Does anyone else think that the United States is slipping into the abyss? The Supreme Court (one of my favorite governmental entities) is out-of-control, basically changing and creating "law" on a whim, not to mention changing (or should I say "amending") the Constitution as a majority of nine total sees fit.
Then we have the partisan bickering, Left vs. Right, liberal vs. conservative, Democrat vs. Republican. And exactly what does the Left (or Democrats or liberals, ask Karl Rove to define this) stand for anyway? The Democrats in general, but the Democratic leadership in particular, are negative obstructionists who chime in for the sound bites (from the all too willing media) to question (in the most patriotic of ways) the course being set by the Administration or the "power drunk Republicans". And the Republican answer for the most part is to roll over to this nonsense and spend, spend, spend in the process.
Take the comments made by Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, [Her highness] Hillary Clinton, or anything that Howard Dean might say, public or private and think them over...seriously. Does any American take this crap as anything more than political grandstanding? Does anyone really believe it? How can liberals be so misguided? Don't get me wrong, on many issues, Republicans [note, I did NOT say conservatives] have no answers or believable rebuttal, but come on! Does anyone really believe in the rhetoric and nonsensical ranting of the Left? If you do, you need to look in the mirror, after you pull your head out of the sand.
There is only political and partisan bickering in DC. No answers to any problems. One side vs. the other. The Democrats do a good job of being in the minority. They prevent real progress in order to "stand" for something. "Anti-Bush" is all they really want, besides power...the power to be in charge and seize anything and everything they can from the citizenry.
If you are a "little guy" or truly want to fight for the "little guy" then you need to get over the ranting of the Left...PERIOD. The Right may be for "big business", but exactly who creates the jobs that the Left is so willing to claim are being lost? Big business...CORPORATE AMERICA. Like it or not, capitalism works and helps everyone in the process. The only jobs that government creates are government jobs! Are we to have the government provide for everything? Apparently so. No "privatization" under any circumstances or negotiations stop...sound familiar? That is like the little kid growing up who was losing a game, so he took his ball and went home. PLEASE!
I am fed up with the status quo. I think the time is right for a revolution. Not an armed conflict, but the rising up of a third (or fourth or fifth or sixth...) political party. No "moderates"...just people who believe what they believe, tell the truth, and go on leading our Nation. It is NOT a democracy, but rather a constitutional and representative republic. That is an idea obviously lost on our elected "representatives". Why do you suppose they all fear term limits?
So do we continue to exercise our right to vote? How long until it is taken away by an arbitrary ruling by the Black Robes? Do we hold our representatives accountable? At the ballot box? Or do we demand change? Everything starts somewhere and the future of the good ol' US of A might start in your heart, mind, and soul.
I have been told, you can't change the establishment. Perhaps not. But I also believe in a lyric from the song Freewill by the band Rush which says, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." Should we just let the bizarre rantings of the "elected" rule the day? Or, will we decide to look inside ourselves to rise up and affect change, no matter how small? Choose to demand answers to the question, "What the hell is going on here?" If you don't choose, you still have made a choice that my affect you forever.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Sunday, June 26, 2005
Required Reading; Volume I
From time to time, I will give you some "book reviews" on some of the interesting books I have read recently. I love to read, especially the politically themed books, the ones with a conservative slant, to be sure. I will let you know the ones that I feel are worthwhile, so that you too can be part of the Right Wing.
Today, I will suggest four books, all of which I found to be quite provocative.
The first is American Soldier by General Tommy Franks. This is a very candid look at the life of a great American military mind. His thoughts and strategies on modern warfare will, in my estimation, become the status quo and will be studied by soldiers for years to come. His approach to modern warfare may well be an advancement on par with the radical strategy employed by General William T. Sherman during the Civil War. Likely a new strategy that many will consider in future conflicts.
The most important part of this book is the predictions that General Franks makes regarding the aftermath of the Iraqi conflict. His insight is dead on and could be a helpful primer for the US media, if only they would take the time to consider that almost everyone involved in the war on terror predicated a long and drawn out battle. This is a long book and is very specific in the military terminology, but it is worth the time it takes to read it.
The next two books are political through and through. The first, Enduring Revolution: How the Contract with America Continues to Shape the Nation by Major Garrett is a very good read and very historical in its content. It is a first hand look, from a reporter's point-of-view, at the 1994 Republican take-over of the United States House of Representatives. Garrett is very unbiased in this book and it puts a great amount of perspective on the political landscape of today, and what this country might have been like had this major political uprising not materialized.
The second, Winning the Future: A 21st Century Contract with America by Newt Gingrich is an outline of his positions on various subjects that he feels are necessary to keep the United States strong for the next century. While I do not agree with everything that Newt proposes, I do feel that he has a very mindful eye on the political future of this country and I feel that this is a good (and quick) read for anyone who wants to espouse conservatism, but maybe needs some pointers on how to express their thoughts.
Lastly, I must remark on Men in Black by Mark Levin. This is an extremely important essay on the renegade Supreme Court of the USA and is very insightful on explaining how the high court is slowly imposing its will on every American. Since this book was published, there have been several more examples of the Black Robes legislating from the bench and each and every example is like a ghost of the message that Levin is sending. I think that every American should read this book and think about the consequences of a judiciary gone wild. It could ultimately spell the end of our nation as we know it.
Again, my thoughts on the books selected, not a review, but a suggestion to read for yourselves and make your own decisions on the material and [hopefully] apply the lessons to the way you conduct yourself as a citizen.
Today, I will suggest four books, all of which I found to be quite provocative.
The first is American Soldier by General Tommy Franks. This is a very candid look at the life of a great American military mind. His thoughts and strategies on modern warfare will, in my estimation, become the status quo and will be studied by soldiers for years to come. His approach to modern warfare may well be an advancement on par with the radical strategy employed by General William T. Sherman during the Civil War. Likely a new strategy that many will consider in future conflicts.
The most important part of this book is the predictions that General Franks makes regarding the aftermath of the Iraqi conflict. His insight is dead on and could be a helpful primer for the US media, if only they would take the time to consider that almost everyone involved in the war on terror predicated a long and drawn out battle. This is a long book and is very specific in the military terminology, but it is worth the time it takes to read it.
The next two books are political through and through. The first, Enduring Revolution: How the Contract with America Continues to Shape the Nation by Major Garrett is a very good read and very historical in its content. It is a first hand look, from a reporter's point-of-view, at the 1994 Republican take-over of the United States House of Representatives. Garrett is very unbiased in this book and it puts a great amount of perspective on the political landscape of today, and what this country might have been like had this major political uprising not materialized.
The second, Winning the Future: A 21st Century Contract with America by Newt Gingrich is an outline of his positions on various subjects that he feels are necessary to keep the United States strong for the next century. While I do not agree with everything that Newt proposes, I do feel that he has a very mindful eye on the political future of this country and I feel that this is a good (and quick) read for anyone who wants to espouse conservatism, but maybe needs some pointers on how to express their thoughts.
Lastly, I must remark on Men in Black by Mark Levin. This is an extremely important essay on the renegade Supreme Court of the USA and is very insightful on explaining how the high court is slowly imposing its will on every American. Since this book was published, there have been several more examples of the Black Robes legislating from the bench and each and every example is like a ghost of the message that Levin is sending. I think that every American should read this book and think about the consequences of a judiciary gone wild. It could ultimately spell the end of our nation as we know it.
Again, my thoughts on the books selected, not a review, but a suggestion to read for yourselves and make your own decisions on the material and [hopefully] apply the lessons to the way you conduct yourself as a citizen.
Friday, June 10, 2005
Back in the Fray
I must get back into the fray and voice some of my opinions, but now is not the time. Nice weather and a long list of chores have kept the Zealot from sharing any of his rants.
I will say that the Dirty Dozen (+2), you know the fourteen US Senators who feel that they control the world (and define "extraordinary circumstances"), have me a bit overdone, so-to-speak. I am vowing to unseat my "representative" culprit (Mike DeWine, or as we say...Duh-Wine) in his 2006 primary bid. More on that to come...especially if Rehnquist retires.
And thank God for Howard Dean. Am I the only conservative who feels that way? No.
Lastly, I will end with a promise to be more punctual in my posting and with a quote that I find very provocative, yet dripping of common sense: "You don't have suspects who are innocent of a crime. That is contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect." -Edwin Meese.
I will say that the Dirty Dozen (+2), you know the fourteen US Senators who feel that they control the world (and define "extraordinary circumstances"), have me a bit overdone, so-to-speak. I am vowing to unseat my "representative" culprit (Mike DeWine, or as we say...Duh-Wine) in his 2006 primary bid. More on that to come...especially if Rehnquist retires.
And thank God for Howard Dean. Am I the only conservative who feels that way? No.
Lastly, I will end with a promise to be more punctual in my posting and with a quote that I find very provocative, yet dripping of common sense: "You don't have suspects who are innocent of a crime. That is contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect." -Edwin Meese.
Sunday, April 24, 2005
Partisan Politics and Liberals in the Fly-over Red States
My absence for the last several weeks has been due to many factors, unseasonably nice weather being one of them. But in a few short weeks several major political events have unfolded. Unfortunately, the leftist mainstream media has "missed" going in depth on most of these stories, instead covering the death of Pope John Paul II and the disappearance and deaths of several young girls. After all, death is news worthy. Throw in a few bad stories about the US "occupation" in Iraq and it is a full month of what "We the Sheeple" need to know.
Alas, I have other thoughts.
Three complete outrages to me are the following:
1) The ongoing scandal over fundraising irregularities that surround the Clintons, specifically Hillary. I must admit that I have not delved too deep into this as I see it as still unfolding. My brief comment at this moment will be this: If Tom Delay (or any Republican) were the center of this story, wouldn't it be covered 24/7? Answer that yourselves.
2) The John Bolton nomination along with the constant delays in Bush's judicial nominations. This whole thing is a farce. Adding insult to injury is that one of my elected senators, George Voinovich, helped to slow the Bolton nomination to a crawl.
3) And if the antics of one RINO senator from Ohio are not enough, there is the other RINO senator from Ohio, Mike DeWine. In all of his glorious hypocrisy, he added his name to a federal "assault weapons" ban.
What is a right-wing red-stater to do?!
I guess I will rant and rave to you.
The politics of basically any nomination, hell anything conservative (notice I did NOT say Republican) and the ensuing discourse coming from Democrats (and some of the 'moderate' Republicans...call them RINO's, hell Socialists is better) is making me ill. I can't even watch the TV to see what ridiculous dribbling is coming from the mouths of Ted Kennedy (insert drinking, driving, and diving joke here), John Kerry (hey dipshit, you lost the election and the Democratic machine will never nominate you again), Harry Reid (this guy is the minority leader? God, he's a wuss!), or Nancy Pelosi (guys, this is precisely why you do NOT marry the homecoming queen...this is what she turns into) anymore. I can't even laugh about what they are saying. (Sorry that I stooped to calling them names and insulting them. Hey, I am frustrated.) They really have nothing to say. They are just attacking the opposition in hopes of scoring some political points. Do you think it is going to work?
Voinovich and DeWine are two very pathetic examples of Senators, especially from the 'deciding' Red state of Ohio. I am not surprised at Voinovich and truthfully not really surprised by DeWine, but an "assault weapons" ban? I will devote an upcoming column to the Second Amendment and why I believe in and support it so. But this little gaff will cost DeWine his seat. I am personally willing to lend my support to anyone who will oppose either of these idiots.
But, I digress. What is your point, Mr. Right Wing Zealot? I'll tell you. This country has hit an all time high (perhaps I mean low) with regard to the politics that control it. Now, I am not so naive that I think this is something new. Hell, this country was quite political back in the latter portion of the 1700's when it was being founded. But, back then there were quite a few Statesmen. Today, there are only politicians. And with great technological innovations, "news" travels at nearly the speed of light...okay fiber optic signals. And a multitude of outlets give us all we can process, again 24/7.
So I leave it as a question: Will "We the Sheeple" believe what we are told? If so, told by whom? Will we do our own research and news gathering? Will we get pissed when we hear the things that our elected officials do that we disagree with? Will we hold them accountable? What about corruption? Don't tell me that you don't think after 8 years in Washington that nothing a Clinton did was corrupt. Don't bullshit yourself. They are corrupt to the core.
So, where are we going? I for one think in the wrong direction. "Reform" is mandated by those in control. A perfect example is campaign finance "reform". But the power of those who mandate still comes from voters, all of the K-Street and 527 money aside. Grassroots gets it done. The 2006 elections are a year plus away and 2008 is a long way off. But, NOW is the time to get your research started, get your thoughts in order. It is time to ask questions and demand answers. And it is time to realize that talking about religion and politics can no longer be things that you avoid at the family reunion. Think about what you know (or do not know) about the above examples, or anything that is happening (or not happening) in your own community. The time to start is now.
If we fail to strive for change and a resumption of some semblance of control "by the people", our plight only will become worse. And we can blame ourselves for being stuck with representatives like Voinovich, DeWine, or even Hillary. And the future will hold even sadder days because of our own inactions.
Alas, I have other thoughts.
Three complete outrages to me are the following:
1) The ongoing scandal over fundraising irregularities that surround the Clintons, specifically Hillary. I must admit that I have not delved too deep into this as I see it as still unfolding. My brief comment at this moment will be this: If Tom Delay (or any Republican) were the center of this story, wouldn't it be covered 24/7? Answer that yourselves.
2) The John Bolton nomination along with the constant delays in Bush's judicial nominations. This whole thing is a farce. Adding insult to injury is that one of my elected senators, George Voinovich, helped to slow the Bolton nomination to a crawl.
3) And if the antics of one RINO senator from Ohio are not enough, there is the other RINO senator from Ohio, Mike DeWine. In all of his glorious hypocrisy, he added his name to a federal "assault weapons" ban.
What is a right-wing red-stater to do?!
I guess I will rant and rave to you.
The politics of basically any nomination, hell anything conservative (notice I did NOT say Republican) and the ensuing discourse coming from Democrats (and some of the 'moderate' Republicans...call them RINO's, hell Socialists is better) is making me ill. I can't even watch the TV to see what ridiculous dribbling is coming from the mouths of Ted Kennedy (insert drinking, driving, and diving joke here), John Kerry (hey dipshit, you lost the election and the Democratic machine will never nominate you again), Harry Reid (this guy is the minority leader? God, he's a wuss!), or Nancy Pelosi (guys, this is precisely why you do NOT marry the homecoming queen...this is what she turns into) anymore. I can't even laugh about what they are saying. (Sorry that I stooped to calling them names and insulting them. Hey, I am frustrated.) They really have nothing to say. They are just attacking the opposition in hopes of scoring some political points. Do you think it is going to work?
Voinovich and DeWine are two very pathetic examples of Senators, especially from the 'deciding' Red state of Ohio. I am not surprised at Voinovich and truthfully not really surprised by DeWine, but an "assault weapons" ban? I will devote an upcoming column to the Second Amendment and why I believe in and support it so. But this little gaff will cost DeWine his seat. I am personally willing to lend my support to anyone who will oppose either of these idiots.
But, I digress. What is your point, Mr. Right Wing Zealot? I'll tell you. This country has hit an all time high (perhaps I mean low) with regard to the politics that control it. Now, I am not so naive that I think this is something new. Hell, this country was quite political back in the latter portion of the 1700's when it was being founded. But, back then there were quite a few Statesmen. Today, there are only politicians. And with great technological innovations, "news" travels at nearly the speed of light...okay fiber optic signals. And a multitude of outlets give us all we can process, again 24/7.
So I leave it as a question: Will "We the Sheeple" believe what we are told? If so, told by whom? Will we do our own research and news gathering? Will we get pissed when we hear the things that our elected officials do that we disagree with? Will we hold them accountable? What about corruption? Don't tell me that you don't think after 8 years in Washington that nothing a Clinton did was corrupt. Don't bullshit yourself. They are corrupt to the core.
So, where are we going? I for one think in the wrong direction. "Reform" is mandated by those in control. A perfect example is campaign finance "reform". But the power of those who mandate still comes from voters, all of the K-Street and 527 money aside. Grassroots gets it done. The 2006 elections are a year plus away and 2008 is a long way off. But, NOW is the time to get your research started, get your thoughts in order. It is time to ask questions and demand answers. And it is time to realize that talking about religion and politics can no longer be things that you avoid at the family reunion. Think about what you know (or do not know) about the above examples, or anything that is happening (or not happening) in your own community. The time to start is now.
If we fail to strive for change and a resumption of some semblance of control "by the people", our plight only will become worse. And we can blame ourselves for being stuck with representatives like Voinovich, DeWine, or even Hillary. And the future will hold even sadder days because of our own inactions.
Thursday, March 31, 2005
In a Nation divided
Now that the unthinkable, yet inevitable has happened, I must make yet another attempt to suggest a few items regarding the absurdity of "the system".
Yes, I am referring to the death of Terri Schiavo.
As I stated before, I think that the correct legal choice was made, given the circumstances. I did not say that I agreed with the circumstances or the decision.
Recently, as this case has unfolded, more and more of the dubious circumstances have come to the forefront. Why none of this information made it into the mainstream is beyond me. (Perhaps there is a media-controlled conspiracy here.) Why none of this made it to the court decision, let alone a criminal investigation is beyond me. And when one hears the numerous conflicts of interest amongst those siding with Michael Schiavo, it is even more of a travesty that this happened. In my estimation, the Schindler's will have an almost air-tight unlawful death case to file. And that may encompass family, friends, health workers, attorneys, and even the "experts" who weighed in. It should definitely include the judges.
The unfortunate part is that, again, the law allowed for the claim made by Terri's husband after his establishment as her guardian to reign supreme. That law must be changed, especially in the face of the conflicts of interest that have surfaced. But to me, regardless of your side, the court did decide and 'We the People' allowed that to be the final decision, or at least the one that attorneys are forced to request a court to hear evidence on and overturn. Again, a woman lost her life because of it.
Politics and morality have been shattered in this case. The alignment of very different political figures "for" or "against" are testimony to that. Again, it is a failed system that performed (again in my opinion properly, albiet likely not correctly) and led to all of this. Nonsense. Tragic and senseless. And it must be changed.
Government bodies everywhere will champion debate on this issue. Special interests will chime in to advance specific agendas. Some will agree and some will disagree. But the debate has just begun. Ultimately, there will be a call for more laws and more government intervention. Reverend Jesse Jackson has already mentioned that this case calls for the resumption of discussion on the need for universal healthcare. He is not the only one who has and will advance an agenda.
The law and the courts did what was "right" in defiance of much more information and investigation. And the grandstanding and posturing have just begun.
Again, is this what we, as a Nation, wish to happen to our rights and freedoms? No matter what position you take on this issue, the debate has begun. And the debate may lead to a loss of rights for everyone.
And a woman died. Have we forgotten?
Rest in Peace, Terri Schiavo.
Yes, I am referring to the death of Terri Schiavo.
As I stated before, I think that the correct legal choice was made, given the circumstances. I did not say that I agreed with the circumstances or the decision.
Recently, as this case has unfolded, more and more of the dubious circumstances have come to the forefront. Why none of this information made it into the mainstream is beyond me. (Perhaps there is a media-controlled conspiracy here.) Why none of this made it to the court decision, let alone a criminal investigation is beyond me. And when one hears the numerous conflicts of interest amongst those siding with Michael Schiavo, it is even more of a travesty that this happened. In my estimation, the Schindler's will have an almost air-tight unlawful death case to file. And that may encompass family, friends, health workers, attorneys, and even the "experts" who weighed in. It should definitely include the judges.
The unfortunate part is that, again, the law allowed for the claim made by Terri's husband after his establishment as her guardian to reign supreme. That law must be changed, especially in the face of the conflicts of interest that have surfaced. But to me, regardless of your side, the court did decide and 'We the People' allowed that to be the final decision, or at least the one that attorneys are forced to request a court to hear evidence on and overturn. Again, a woman lost her life because of it.
Politics and morality have been shattered in this case. The alignment of very different political figures "for" or "against" are testimony to that. Again, it is a failed system that performed (again in my opinion properly, albiet likely not correctly) and led to all of this. Nonsense. Tragic and senseless. And it must be changed.
Government bodies everywhere will champion debate on this issue. Special interests will chime in to advance specific agendas. Some will agree and some will disagree. But the debate has just begun. Ultimately, there will be a call for more laws and more government intervention. Reverend Jesse Jackson has already mentioned that this case calls for the resumption of discussion on the need for universal healthcare. He is not the only one who has and will advance an agenda.
The law and the courts did what was "right" in defiance of much more information and investigation. And the grandstanding and posturing have just begun.
Again, is this what we, as a Nation, wish to happen to our rights and freedoms? No matter what position you take on this issue, the debate has begun. And the debate may lead to a loss of rights for everyone.
And a woman died. Have we forgotten?
Rest in Peace, Terri Schiavo.
Saturday, March 26, 2005
Personal freedom & individual rights
I really don't want to discuss the Terri Schiavo matter. To me, she deserves to die privately and with whatever dignity she can, given the circumstances. However, I must editorialize a bit because of the issues it has led to; namely the social and political consequences that it has created.
First, I start by saying that this could all be "solved" if her husband (if you can actually call him that) would be a man and do the right thing. I do not wish to create an argument regarding my position, but given the questionable circumstances surrounding this situation, his apparent resumption of life without his "wife" and creation of a new "family", and the Schindler's willingness to take care of their daughter, Michael Schiavo should just grant them custody and move on. It would be the decent thing to do.
As a society, however, we must not view this from only a moral point-of-view. Each individual can see this in the light of his or her own morality and likely justify the feelings they hold. The larger issue is how this has been handled by "the system."
Given the the laws of the State of Florida as I have come to understand them, this case has been decided correctly. Regrettably, Terri does not have a living will or any other form of document to outline her wishes. While many call her husband's claim hearsay, what he claims is acceptable and has been accepted by the courts. It may be dubious, given that it took seven years for him to mention it; but, in the absence of a living will and an individual able to communicate, this is what the law provides for.
As the case has unfolded, too many people have gotten involved, perhaps only to advance their own agendas. It has become a federal issue and Congress even passed a special law to allow this to go through the federal courts one last time. People and activists on both sides of the political spectrum (and of life) seem to have an opinion. The debate can and will rage for quite sometime, likely forever.
A much larger problem is developing, though. It is basically the fact that federalism as our Founders intended it is gone. Also, "government" in and of itself seems to be the caretaker of one's liberty. The judiciary in particular has decided an individual's rights in this instance and they have decided that she should be "allowed" to die.
Most of my dispute is with the courts. Yet again, the court system has been granted the status of final arbiter of a case; in this case, an innocent and handicapped woman's life. How far has this country come? Three separate but equal branches of government no longer exist. Nor do states' rights mean anything anymore. The only reason this didn't remain a federal issue is because, regardless of the actions of Congress (which I cannot say I necessarily agree with), the federal courts towards the "end" really wouldn't touch this issue. [Many judicial analysts have claimed this decision was made "so as to not set a precedent."] The federal judiciary has again decided to pick and choose want it wants to pontificate and ultimately legislate on, the will of an elected body be damned. And a woman will lose her life because of all of this.
As I said before, I think that by and large, the "correct" legal decision has likely been made. It has been and should have been a state issue and likely will lead to many states reassessing the laws that they have in place for cases such as this. While like many have said, I think we should err on the side of life, I also don't think that, in a scenario such as this, life should be decided by a court system. The rights of everyone are being eroded in this case. That will be brought to bear by the ramifications it will have in the future. The unfortunate part is that, again the government and especially the judiciary, is dictating our rights. Again, a woman will die because of that.
I wish no ill will to anyone involved. I hope that the precedent that is set is not a legal or political one, but rather a personal one that encourages all Americans to take control of their lives, and perhaps even their deaths. We need to see the runaway stupidity of this whole mess. That without a written document, a life is in the balance and many others will be affected by that, if not ruined. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...that is guaranteed in the Constitution. Erosion of personal freedom and individual rights is what the system has evolved that guarantee in to. And 'We the People' have allowed it to happen. From the many lessons to be learned here, make the most important be to demand responsibility, from your government (all branches and all officials, elected or not) and from yourself.
God speed Terri Schiavo.
First, I start by saying that this could all be "solved" if her husband (if you can actually call him that) would be a man and do the right thing. I do not wish to create an argument regarding my position, but given the questionable circumstances surrounding this situation, his apparent resumption of life without his "wife" and creation of a new "family", and the Schindler's willingness to take care of their daughter, Michael Schiavo should just grant them custody and move on. It would be the decent thing to do.
As a society, however, we must not view this from only a moral point-of-view. Each individual can see this in the light of his or her own morality and likely justify the feelings they hold. The larger issue is how this has been handled by "the system."
Given the the laws of the State of Florida as I have come to understand them, this case has been decided correctly. Regrettably, Terri does not have a living will or any other form of document to outline her wishes. While many call her husband's claim hearsay, what he claims is acceptable and has been accepted by the courts. It may be dubious, given that it took seven years for him to mention it; but, in the absence of a living will and an individual able to communicate, this is what the law provides for.
As the case has unfolded, too many people have gotten involved, perhaps only to advance their own agendas. It has become a federal issue and Congress even passed a special law to allow this to go through the federal courts one last time. People and activists on both sides of the political spectrum (and of life) seem to have an opinion. The debate can and will rage for quite sometime, likely forever.
A much larger problem is developing, though. It is basically the fact that federalism as our Founders intended it is gone. Also, "government" in and of itself seems to be the caretaker of one's liberty. The judiciary in particular has decided an individual's rights in this instance and they have decided that she should be "allowed" to die.
Most of my dispute is with the courts. Yet again, the court system has been granted the status of final arbiter of a case; in this case, an innocent and handicapped woman's life. How far has this country come? Three separate but equal branches of government no longer exist. Nor do states' rights mean anything anymore. The only reason this didn't remain a federal issue is because, regardless of the actions of Congress (which I cannot say I necessarily agree with), the federal courts towards the "end" really wouldn't touch this issue. [Many judicial analysts have claimed this decision was made "so as to not set a precedent."] The federal judiciary has again decided to pick and choose want it wants to pontificate and ultimately legislate on, the will of an elected body be damned. And a woman will lose her life because of all of this.
As I said before, I think that by and large, the "correct" legal decision has likely been made. It has been and should have been a state issue and likely will lead to many states reassessing the laws that they have in place for cases such as this. While like many have said, I think we should err on the side of life, I also don't think that, in a scenario such as this, life should be decided by a court system. The rights of everyone are being eroded in this case. That will be brought to bear by the ramifications it will have in the future. The unfortunate part is that, again the government and especially the judiciary, is dictating our rights. Again, a woman will die because of that.
I wish no ill will to anyone involved. I hope that the precedent that is set is not a legal or political one, but rather a personal one that encourages all Americans to take control of their lives, and perhaps even their deaths. We need to see the runaway stupidity of this whole mess. That without a written document, a life is in the balance and many others will be affected by that, if not ruined. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...that is guaranteed in the Constitution. Erosion of personal freedom and individual rights is what the system has evolved that guarantee in to. And 'We the People' have allowed it to happen. From the many lessons to be learned here, make the most important be to demand responsibility, from your government (all branches and all officials, elected or not) and from yourself.
God speed Terri Schiavo.
Sunday, March 06, 2005
The Danger of the Black Robes
I can preach on and on about this subject, but there are so many good columns on the web regarding it at present that I likely cannot be too enlightening. Also, there are several excellent books out right now. Men in Black by Mark Levin appears to be one of the best, although I have yet to read it.
Suffice it to say, however, I have a point (or two) to make.
The first point is that there are those in this country (and apparently Justice Kennedy is among them) that view the Constitution as a "living document". It is not. I am baffled at how anyone with any intellectual dignity tries to make another believe that. How many laws do we have in the United States? My answer is too many, but that is not the point. The legislative process has run amuck, BUT the acid test has always been the constitutionality of any law. A new law is forced to measure up against the Constitution...the standard. You cannot change that standard. It is the original idea, the foundation. I can admit that other ideas (or laws) could be fashioned from it, and perhaps there is merit to a "new interpretation" based on a new law. That, however, does not provide for changing the basic meaning of the Constitution. Truthfully, we have too many laws in my estimation. And we cannot seem to enforce any of them. A catastrophe like a school shooting always seems to lead to the need for new laws and never the enforcement of the good, basic laws we have. But when we begin reaching for the "living" interpretation of the Constitution so as to make it "hip" to today's thinking, we are on the wrong path.
Even worse, however, is the use of foreign law and precedent, in judgments by the Supreme Court of the United States. Where in the Constitution does it say that we should check out what the neighbors think (and how they act) when we decide how we should conduct ourselves? This my conservative friends (and you liberals, too) is flat out wrong and dangerous. We do not live in the European Union. The United Nations is not our government. It is way past time that ALL Americans begin to think this over. Our Constitution was smartly crafted by many scholarly men who realized that sovereignty was important and that the rule of law was essential in maintaining order. That order leads to prosperity and "the pursuit of happiness" that we are all guaranteed. That is (I'm sure) one reason that they made the process of amending the Constitution so difficult.
Now, we have the Black Robes amending it from the bench. This is a pivotal time in history my friends. Imposition of law by as few as five non-elected, non-replaceable individuals is patently dangerous to our freedoms. Let not you leftists think that they could not reinterpret your favorite views. Does McCain-Feingold (or the yet to be released McCain-Feingold II) ring any bells? It should.
We are at a point in American history where the tax burden on individuals is oppressive and getting worse. (Not just income or payroll taxes, do your homework. See how much tax is built into the purchase price of your favorite items...even food items that are supposedly not taxed.) We have a total lack of caring regarding the flood of illegal aliens into our country. Hell, many of us want to give them rights, not to mention various freebies that the American taxpayer is forced to fund. And now we have the Supreme Court basically deciding whatever the hell it wants regarding pretty much anything it decides to review. (Don't miss the "decides to review" point. Remember, the Black Robes can turn cases and challenges away, so they really are in a position to pick and choose what they want to impose on us.) Is that the country that the Founding Fathers envisioned? Is that the country that you as an American wish this nation become? Do we want a "living" document as the foundation of our laws? Do we really want foreign interpretation of anything to be of influence here? I think not.
The time is now to demand otherwise. Term-limits on the Supreme Court are essential. Now that is an amendment worth passing. Until then, demand that your legislators demand study and interpretation of our laws be used in decisions, not the political climate of near-socialist Europe. Push for impeachment of judges and tell Congress that the Senate needs to stop the filibuster charade regarding judicial nominees where a minority of sore-losers are adding further disarray to a volatile situation. If nothing else, do it for the children because their futures may really depend on it.
Suffice it to say, however, I have a point (or two) to make.
The first point is that there are those in this country (and apparently Justice Kennedy is among them) that view the Constitution as a "living document". It is not. I am baffled at how anyone with any intellectual dignity tries to make another believe that. How many laws do we have in the United States? My answer is too many, but that is not the point. The legislative process has run amuck, BUT the acid test has always been the constitutionality of any law. A new law is forced to measure up against the Constitution...the standard. You cannot change that standard. It is the original idea, the foundation. I can admit that other ideas (or laws) could be fashioned from it, and perhaps there is merit to a "new interpretation" based on a new law. That, however, does not provide for changing the basic meaning of the Constitution. Truthfully, we have too many laws in my estimation. And we cannot seem to enforce any of them. A catastrophe like a school shooting always seems to lead to the need for new laws and never the enforcement of the good, basic laws we have. But when we begin reaching for the "living" interpretation of the Constitution so as to make it "hip" to today's thinking, we are on the wrong path.
Even worse, however, is the use of foreign law and precedent, in judgments by the Supreme Court of the United States. Where in the Constitution does it say that we should check out what the neighbors think (and how they act) when we decide how we should conduct ourselves? This my conservative friends (and you liberals, too) is flat out wrong and dangerous. We do not live in the European Union. The United Nations is not our government. It is way past time that ALL Americans begin to think this over. Our Constitution was smartly crafted by many scholarly men who realized that sovereignty was important and that the rule of law was essential in maintaining order. That order leads to prosperity and "the pursuit of happiness" that we are all guaranteed. That is (I'm sure) one reason that they made the process of amending the Constitution so difficult.
Now, we have the Black Robes amending it from the bench. This is a pivotal time in history my friends. Imposition of law by as few as five non-elected, non-replaceable individuals is patently dangerous to our freedoms. Let not you leftists think that they could not reinterpret your favorite views. Does McCain-Feingold (or the yet to be released McCain-Feingold II) ring any bells? It should.
We are at a point in American history where the tax burden on individuals is oppressive and getting worse. (Not just income or payroll taxes, do your homework. See how much tax is built into the purchase price of your favorite items...even food items that are supposedly not taxed.) We have a total lack of caring regarding the flood of illegal aliens into our country. Hell, many of us want to give them rights, not to mention various freebies that the American taxpayer is forced to fund. And now we have the Supreme Court basically deciding whatever the hell it wants regarding pretty much anything it decides to review. (Don't miss the "decides to review" point. Remember, the Black Robes can turn cases and challenges away, so they really are in a position to pick and choose what they want to impose on us.) Is that the country that the Founding Fathers envisioned? Is that the country that you as an American wish this nation become? Do we want a "living" document as the foundation of our laws? Do we really want foreign interpretation of anything to be of influence here? I think not.
The time is now to demand otherwise. Term-limits on the Supreme Court are essential. Now that is an amendment worth passing. Until then, demand that your legislators demand study and interpretation of our laws be used in decisions, not the political climate of near-socialist Europe. Push for impeachment of judges and tell Congress that the Senate needs to stop the filibuster charade regarding judicial nominees where a minority of sore-losers are adding further disarray to a volatile situation. If nothing else, do it for the children because their futures may really depend on it.
Sunday, February 20, 2005
Legal immigration, guest workers, and a closed and guarded border
For 15 years I have been a professional. For 13+ of those 15 I have worked for a regional Midwestern company. I have had the opportunity to hire many employees. When a new employee is hired, one of several items of paperwork that we do is to fill out an I-9 form. An I-9 form is officially an 'Employment Eligibility Form' which is distributed by the Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service. (I believe the official form number is OMB No. 1115-0136, but don't quote me.) This form requires one or several combinations of identification to establish an employee's legal right to work in the United States. There are many acceptable forms of identification which I will not list here, but believe me when I say that it would be nearly impossible for anyone who is legal to not be able to produce an item on the list.
So where am I going with all of this?
This country is suffering from porous borders and a steady influx of aliens that we cannot identify, track, and, were it up to many in our society, incarcerate (unless of course we give them all of the legal rights that are afforded a REAL US citizen). Excuse me for being blunt, but that is bullshit.
While I realize that this world has become global in many ways, especially economically, I think that Americans had better be vigilant in guarding the sovereignty of the United States of America. We don't not need to seek a permission slip from the UN or any foreign entity to do what is in our best interest. What we do need is for the American public to wake up and realize that we need to establish what our best interests are. They are not necessarily global, and they had better never become something that is suggested by or in the interest of the United Nations. Again, those of you in the center, pay attention. Those on the Left have already decided that we should abandon our sovereignty. Unfortunately, most in Washington DC have decided that the voting base that illegal aliens could provide far outweighs anything that could be perceived as a national interest.
So, what do we do?
I am not against immigration or guest workers , etc., etc. I am against the free flow of pretty much anyone into this country. And, I believe that we must require US citizenship of anyone who wishes to come here for good. (I defer to Bill O'Reilly on the first point and Newt Gingrich on the second. Watch Bill's show and read Newt's most recent book, they spell it out as well as I can.) But how can we stop this?
First, we must get serious about closing and guarding the border. That is a simple fact. Politicians argue it, but they do not have the average citizen's best interest in mind. Regardless of party affiliation, they are worried about votes. Americans must clamor for this and it must become reality. If Mexican President Fox had his way, Mexico would basically become the 51st state and we would bail that country out of its financial and societal woes. I hate to say it, but we may have to fight an armed conflict to stop it if Americans don't wake up.
So, once we close the borders, then what. Well, we can use the old I-9 form to hold employers accountable for employing aliens. This won't stop "guest workers", the kind that George Bush insists are ok if they do the jobs that no other Americans will do (although, I am all for giving those jobs to welfare recipients). If we maintain control over student visas and the like and actually keep track of the coming, goings, and goings-on while in the United States of any non-citizens, then we have a chance to keep America safe.
So back to employers. If they employ an illegal, the employer will be fined $10,000 per worker, per incident. No negotiating. The illegal would not be incarcerated, but given a choice of getting into a proper program and receiving proper documentation or getting sent back to from where ever they came. Temporary workers could remain temporary. Someone who really wants to stay could get put on the path to legal citizenship. The only requirement for the illegal would be to check in periodically to a representative of INS to be sure they are doing as they have selected. It may sound like a visit to a parole officer, but that is too bad. Remember, they are illegal. They got caught as an illegal. We are being compassionate and giving them a choice as to what their legal status will be. That is not too much to ask.
So, now all of those in the food service industry and construction are freaking out. Again, too bad. We are assuming that we can close the borders and not have this dilemma. But the enforcement might just have to start prior to the slow down of the influx of these illegal aliens. BE PROACTIVE. You can fill out the I-9 and set up a potential employee who is not legal. My guess is that we could even find a tax credit for businesses that get on board. But remember, the penalty for having illegals in your business will be $10,000 each, period. It is designed to cripple your business if you are non-compliant. I am not for that crippling effect, unless you as a business owner are not with the program. Then, you too are breaking the law and there needs to be consequences to that. If we (pay attention DC) are serious about this problem, there are many ways that we can force change. We can require documentation and we can keep tabs on those documented "visitors". That will in no way prevent them from being here and the "system" as it is now would really not have to change. We just need to have everyone comply with laws that are already in place and we need enforcement of those laws. It can be done, and I am proof-positive of that.
Like pretty much any other issue in America, we need less (how about zero) political grandstanding and a serious debate, plan, and implementation of said plan. Believe it or not, like it or not, this is an issue that is serious and could be catastrophic if not addressed. We can use the "guest workers" in the best way possible. We can make strides towards eliminating those amongst us who might do us harm. We could accept immigrants the way the United States always has and eventually welcome them as proud naturalized citizens if they choose to become citizens. But we must be proactive. That must start somewhere. That somewhere is on our borders and in our places of business. We do not need wrong-headed politicians or misguided World organizations telling us what to do. We need to address the situation ourselves and be serious about doing so. No short-cuts or exceptions should be made. The future will likely depend on it.
So where am I going with all of this?
This country is suffering from porous borders and a steady influx of aliens that we cannot identify, track, and, were it up to many in our society, incarcerate (unless of course we give them all of the legal rights that are afforded a REAL US citizen). Excuse me for being blunt, but that is bullshit.
While I realize that this world has become global in many ways, especially economically, I think that Americans had better be vigilant in guarding the sovereignty of the United States of America. We don't not need to seek a permission slip from the UN or any foreign entity to do what is in our best interest. What we do need is for the American public to wake up and realize that we need to establish what our best interests are. They are not necessarily global, and they had better never become something that is suggested by or in the interest of the United Nations. Again, those of you in the center, pay attention. Those on the Left have already decided that we should abandon our sovereignty. Unfortunately, most in Washington DC have decided that the voting base that illegal aliens could provide far outweighs anything that could be perceived as a national interest.
So, what do we do?
I am not against immigration or guest workers , etc., etc. I am against the free flow of pretty much anyone into this country. And, I believe that we must require US citizenship of anyone who wishes to come here for good. (I defer to Bill O'Reilly on the first point and Newt Gingrich on the second. Watch Bill's show and read Newt's most recent book, they spell it out as well as I can.) But how can we stop this?
First, we must get serious about closing and guarding the border. That is a simple fact. Politicians argue it, but they do not have the average citizen's best interest in mind. Regardless of party affiliation, they are worried about votes. Americans must clamor for this and it must become reality. If Mexican President Fox had his way, Mexico would basically become the 51st state and we would bail that country out of its financial and societal woes. I hate to say it, but we may have to fight an armed conflict to stop it if Americans don't wake up.
So, once we close the borders, then what. Well, we can use the old I-9 form to hold employers accountable for employing aliens. This won't stop "guest workers", the kind that George Bush insists are ok if they do the jobs that no other Americans will do (although, I am all for giving those jobs to welfare recipients). If we maintain control over student visas and the like and actually keep track of the coming, goings, and goings-on while in the United States of any non-citizens, then we have a chance to keep America safe.
So back to employers. If they employ an illegal, the employer will be fined $10,000 per worker, per incident. No negotiating. The illegal would not be incarcerated, but given a choice of getting into a proper program and receiving proper documentation or getting sent back to from where ever they came. Temporary workers could remain temporary. Someone who really wants to stay could get put on the path to legal citizenship. The only requirement for the illegal would be to check in periodically to a representative of INS to be sure they are doing as they have selected. It may sound like a visit to a parole officer, but that is too bad. Remember, they are illegal. They got caught as an illegal. We are being compassionate and giving them a choice as to what their legal status will be. That is not too much to ask.
So, now all of those in the food service industry and construction are freaking out. Again, too bad. We are assuming that we can close the borders and not have this dilemma. But the enforcement might just have to start prior to the slow down of the influx of these illegal aliens. BE PROACTIVE. You can fill out the I-9 and set up a potential employee who is not legal. My guess is that we could even find a tax credit for businesses that get on board. But remember, the penalty for having illegals in your business will be $10,000 each, period. It is designed to cripple your business if you are non-compliant. I am not for that crippling effect, unless you as a business owner are not with the program. Then, you too are breaking the law and there needs to be consequences to that. If we (pay attention DC) are serious about this problem, there are many ways that we can force change. We can require documentation and we can keep tabs on those documented "visitors". That will in no way prevent them from being here and the "system" as it is now would really not have to change. We just need to have everyone comply with laws that are already in place and we need enforcement of those laws. It can be done, and I am proof-positive of that.
Like pretty much any other issue in America, we need less (how about zero) political grandstanding and a serious debate, plan, and implementation of said plan. Believe it or not, like it or not, this is an issue that is serious and could be catastrophic if not addressed. We can use the "guest workers" in the best way possible. We can make strides towards eliminating those amongst us who might do us harm. We could accept immigrants the way the United States always has and eventually welcome them as proud naturalized citizens if they choose to become citizens. But we must be proactive. That must start somewhere. That somewhere is on our borders and in our places of business. We do not need wrong-headed politicians or misguided World organizations telling us what to do. We need to address the situation ourselves and be serious about doing so. No short-cuts or exceptions should be made. The future will likely depend on it.
Saturday, February 19, 2005
A fair tax system
Much is being made in politics and the media about the fiscal future of the Untied States of America. Depending on your political party or ideological leanings, you have even been "prepped" on what to believe. But what about those who are truly independent, middle of the road, or just (sadly) plain uniformed? I have news for you, the word "crisis" is for real, whether it is politically correct and expedient to mention so or not.
Without going into boring economic and accounting figures that no one really understands (and which are generally always slanted for a particular argument), I will say that if you do a little searching on the internet, you can find volumes of good analyses about Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the like. If you read what you believe to be non-political studies and research and are intellectually honest with yourself, you will come to a very simple conclusion: There is no way that the American taxpayer can or should be asked to pay the bills that our government has created in the last half century or so.
It is a basic fact that the entitlement programs that are in place will eventually cripple the economy of the United States. Again, do a bit of research and be intellectually honest about it. Each side postures and demagogues these issues relentlessly in an attempt to "secure votes" and win over other interest groups, etc. And if you go through a 2.5 TRILLION dollar lean budget, my guess is that every American can find a few items to cut.
We have a major problem here...regardless of political party, the government spends too much. They spend money that they do not have...OUR MONEY!
We can again debate the merits of all of these programs, what should be cut (more likely have increases reduced) and how wrong and evil one party or the other is "to the children". That has been regurgitated past nausea for me, however. BUT, I have come up with a fair solution for everyone. It won't cripple any particular group of taxpayers, won't unfairly award others, and could provide for the entitlements and give-aways that politicians so love, fairly...remember, we are being intellectually honest.
We need to reform the tax system and it needs to be a serious reform. I am not sure of what we would go to, but I feel a flat-tax income tax is the best and it serves my proposal better. Everyone pay, say 15% income tax. We can set up a reasonable poverty level and exempt certain people to be sure. However, we would likely need to guard against fraud in that area, but it is possible. So, we have a flat tax system which would be policed by a lean Internal Revenue Service to catch people who are somehow cheating the system in reporting actual income. That standard could be set similar to how it is done now, where high paid CEO's etc. can't claim artificially low income but have to be in the realm of a "market average". Plus, contractual deferments could be factored in by the IRS (much like the NFL salary cap) so the "the rich" couldn't defer enormous amounts of money to get out of paying taxes (does Teresa Heinz come to mind?). I realize that you may think this is far-fetched, but there are much greater minds who devote themselves to tax reform out there and they have it figured out...trust me.
So what "new" do I have to say? After developing a fair flat income-tax...make extra taxation voluntary.
WHAT?!
We have developed into an entitlement nation. No one looks out for themselves but expects someone to do it for them. Perhaps that someone is the union or another group. But, it is generally the good ol' US Government which is really "We the Taxpayer". So, make extra tax paying voluntary. You make $475k a year and pay your roughly $71k in taxes, but you are truly worried about the baby boomers...drop an extra $25k into voluntary tax and specify the Social Security fund for your extra donation. I would think that the Hollywood types could really get behind this. We could take care of everyone and they could be seen in all of their star-studded glory giving extra and could then use their bully pulpit to tell everyone how great they are. (Research the estimated $50 million that Michael Moore made from FarenHype 9/11. How about a few bucks for the poor people of Michigan, Mike?) But would they really give? A US Senator or Representative could solicit those special handouts he needs for his constituents by convincing a colleague and that colleague's constituency that they should give extra to fund this much needed program to help his people. Not to bash the Terminator, but didn't he just go make this case in Washington DC a week ago? Arnold wants a proportionate amount of what is paid by Californians to go back to California. Well, shy of not paying the tax to the feds to begin with, perhaps a better way of getting this money would be to tap the better-than-well-off's on the Left coast to give that extra to help their own. I know what you're thinking. First, this smacks of "charity" and not a fair tax system. Second, it almost could lead to a return of State's rights (God forbid!) when it comes to governance in this country. What is a true, patriotic believer in limited government to do?
Now, what about the "poor people" and the underprivileged areas? What about them? The true socialists, excuse me, progressives in this country can rally for any cause that they want...remember, it is voluntary. Think tsunami relief concert, all day, every day. What could be better than that!
This is about being fair, promoting the will to be successful (read: make more money), and the eventual consequences that an expanding tax base could provide. It is also about the tax and spenders in this country taking their hands out of the wallets of those they represent and finding real, affordable solutions. And lastly, it is about ending the socialistic process of redistribution of wealth in this country and making those who put up (with our money) shut up and do something real to fix a problem. It is really that simple. Perhaps everyone should write to their elected representatives on all levels and suggest that they think about this, and be intellectually honest as they do so.
Without going into boring economic and accounting figures that no one really understands (and which are generally always slanted for a particular argument), I will say that if you do a little searching on the internet, you can find volumes of good analyses about Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the like. If you read what you believe to be non-political studies and research and are intellectually honest with yourself, you will come to a very simple conclusion: There is no way that the American taxpayer can or should be asked to pay the bills that our government has created in the last half century or so.
It is a basic fact that the entitlement programs that are in place will eventually cripple the economy of the United States. Again, do a bit of research and be intellectually honest about it. Each side postures and demagogues these issues relentlessly in an attempt to "secure votes" and win over other interest groups, etc. And if you go through a 2.5 TRILLION dollar lean budget, my guess is that every American can find a few items to cut.
We have a major problem here...regardless of political party, the government spends too much. They spend money that they do not have...OUR MONEY!
We can again debate the merits of all of these programs, what should be cut (more likely have increases reduced) and how wrong and evil one party or the other is "to the children". That has been regurgitated past nausea for me, however. BUT, I have come up with a fair solution for everyone. It won't cripple any particular group of taxpayers, won't unfairly award others, and could provide for the entitlements and give-aways that politicians so love, fairly...remember, we are being intellectually honest.
We need to reform the tax system and it needs to be a serious reform. I am not sure of what we would go to, but I feel a flat-tax income tax is the best and it serves my proposal better. Everyone pay, say 15% income tax. We can set up a reasonable poverty level and exempt certain people to be sure. However, we would likely need to guard against fraud in that area, but it is possible. So, we have a flat tax system which would be policed by a lean Internal Revenue Service to catch people who are somehow cheating the system in reporting actual income. That standard could be set similar to how it is done now, where high paid CEO's etc. can't claim artificially low income but have to be in the realm of a "market average". Plus, contractual deferments could be factored in by the IRS (much like the NFL salary cap) so the "the rich" couldn't defer enormous amounts of money to get out of paying taxes (does Teresa Heinz come to mind?). I realize that you may think this is far-fetched, but there are much greater minds who devote themselves to tax reform out there and they have it figured out...trust me.
So what "new" do I have to say? After developing a fair flat income-tax...make extra taxation voluntary.
WHAT?!
We have developed into an entitlement nation. No one looks out for themselves but expects someone to do it for them. Perhaps that someone is the union or another group. But, it is generally the good ol' US Government which is really "We the Taxpayer". So, make extra tax paying voluntary. You make $475k a year and pay your roughly $71k in taxes, but you are truly worried about the baby boomers...drop an extra $25k into voluntary tax and specify the Social Security fund for your extra donation. I would think that the Hollywood types could really get behind this. We could take care of everyone and they could be seen in all of their star-studded glory giving extra and could then use their bully pulpit to tell everyone how great they are. (Research the estimated $50 million that Michael Moore made from FarenHype 9/11. How about a few bucks for the poor people of Michigan, Mike?) But would they really give? A US Senator or Representative could solicit those special handouts he needs for his constituents by convincing a colleague and that colleague's constituency that they should give extra to fund this much needed program to help his people. Not to bash the Terminator, but didn't he just go make this case in Washington DC a week ago? Arnold wants a proportionate amount of what is paid by Californians to go back to California. Well, shy of not paying the tax to the feds to begin with, perhaps a better way of getting this money would be to tap the better-than-well-off's on the Left coast to give that extra to help their own. I know what you're thinking. First, this smacks of "charity" and not a fair tax system. Second, it almost could lead to a return of State's rights (God forbid!) when it comes to governance in this country. What is a true, patriotic believer in limited government to do?
Now, what about the "poor people" and the underprivileged areas? What about them? The true socialists, excuse me, progressives in this country can rally for any cause that they want...remember, it is voluntary. Think tsunami relief concert, all day, every day. What could be better than that!
This is about being fair, promoting the will to be successful (read: make more money), and the eventual consequences that an expanding tax base could provide. It is also about the tax and spenders in this country taking their hands out of the wallets of those they represent and finding real, affordable solutions. And lastly, it is about ending the socialistic process of redistribution of wealth in this country and making those who put up (with our money) shut up and do something real to fix a problem. It is really that simple. Perhaps everyone should write to their elected representatives on all levels and suggest that they think about this, and be intellectually honest as they do so.
Saturday, January 15, 2005
When Atheists Attack
Is anyone else sick of Michael Newdow? I mean, come on! Does this guy have nothing else to do with his free time?
As I have written before regarding Christmas, I am shocked at the outrage that the leftists and secularists have over religious references in the public sector. Mind you, I would not likely be called the most religious guy in the crowd. However, in that regard, I am all for the freedoms granted to us by the Constitution. I am a huge proponent of the Second Amendment, given its ability in protecting an individual from danger and oppression and its support and bolstering of the rest of the Bill of Rights. More on that later.
My issue with Michael Newdow is his endless and tired ranting over being an atheist and how a reference to God imposes on him in some manner. By definition, an atheist denies the existence of God. So, what the hell is this guy's issue? He is pissed about something that (in his mind) does not exist? Maybe he can file a lawsuit to remove the Easter Bunny from shopping malls in a few weeks. That would be about as productive.
My point is quite simple. This guy can think and say whatever he wants, but isn't he really imposing his will on everyone else in the process? I must admit that he is a smart guy, seems to know the issue, and tries to make a compelling argument. But, he is an atheist! To me, that is where his case falls apart. If he actually had a religious belief, perhaps he could make a more compelling case. Michael, worship trees or something, but quit with the rant when your self-described "religious belief" is to deny the very existence of a deity. Are you going to argue that the moon is made of green cheese next?
I am in favor of individual freedom. I am against wasting taxpayer money on crap like this. And the publicity that this guy gets. I respect his position, but why give him the platform? And if he gets the platform, why even have a debate with him? Why doesn't a TV pundit just say, "I respect your right to believe as you do, however, I think that you are wasting everyone's time and resources and I also think you are a whiny, full of shit little baby"? Is that so hard?
If a President believes in God, then I damn well want him to put his hand on a Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution in the name of the God he believes in. It comforts me that a leader may answer to a higher order. If the ceremony throws a prayer or two in there, that is fine as well. As a free individual, I can sort through the content of any event and ignore what I don't like. Do I feel that this is establishing a religion? No. To me, it is the free exercise thereof. Is the United States suddenly evil because of this? Apparently to Mike it is, and that is his choice. God bless him for that. But please, do not force the "establishment clause" argument on me. I have yet to be forced to believe in anything, nor has anyone else. And if you deny the very existence of the Deity that you are questioning, then what is the argument all about?
My advice for Michael, buy a set of golf clubs. There is nothing quite so frustrating and challenging as chasing a little white ball around someone else's yard on your day off.
As I have written before regarding Christmas, I am shocked at the outrage that the leftists and secularists have over religious references in the public sector. Mind you, I would not likely be called the most religious guy in the crowd. However, in that regard, I am all for the freedoms granted to us by the Constitution. I am a huge proponent of the Second Amendment, given its ability in protecting an individual from danger and oppression and its support and bolstering of the rest of the Bill of Rights. More on that later.
My issue with Michael Newdow is his endless and tired ranting over being an atheist and how a reference to God imposes on him in some manner. By definition, an atheist denies the existence of God. So, what the hell is this guy's issue? He is pissed about something that (in his mind) does not exist? Maybe he can file a lawsuit to remove the Easter Bunny from shopping malls in a few weeks. That would be about as productive.
My point is quite simple. This guy can think and say whatever he wants, but isn't he really imposing his will on everyone else in the process? I must admit that he is a smart guy, seems to know the issue, and tries to make a compelling argument. But, he is an atheist! To me, that is where his case falls apart. If he actually had a religious belief, perhaps he could make a more compelling case. Michael, worship trees or something, but quit with the rant when your self-described "religious belief" is to deny the very existence of a deity. Are you going to argue that the moon is made of green cheese next?
I am in favor of individual freedom. I am against wasting taxpayer money on crap like this. And the publicity that this guy gets. I respect his position, but why give him the platform? And if he gets the platform, why even have a debate with him? Why doesn't a TV pundit just say, "I respect your right to believe as you do, however, I think that you are wasting everyone's time and resources and I also think you are a whiny, full of shit little baby"? Is that so hard?
If a President believes in God, then I damn well want him to put his hand on a Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution in the name of the God he believes in. It comforts me that a leader may answer to a higher order. If the ceremony throws a prayer or two in there, that is fine as well. As a free individual, I can sort through the content of any event and ignore what I don't like. Do I feel that this is establishing a religion? No. To me, it is the free exercise thereof. Is the United States suddenly evil because of this? Apparently to Mike it is, and that is his choice. God bless him for that. But please, do not force the "establishment clause" argument on me. I have yet to be forced to believe in anything, nor has anyone else. And if you deny the very existence of the Deity that you are questioning, then what is the argument all about?
My advice for Michael, buy a set of golf clubs. There is nothing quite so frustrating and challenging as chasing a little white ball around someone else's yard on your day off.
Sunday, January 09, 2005
Exit Polls and Protests
Maxine Waters questioning the "blackness" of Ken Blackwell. Stephanie Tubbs-Jones piling on. Barbara Boxer crying. And the endless debate over the exit polls...when is enough enough? Can't the Left admit that Bush won?
Here is my very quick, yet well thought out take on the situation. Bush got more votes and won more Electoral College votes, thus he remains the President of the United States of America. Simple.
But wait, the polling data suggest....
This is the simple "solution/resolution" to the whole thing, the exit poll data, the recount, Ohio's "contested" election results, et. al. The Democrats and Lefties amongst us want to undo this in any manner possible. One of the greatest "claims" was something I heard regarding Ohio (but I am sure it was claimed elsewhere) regarding voter "irregularity". It was a claim that Democrats won in various [likely highly Democratic] precincts and yet Bush won presidential votes in many of the same precincts, etc., etc., you get the picture. My response...did anyone EVER consider the fact that there may have been quite a few Democrats who otherwise voted right down party lines, but voted for George W. Bush? Is the notion that farfetched?
Without going into a rant on how horrible John Kerry really is, why his Vietnam "service" was a sham (and a horrible campaign issue), and the reasons that many Democrats might just have liked Bush more, I just want everyone to consider that many Democrats probably voted their conscience and pulled the lever with one Republican name amongst all those Democratic names. Hell, maybe they even lied to the exit pollsters! Let's face it, both camps wanted to win their base. I am certain Kerry won the real whackos (i.e., Hollywood, the otherwise talented rock stars who think they know more than you do, and the elites in the media). But did he truly win the rank and file of the Democratic party? The unions? The African American vote? My answer is, debate as you wish, apparently he did not. Perhaps Oliver Stone and Michael Moore can team up on a blockbuster film on this one. [Let it be know that if they do, I have written the thought here, so I will definitely sue them if they pull it off and make tons of money.]
My thought is this: the 'anyone but Bush' crowd failed [miserably] and the electoral process did its job. Amid the reports of long lines, "voter intimidation", and "irregularities", our process prevailed. But since the fiasco of 2000, every "activist" feels the need to question every aspect of the process, especially when they don't get their way [again]. The darling of the left, Bill Clinton, said it best when he noted that everyone should "quit whining." [Was that the exact quote? Regardless.]
So Maxine and Stephanie, shut up. Ken is as black as you will ever be and likely more successful. Barbara, dry your tears. Jesse Jackson, those who represent the Kerry campaign [lawyers], and all of those who feel they got shafted, do what you claim to be all about...BE TOLERANT. And for God's sake, quit whining. Your emotional display over your loss [of power] is making me sick. The results are in and they are official. The red states prevailed and the country has spoken. Do us all a favor and think before you speak (or cry) and perhaps consider what the electorate is saying. It may be the most provocative thinking you've ever done.
Here is my very quick, yet well thought out take on the situation. Bush got more votes and won more Electoral College votes, thus he remains the President of the United States of America. Simple.
But wait, the polling data suggest....
This is the simple "solution/resolution" to the whole thing, the exit poll data, the recount, Ohio's "contested" election results, et. al. The Democrats and Lefties amongst us want to undo this in any manner possible. One of the greatest "claims" was something I heard regarding Ohio (but I am sure it was claimed elsewhere) regarding voter "irregularity". It was a claim that Democrats won in various [likely highly Democratic] precincts and yet Bush won presidential votes in many of the same precincts, etc., etc., you get the picture. My response...did anyone EVER consider the fact that there may have been quite a few Democrats who otherwise voted right down party lines, but voted for George W. Bush? Is the notion that farfetched?
Without going into a rant on how horrible John Kerry really is, why his Vietnam "service" was a sham (and a horrible campaign issue), and the reasons that many Democrats might just have liked Bush more, I just want everyone to consider that many Democrats probably voted their conscience and pulled the lever with one Republican name amongst all those Democratic names. Hell, maybe they even lied to the exit pollsters! Let's face it, both camps wanted to win their base. I am certain Kerry won the real whackos (i.e., Hollywood, the otherwise talented rock stars who think they know more than you do, and the elites in the media). But did he truly win the rank and file of the Democratic party? The unions? The African American vote? My answer is, debate as you wish, apparently he did not. Perhaps Oliver Stone and Michael Moore can team up on a blockbuster film on this one. [Let it be know that if they do, I have written the thought here, so I will definitely sue them if they pull it off and make tons of money.]
My thought is this: the 'anyone but Bush' crowd failed [miserably] and the electoral process did its job. Amid the reports of long lines, "voter intimidation", and "irregularities", our process prevailed. But since the fiasco of 2000, every "activist" feels the need to question every aspect of the process, especially when they don't get their way [again]. The darling of the left, Bill Clinton, said it best when he noted that everyone should "quit whining." [Was that the exact quote? Regardless.]
So Maxine and Stephanie, shut up. Ken is as black as you will ever be and likely more successful. Barbara, dry your tears. Jesse Jackson, those who represent the Kerry campaign [lawyers], and all of those who feel they got shafted, do what you claim to be all about...BE TOLERANT. And for God's sake, quit whining. Your emotional display over your loss [of power] is making me sick. The results are in and they are official. The red states prevailed and the country has spoken. Do us all a favor and think before you speak (or cry) and perhaps consider what the electorate is saying. It may be the most provocative thinking you've ever done.
Friday, January 07, 2005
Random Thoughts
Just some random thoughts, politically speaking.
Alberto Gonzalez...the Lefties want to make an issue over the "Torture Memos" and act like it is a big deal. I have two issues with that. First, the "tortured" are not protected under the Geneva Convention based on the definition of who IS protected. An enemy combatant in uniform, etc. who is a conscript for a foreign government is accorded protection. I'm sorry but terrorists are not...save the insurgent speak. Second, who cares if these "detainees" get some "special" interrogation techniques applied to them? Their comrades flew planes into buildings in our country and killed innocents, non-conscripts...or were they "insurgents"?
What is it with the post-war Iraq debate? I will admit that it may not appear to be going smoothly. But, I have a suggestion; read "American Soldier" by General Tommy Franks. He admits the "novelty" of his approach to the war. Also, he admits that Phase IV, the post-war phase, would be long and difficult. We (especially the dissenters among us) should stop being Monday morning quarterbacks and get behind the Iraqi democratic process...and stand firm in the face of the "insurgents". By the way, the Epilogue of the book is right on the mark. The guy has some insight, for sure.
Why did George W. Bush turn the tsunami relief effort over to the UN? I won't go into how corrupt and politically bankrupt that organization is. That is for later. But why give the UN the fanfare? Granted, GW likely doesn't really want the fanfare because he really doesn't want the blame for anything that may go wrong. After all, this disaster was a natural act, an act of God if you will. And GW does believe in God, so the potential for it all being his fault is huge. Still, I think we should leave (or keep) the UN at bay. Maybe then we could just get rid of it.
PS. The UN complex in NYC would make great condos.
Back to Iraq...why go after Donald Rumsfeld? Like him or not, that guy can run an organization. The DC insiders hate him. I don't work for him, so I can say I like him. He seems like a "tell it like it is, no bullshit" kind of guy. What is wrong with that? Maybe he can be the next AD at the Ohio State University...yes, I am a Buckeyes fan.
The push is on for "reform"...social security reform, tax reform. Will it really happen? If it does in a manner that is not just political window dressing, but real reform, get ready to "live long and prosper."
Just random thoughts. Tell me what you think. More next time.
Alberto Gonzalez...the Lefties want to make an issue over the "Torture Memos" and act like it is a big deal. I have two issues with that. First, the "tortured" are not protected under the Geneva Convention based on the definition of who IS protected. An enemy combatant in uniform, etc. who is a conscript for a foreign government is accorded protection. I'm sorry but terrorists are not...save the insurgent speak. Second, who cares if these "detainees" get some "special" interrogation techniques applied to them? Their comrades flew planes into buildings in our country and killed innocents, non-conscripts...or were they "insurgents"?
What is it with the post-war Iraq debate? I will admit that it may not appear to be going smoothly. But, I have a suggestion; read "American Soldier" by General Tommy Franks. He admits the "novelty" of his approach to the war. Also, he admits that Phase IV, the post-war phase, would be long and difficult. We (especially the dissenters among us) should stop being Monday morning quarterbacks and get behind the Iraqi democratic process...and stand firm in the face of the "insurgents". By the way, the Epilogue of the book is right on the mark. The guy has some insight, for sure.
Why did George W. Bush turn the tsunami relief effort over to the UN? I won't go into how corrupt and politically bankrupt that organization is. That is for later. But why give the UN the fanfare? Granted, GW likely doesn't really want the fanfare because he really doesn't want the blame for anything that may go wrong. After all, this disaster was a natural act, an act of God if you will. And GW does believe in God, so the potential for it all being his fault is huge. Still, I think we should leave (or keep) the UN at bay. Maybe then we could just get rid of it.
PS. The UN complex in NYC would make great condos.
Back to Iraq...why go after Donald Rumsfeld? Like him or not, that guy can run an organization. The DC insiders hate him. I don't work for him, so I can say I like him. He seems like a "tell it like it is, no bullshit" kind of guy. What is wrong with that? Maybe he can be the next AD at the Ohio State University...yes, I am a Buckeyes fan.
The push is on for "reform"...social security reform, tax reform. Will it really happen? If it does in a manner that is not just political window dressing, but real reform, get ready to "live long and prosper."
Just random thoughts. Tell me what you think. More next time.
Saturday, December 25, 2004
Merry Christmas
Merry Christmas. Is that really offensive? Is it offensive to someone who is not a Christian? Is an atheist, who does not believe in the existence of a God really offended by 'Merry Christmas'? Why do we have this debate and why is it more and more pervasive every year at this time? We ban any and all references to Christmas in the name of "separation of church and state", yet in some areas of the public sector (public schools), we are 'teaching' tolerance of other views. What is your 'right' in this country?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." -Article One of the Bill of Rights.
To me, the concept is not too difficult. The government of the United States of America cannot sanction any specific religion and force its citizens to worship according to the beliefs of that religion. Fair enough. BUT, the government also cannot prevent its citizens from worshipping as they desire. Where does it say worship cannot take place in the public square? If we are truly free, that is exactly where we should be able to worship.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." -Article One of the Bill of Rights.
To me, the concept is not too difficult. The government of the United States of America cannot sanction any specific religion and force its citizens to worship according to the beliefs of that religion. Fair enough. BUT, the government also cannot prevent its citizens from worshipping as they desire. Where does it say worship cannot take place in the public square? If we are truly free, that is exactly where we should be able to worship.
"Separation of church and state" seems to be a made up philosophy to advance a secularist agenda. That is not my subject of debate, however. My question is, why can't secularists (read: the liberal left) not be tolerant as they claim? I am Christian, but perhaps not as good (and practicing) as you would think given my blog name. I am not for advancing any religious agenda, but perhaps I am for advancing all religions. I want freedom, the freedom that is guaranteed in the Constitution. And I believe that freedom must be displayed anywhere an individual chooses. Religious symbols in the public arena do not bother me. Pretending that any mention of religion in a courthouse, public school, or on a [publicly funded] city bus is somehow "unconstitutional" does bother me. Our country was founded on a principle of freedom. We need to be allowed to express that freedom. Persecution by prohibition is as bad as persecution for holding the "wrong" belief. Prohibition rarely works. It never works (nor should be attempted) in a "free" society.
My hope is that one day, all Americans will be truly tolerant and allow any and all expressions of faith during the Holiday season. Perhaps even embrace a view different from their own, not to be converted, but to be truly tolerant. More importantly, however, to be truly free.
In closing, I want to say Merry Christmas and Thank You to the men and women of the United States Armed Forces who are deployed throughout the world. You're sacrifices are the greatest gifts of all, because they give us freedom.
Merry Christmas to all.
Wednesday, December 22, 2004
Welcome
I am new to blogging but thought that I would give it a try. I am very conservative (obviously) and wish to use this as a forum for my political thoughts. I am a [generally] very busy professional, so I may be a bit slow in initial postings, but fear not, I will find something to say as often as I can...my girlfriend says I never shut up and she gets sick of my rants (HA-HA), so this will be my forum.
Welcome!
Welcome!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
