themselves communists, socialists, fascists, nationalists, progressives and even liberals, are unanimous in holding that government with its instruments of coercion, must by commanding the people how they shall live, direct the course of civilization and fix the shape of things to come.... [T]he premises of authoritarian collectivism have become the working beliefs, the self-evident assumptions, the unquestioned axioms, not only of all the revolutionary regimes, but of nearly every effort which lays claim to being enlightened, humane, and progressive.
So universal is the dominion of this dogma over the minds of contemporary men that no one is taken seriously as a statesman or a theorist who does not come forward with proposals to magnify the power of public officials and to extend and multiply their intervention in human affairs. Unless he is authoritarian and collectivist, he is a mossback, a reactionary, at best an amiable eccentric swimming hopelessly against the tide. It is a strong tide. Though despotism is no novelty in human affairs, it is probably true that at no time in twenty-five hundred years has any western government claimed for itself a jurisdiction over men's lives comparable with that which is officially attempted in totalitarian states....
But it is even more significant that in other lands where men shrink from the ruthless policy of these regimes, it is commonly assumed that the movement of events must be in the same direction. Nearly everywhere, the mark of a progressive is that he relies at last upon an increased power of officials to improve the condition of men."
Does the reaction to dissent and other ideas opposed to their own by the progressives back then seem familiar today?
I found this great bit of information in a piece posted by the Heritage foundation.
This is what it comes down to; progressives believe that people do not have the ability to choose what is best for them in leading their lives, therefore the state and the elite political culture should choose for them. After all, the state knows what is best for everyone and therefore can make a paradise for everyone all at once. What a load of crap! Free choice is our greatest God given gift. Although Progressives preach the touchy feely we are trying to help everyone and do it for their own good, they are intent on taking away that God given right. You can see the progressive thread in every major issue being debated on the political scene today; health care, cap and trade, junk food taxes, and economic stimulus.
DON'T LET THEM FOOL YOU!!
Remember that our rights come directly from God to us, we then loan a couple of those rights to the government to assist in providing for the common defense and providing an environment that allows us to determine our own destiny.
Central planning and collectivism for the common good has NEVER worked in history. The current crop of progressives claim they can make it work cause they are much "cleverer" than those before them. You will find them in both of the major political parties.
Read The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, The Federalist Papers, and I would even say Tocqueville's "Democracy in America". Although he wrote it for a French audience in the mid-19th century, it shows we are on the same path the French were back then. Frankly, that scares the crepes out of me.
Educate yourself and be active in your community so we do not repeat the mistakes of the past.
Seventy-two years ago, in 1937 at the height of the New Deal, Walter Lippmann, a repentant Progressive, noted that:
"[W]hile the partisans who are now fighting for the mastery of the modern world wear shirts of different colors, their weapons are drawn from the same armory, their doctrines are variations of the same theme and they go forth to battle singing the same tune with slightly different words....
Throughout the world, in the name of progress, men who call themselves communists, socialists, fascists, nationalists, progressives and even liberals, are unanimous in holding that government with its instruments of coercion, must by commanding the people how they shall live, direct the course of civilization and fix the shape of things to come.... [T]he premises of authoritarian collectivism have become the working beliefs, the self-evident assumptions, the unquestioned axioms, not only of all the revolutionary regimes, but of nearly every effort which lays claim to being enlightened, humane, and progressive.
So universal is the dominion of this dogma over the minds of contemporary men that no one is taken seriously as a statesman or a theorist who does not come forward with proposals to magnify the power of public officials and to extend and multiply their intervention in human affairs. Unless he is authoritarian and collectivist, he is a mossback, a reactionary, at best an amiable eccentric swimming hopelessly against the tide. It is a strong tide. Though despotism is no novelty in human affairs, it is probably true that at no time in twenty-five hundred years has any western government claimed for itself a jurisdiction over men's lives comparable with that which is officially attempted in totalitarian states....
But it is even more significant that in other lands where men shrink from the ruthless policy of these regimes, it is commonly assumed that the movement of events must be in the same direction. Nearly everywhere, the mark of a progressive is that he relies at last upon an increased power of officials to improve the condition of men."
Does the reaction to dissent and other ideas opposed to their own by the progressives back then seem familiar today?
I found this great bit of information in a piece posted by the Heritage foundation.
This is what it comes down to; progressives believe that people do not have the ability to choose what is best for them in leading their lives, therefore the state and the elite political culture should choose for them. After all, the state knows what is best for everyone and therefore can make a paradise for everyone all at once. What a load of crap! Free choice is our greatest God given gift. Although Progressives preach the touchy feely we are trying to help everyone and do it for their own good, they are intent on taking away that God given right. You can see the progressive thread in every major issue being debated on the political scene today; health care, cap and trade, junk food taxes, and economic stimulus.
DON'T LET THEM FOOL YOU!!
Remember that our rights come directly from God to us, we then loan a couple of those rights to the government to assist in providing for the common defense and providing an environment that allows us to determine our own destiny.
Central planning and collectivism for the common good has NEVER worked in history. The current crop of progressives claim they can make it work cause they are much "cleverer" than those before them. You will find them in both of the major political parties.
Read The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, The Federalist Papers, and I would even say Tocqueville's "Democracy in America". Although he wrote it for a French audience in the mid-19th century, it shows we are on the same path the French were back then. Frankly, that scares the crepes out of me.
Educate yourself and be active in your community so we do not repeat the mistakes of the past.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Czar and Other Updates
An updated "czar" list has been published. I wanted to link it here and state that this is the list I will be working from in my examination of the different czars. It has been thoroughly researched and vetted.
I also thought I would drop in a couple other bits today. There is an article regarding a Town Hall meeting held on "Climate Change." It brought people together to actually debate the science and show support for those that are looking at the science and saying Al Gore and his PowerPoint brigade are wrong. It's nice to see the "settled debate" actually starting and happening. It points out some interesting facts about previous impending "ecodisasters" and predicts what people may claim will be the next few.
As the health care debate rages on, it's interesting to see how different groups land on this issue. The CEO of WholeFoods recently came out against government healthcare. The hopey changies are all in a tizzy over this one. Some are calling for a boycott of Whole Foods. When 80% of Americans like the healthcare they have, I don't think calling for a boycott of Whole Foods is going to sway many people. Another notable person speaking out against government healthcare is Nancy Reagan. Of course, that does not come as a surprise to me.
The other thing I just had to mention is Michael Vick. What kind of example does that set for kids when you say, "oh yeah sure, you broke the law in a major way, but come back and we'll pay you several million dollars a year just the same." Something that once again points to societies lack of forcing people to own up to their own personal responsibility.
For those of you that feel that any of this is "fishy" truth, you can report it here.
Last but not least, for those of you feeling down with the whole creeping in of Socialist Fascisism, here is something that will just make you laugh. I know it makes me laugh every time.
I also thought I would drop in a couple other bits today. There is an article regarding a Town Hall meeting held on "Climate Change." It brought people together to actually debate the science and show support for those that are looking at the science and saying Al Gore and his PowerPoint brigade are wrong. It's nice to see the "settled debate" actually starting and happening. It points out some interesting facts about previous impending "ecodisasters" and predicts what people may claim will be the next few.
As the health care debate rages on, it's interesting to see how different groups land on this issue. The CEO of WholeFoods recently came out against government healthcare. The hopey changies are all in a tizzy over this one. Some are calling for a boycott of Whole Foods. When 80% of Americans like the healthcare they have, I don't think calling for a boycott of Whole Foods is going to sway many people. Another notable person speaking out against government healthcare is Nancy Reagan. Of course, that does not come as a surprise to me.
The other thing I just had to mention is Michael Vick. What kind of example does that set for kids when you say, "oh yeah sure, you broke the law in a major way, but come back and we'll pay you several million dollars a year just the same." Something that once again points to societies lack of forcing people to own up to their own personal responsibility.
For those of you that feel that any of this is "fishy" truth, you can report it here.
Last but not least, for those of you feeling down with the whole creeping in of Socialist Fascisism, here is something that will just make you laugh. I know it makes me laugh every time.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Here a Czar, There a Czar, Everywhere a Czar Czar
I’ve been thinking lately if there is one thing that I can concentrate on. To continually inform everyone about and get the information out there. Recently Glenn Beck stated that with so much going on and so much being thrown at us that everyone needs to be a watchdog for the constitution. I think this is dead on. It was suggested to find something you are interested in or want to know more about and just study and watch that one thing. Get the information out on what is happening with that particular subject. I have decided to research and look into all the “czars” that the President has been appointing.
There are several things I have learned in attempting to start a business and make my own stake. One of the things I learned early on is that I don’t have to know everything. I can create what many people refer to as a “Master Mind Alliance.” You can surround yourself with people knowledgeable in areas you know little or nothing about. You should leverage their knowledge and time to help fill in the gaps and get to your goals much faster. This is what his “High and Mightiness” has done. I think the Old McDonald’s farm analogy is perfect. There are currently more “czars” in the administration then the Russian dynasty ever had. Recent counts put it at just about 40 “czars” and growing. Here is a sampling.
1. Herbert Allison Jr., bailout czar, [replaced Bush bailout czar Neel Kashkari, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Stability confirmed by Senate]
2. Alan Bersin, border czar
3. Dennis Blair, intelligence czar [Director of National Intelligence, a Senate confirmed position]
4. John Brennan, counterterrorism czar
5. Carol Browner, energy czar
6. Adolfo Carrion, urban affairs czar
7. Ashton Carter, weapons czar [actually Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and so subject to Senate confirmation]
8. Aneesh Chopra, technology czar
9. Jeffrey Crowley, [openly gay white man] AIDS czar
10. Cameron Davis, Great Lakes czar
11. Nancy-Ann DeParle, health czar
12. Earl Devaney, stimulus oversight czar
13. Joshua DuBois, religion czar, aka God czar
14. Arne Duncan, education czar
15. Kenneth Feinberg, pay czar
16. Daniel Fried, Guantanamo closure czar
17. J. Scott Gration, Sudan czar
18. Melissa Hathaway, [soon to be] cybersecurity czar
19. David J. Hayes, water czar [a Deputy Interior Secretary and therefore subject to Senate oversight]
20. Richard Holbrooke, Afghanistan-Pakistan (Af-Pak) czar
21. John Holdren, science czar
22. Kevin Jennings, safe schools czar [nominated to be Assistant Deputy Secretary of Education, Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, a newly created post; openly gay founder of an organization dedicated to promoting pro-homosexual clubs and curricula in public schools]
23. Van Jones, green jobs czar
24. Gil Kerlikowske, drug czar
25. Ron Kirk, trade czar
26. Vivek Kundra, infotech czar [Shoplifted four shirts, worth $33.50 each, from J.C. Penney in 1996 (source)]
27. Douglas Lute, war czar [retained from Bush administration, married to Jane Holl Lute, currently a Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security]
28. George Mitchell, Mideast peace czar
29. Ed Montgomery, car czar [replacing Steve Rattner, who stepped down amid controversy over his former firm’s role in a possible kickback scandal]
30. Lynn Rosenthal, domestic violence czar
31. Dennis Ross, Mideast policy czar
32. Gary Samore, weapons of mass destruction czar
33. Todd Stern, climate change czar
34. Cass Sunstein, regulatory czar
35. Larry Summers, economic czar
36. Michael Taylor, food czar
37. Arturo Valenzuela, Latin-American czar (nominee) [although this post is referred to as a czar, he is nominated to be Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs and so is subject to Senate confirmation]
38. Paul Volcker, economic czar number two
39. Elizabeth Warren, TARP czar [chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel for the Trouble Assets Relief Program; note that Herb Allison is more frequently called the TARP czar]
40. Jeffrey Zients, government performance czar [replaced original nominee Nancy Killefer who withdrew her name after issues with her personal income tax filings surfaced]
Positions established but not yet filled:
41. behavioral science czar
42. copyright czar
Positions rumored as being planned:
1. income redistribution czar
2. land-use czar
3. consumer financial protection czar, aka mortgage czar (source)
4. radio-internet fairness czar
5. student loan czar, to oversee a program of mandatory service in return for college money (source)
6. voter list czar
7. zoning czar
I know that recently the person rumored to become his Cybersecurity Czar resigned and went back to the private sector. It makes you wonder if she learned some things about government “efficiency” that didn’t sit well with what she was tasked to do.
Although there are a few of these people that are in positions confirmed by the Senate, most of them are not. There is even a long standing Democrat Senator that is against and worried about the President appointing all these czars. It circumvents the process laid out in the Constitution for oversight by the Congress. Circumventing the Constitution and grossly expanding the scope and reach of the Executive Branch does not seem to bother the “Chosen One.” He says he has a “mandate” from the people to “fundamentally change” America. I like the old fashioned fundamentals just the way they are.
I believe it is important and crucial for us to know who is advising the President, what their beliefs are, and what their backgrounds are. Lots of people try to say, “oh, that was in the past, or I have changed my view on that.” I firmly believe that our past actions and beliefs have a profound effect on who we are and the current opinions we hold. Every week I will research a “czar” and back it up with sources. I will share that information with you so we can all stay informed. If there is another subject or topic that is just dying for me to comment on, I’ll just have to have two posts that week.
Remember to write and call your representatives on issues you are concerned about. Go to town hall meetings when they are home on break and discuss the issues. Don’t be afraid of the SEIU and ACORN goons that are trying to keep you out. Show up and exercise your first amendment right to free speech, even if your representative doesn’t want to listen to it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
