December 4, 2012
The Death of Common Sense
I was shown this today in response to a post on Google Plus. I found it quite apropos, and so decided to share it here.
Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape.
He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as:
Knowing when to come in out of the rain;
Why the early bird gets the worm;
Life isn't always fair,
and maybe it was my fault.
Common sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don’t spend more than you can earn) and reliable strategies (adults are in charge not children).
His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of an 8 year old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate, teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch, and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.
Common sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly children. It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer sun lotion or an aspirin to a student, but could not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.
Common sense lost the will to live as the churches became businesses, and criminals received better treatment than their victims.
Common sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.
Common sense finally gave up the will to live, after a women failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.
Common sense was preceded in death, by
His parents, truth and trust
His wife, discretion
His daughter, Responsibility
His son, reason.
He is survived by his 4 stepbrothers
I know my rights
I want my rights
I want it now
I’m a victim.
Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone.
Always Remember - Pearl Harbor Day
On December 7th, 1941 the United States was attacked without provocation by an amassed Japanese Naval Air Force at Pearl Harbor, Oahu, Hawaii. The Japanese had spent the majority of that year, and the previous, rampaging through the Western Pacific in an onslaught of war fueled by their tenuous alliance with Germany and other Axis Powers during what became known as World War II.
The United States had very little warning of the attack. There are conspiracy theories about the lack of preparedness for those who were in Pearl Harbor at the time of the attack, and why the carrier fleet was at sea at the time when, realistically, every one of the carriers should have been moored at home port. The fact remains, though, that the military and civilian population of Oahu was left unaware of the coming battle. And battle they did. Japan didn't decimate the fleet of ships that remained in port that December morning without paying a significant toll in lives and equipment. Although the US Military lost over 2400 men along with 35 civilians that morning, the Japanese force suffered 64 casualties, and for their efforts were rewarded with having woken the sleeping giant that was the full force and unity of the United States. As war ravaged Europe and the Pacific the US population overwhelmingly supported entering the war, as many of our population held close ties to families left behind in the countries that were being torn asunder by Axis aggression. It was no secret that the war was going very badly for the Allies in Europe, and Japan was not meeting any credible resistance to their onslaught in Asia. Without a turn in the tides it was apparent the war would end with Axis Powers being the victor, and Nazi Socialism ruling in Europe and Japanese Imperialism ruling in Asia.
President Franklin Roosevelt, the following day, declared war on Japan and Germany in a speech, declaring that December 7th was "...a date which will live in infamy.", and that the "American people, in their righteous might, will win through to absolute victory."
Today, it is suggested that all Americans join Federal and State official offices throughout the World in displaying the American Flag on their homes in a show of solidarity with those who perished at Pearl Harbor in 1941, along with all others who gave their lives to protect Freedom, Liberty, and the World from the Tyranny that would have certainly overrun all opposition should our resolve have been less than necessary to meet the task.
There will be a remembrance ceremony attended by Pearl Harbor Survivors at Coast Guard Base Alameda, CA on 07DEC12 at 0900.
The United States had very little warning of the attack. There are conspiracy theories about the lack of preparedness for those who were in Pearl Harbor at the time of the attack, and why the carrier fleet was at sea at the time when, realistically, every one of the carriers should have been moored at home port. The fact remains, though, that the military and civilian population of Oahu was left unaware of the coming battle. And battle they did. Japan didn't decimate the fleet of ships that remained in port that December morning without paying a significant toll in lives and equipment. Although the US Military lost over 2400 men along with 35 civilians that morning, the Japanese force suffered 64 casualties, and for their efforts were rewarded with having woken the sleeping giant that was the full force and unity of the United States. As war ravaged Europe and the Pacific the US population overwhelmingly supported entering the war, as many of our population held close ties to families left behind in the countries that were being torn asunder by Axis aggression. It was no secret that the war was going very badly for the Allies in Europe, and Japan was not meeting any credible resistance to their onslaught in Asia. Without a turn in the tides it was apparent the war would end with Axis Powers being the victor, and Nazi Socialism ruling in Europe and Japanese Imperialism ruling in Asia.
President Franklin Roosevelt, the following day, declared war on Japan and Germany in a speech, declaring that December 7th was "...a date which will live in infamy.", and that the "American people, in their righteous might, will win through to absolute victory."
Today, it is suggested that all Americans join Federal and State official offices throughout the World in displaying the American Flag on their homes in a show of solidarity with those who perished at Pearl Harbor in 1941, along with all others who gave their lives to protect Freedom, Liberty, and the World from the Tyranny that would have certainly overrun all opposition should our resolve have been less than necessary to meet the task.
There will be a remembrance ceremony attended by Pearl Harbor Survivors at Coast Guard Base Alameda, CA on 07DEC12 at 0900.
December 3, 2012
I've been over a Cliff. It wasn't fun. We're nearing another. Do we go over?
When I was very young, around 5 or 6 years old, my brother and I were left alone in a 1980 Chevette at the top of a driveway. The driveway faced away from an unprotected cliff; one could walk right up to the edge and see down every inch of the 75 foot drop to the parking lot below.
My brother, wanting to play race car driver (in a Chevette? Really?), jumped into the driver's seat, while I sat in the hatch back, one of my favorite places to sit while being driven around. It was quite a different time than we're in now.
My brother had managed to knock the car out of gear, and we started rolling backward toward the cliff. I was the first to realize what was going on, but unfortunately I was also privy to front row seating to what may very well have been the end of the world for my brother and I.
So, it turns out, our worlds didn't end. My brother and I survived what looked like almost certain death with very little injury at all. I've some scars, my brother's one scar healed and disappeared over the years, and neither one of us remembers the event.
Now I hear there's another cliff approaching, and it makes me wonder if we're in all that much trouble, seeing as how I've been over one before. Having experienced danger and survived nearly unscathed often makes one braver in the face of the same danger, but also more wary. There's a lot of talk of a cliff in the news these days, and I, for one, am very wary of what's coming.
The United States, in its rise through its Industrial Revolution, two World Wars and several other scarring events, including the indelible marks of terror in Oklahoma City and on 9-11, has weathered every one of these events with courage and resolute dignity. It may be that we're unable to see the danger associated with our present condition due to our ability to withstand our past tragedies, but, based on what I'm reading and hearing from those who take our Nation's fiscal condition very seriously, we will not be able to weather this "Fiscal Cliff" and continue to be the United States we've known.
There are two directions being discussed to address our Nation's fiscal condition, but neither one of them actually addresses the problem. As a doctor will treat the cause of the symptoms instead of simply medicating away the symptoms, so must Congress and the President address the cause of our fiscal destruction instead of simply salving the symptoms. Our Nation can ill afford to continue failing to meet its obligations in a way that doesn't expose our citizens to the irresponsibility of passed Congressional malfeasance.
We've spent our way into a sealed tomb. While the "Full Faith and Credit of the United States Government" still means something, we need to cauterize the wound that bleeds our Nation out, address how to pay for our previous largess, and bind our Nation's financial future to a balanced budget that will only allow for borrowing in times of dire need, instead of using borrowing to fund the majority of our Federal Government's activities, many of which are not legitimate in terms of our spending is concerned.
Until we do something about our Government's insatiable appetite for our money, present and future, borrowed and otherwise, there will be no way to back away from the "Fiscal Cliff". There will be no way to build a bridge far enough to get us over the chasm, and there will be no way to keep us from seeing the suicide of the greatest experiment in self governance humanity has ever known. Our founders knew this day would come, and they told us as such during the Nation's founding. Why have we failed to heed their warnings?
A better question... How much longer will we be allowed to ignore their warnings before things are so far gone we're not able to recover?
My brother, wanting to play race car driver (in a Chevette? Really?), jumped into the driver's seat, while I sat in the hatch back, one of my favorite places to sit while being driven around. It was quite a different time than we're in now.
My brother had managed to knock the car out of gear, and we started rolling backward toward the cliff. I was the first to realize what was going on, but unfortunately I was also privy to front row seating to what may very well have been the end of the world for my brother and I.
So, it turns out, our worlds didn't end. My brother and I survived what looked like almost certain death with very little injury at all. I've some scars, my brother's one scar healed and disappeared over the years, and neither one of us remembers the event.
Now I hear there's another cliff approaching, and it makes me wonder if we're in all that much trouble, seeing as how I've been over one before. Having experienced danger and survived nearly unscathed often makes one braver in the face of the same danger, but also more wary. There's a lot of talk of a cliff in the news these days, and I, for one, am very wary of what's coming.
The United States, in its rise through its Industrial Revolution, two World Wars and several other scarring events, including the indelible marks of terror in Oklahoma City and on 9-11, has weathered every one of these events with courage and resolute dignity. It may be that we're unable to see the danger associated with our present condition due to our ability to withstand our past tragedies, but, based on what I'm reading and hearing from those who take our Nation's fiscal condition very seriously, we will not be able to weather this "Fiscal Cliff" and continue to be the United States we've known.
There are two directions being discussed to address our Nation's fiscal condition, but neither one of them actually addresses the problem. As a doctor will treat the cause of the symptoms instead of simply medicating away the symptoms, so must Congress and the President address the cause of our fiscal destruction instead of simply salving the symptoms. Our Nation can ill afford to continue failing to meet its obligations in a way that doesn't expose our citizens to the irresponsibility of passed Congressional malfeasance.
We've spent our way into a sealed tomb. While the "Full Faith and Credit of the United States Government" still means something, we need to cauterize the wound that bleeds our Nation out, address how to pay for our previous largess, and bind our Nation's financial future to a balanced budget that will only allow for borrowing in times of dire need, instead of using borrowing to fund the majority of our Federal Government's activities, many of which are not legitimate in terms of our spending is concerned.
Until we do something about our Government's insatiable appetite for our money, present and future, borrowed and otherwise, there will be no way to back away from the "Fiscal Cliff". There will be no way to build a bridge far enough to get us over the chasm, and there will be no way to keep us from seeing the suicide of the greatest experiment in self governance humanity has ever known. Our founders knew this day would come, and they told us as such during the Nation's founding. Why have we failed to heed their warnings?
A better question... How much longer will we be allowed to ignore their warnings before things are so far gone we're not able to recover?
November 30, 2012
1st Amendment - State Sponsored versus Individually Sponsored
I read something this morning that started a fire in my brain, and now I want to see if it starts a fire in yours.
According to a Fox News article, a North Carolina school compelled a young girl to remove religious references from a poem she wrote about her two grandfathers and their Vietnam War experiences during a Veteran's Day presentation at her school. According to the report, the principal at the West Marion Elementary School was asked to review the appropriateness of the religious references in the poem being performed at a school sponsored function, as it may violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution. The school agreed with the grievance and the girl was ordered to alter the poem.
What bothers me isn't the school's knee-jerk reaction. That's typical, and I recognize it in two parts: 1) a coward's response to a public that believes they have the right to not be offended, and have been proven correct through successful litigation, 2) a school's reaction to the first response and deciding that to "err on the side of caution", as the principal puts it, saves them from having to defend themselves against a costly lawsuit that the plaintiff will invariably not have to fund due to the slavering vociferousness of the ACLU's desire to destroy any form of public religious expression. What bothers me is that we, as a society, continue to mistakenly apply the First Amendment to institutions to which it is not applicable as a means of restricting Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion.
Below, the full text of the First Amendment; we're going to break this down, and then I'm going to point you at a a dissenting viewpoint that, unfortunately, due to legal precedent happens to be the way the First Amendment is applied.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Phraseology; we're going to take this a piece at a time. First clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"
Seems simple enough, right? This is also the basis for the "Establishment Clause". So lets get into this.
The Amendment specifically states that Congress shall make no law... Congress is the Legislative Branch of the Federal Government, and thus an amendment to the Constitution was created by our Founders to limit the Federal Government's ability to create laws that establish or recognize any religion as a religion preferred by the State. There is nothing in this Clause that expressly prohibits lower entities under the Government, or public entities not associated with the Federal Government from displaying icons of a religious nature publicly, and doesn't protect the citizenry from the expression of religion in public by anyone, regardless of affiliation with the Government. Put simply, extrapolating from this first part of the Amendment that the Federal Government shall, in pursuit of compliance with the Amendment in whole, expunge all religious references from public display, or display by public representation at any level, is reaching too far for the apple. As a school is not capable of legislating, a school's allowing for a child to reference God, Allah, Thor, or whatever other deity they choose to while reading a poem they, themselves, wrote is protected by the remainder of the Amendment.
"...or (make no law...) prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" refers again to the limits on Congress concerning the creating of laws limiting freedom of religion. Since its been argued successfully, and to our detriment, that a publicly funded entity should be held to higher restraints concerning religious display, regardless of its legislative powers, one could also conversely argue that since the school, in this case, would violate the Establishment Clause by allowing for the poem to be read as written, that they would also violate the Freedom Exercise Clause by prohibiting the child's poem to be read. This circular reference paradox is directly caused by the misapplication of judicial precedent regarding the Establishment Clause and its applicability to lower governmental bodies with no legislative powers. A school is not Congress, just as much as a city community center, lets say, in Santa Monica, CA, isn't Congress. The Establishment Clause applies only to Congress.
"...or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;" This is pretty self explanatory, but we still manage to get it wrong. There are those who feel that since words can hurt we must prevent this pain by preventing the unfettered use of language to express an individual. I'm not talking about libel or yelling fire in a crowded building. I'm talking about political correctness and the overbearing need to force people to not offend others. You're no more protected by the First Amendment from being offended than the school is obligated to wipe religion out of that little girls poem. For some reason, though, we've created an industry around litigation centered on the protection of the feelings of people from the expression of others. This seems to only apply to religious types, or Conservatives, though. No one has, to my knowledge, suggested we bind Louie CK's lips shut for calling Sarah Palin the vile things he has; at least, no one has and received face in the media for having done so. Unless you are exposed to what CK has said on the radio, in his act, and on TV, you'd not know, and therefore not be offended. The same can be said for any other type of expression, say, Mark Levin or Rush Limbaugh, for instance. If what they say doesn't sit well with you, change the channel, but don't go crying to the Government to forcibly "change the channel" for the entire population. That is not your place, and the changing of the channel is not the Government's place, as indicated by this Clause.
"...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." This seems pretty self explanatory as well. Congress shall not legislate away the right to peaceably assemble, protest publicly, or petition for the redress of grievances against the Government. Since this isn't part of the topic at hand, I'm not going to delve too deep into this, except to say that while Occupy Wall Street started out as a peaceable protest movement, it quickly spun out of control, as most mob mentality movements will. Once the peace was disturbed by the mob the protest movement gave up its right to assemble. If a citizen was part of the mob and arrested for defecating on a police vehicle, that arrest is not without cause, and the police officer should not be reprimanded for carrying out their duties in the prevention of further carrying out of doodie.
For a dissenting opinion on the Establishment Clause, and the history of its application to public discourse, to the detriment of society, please visit the Introduction to the Establishment Clause at Exploring Constitutional Law.
According to a Fox News article, a North Carolina school compelled a young girl to remove religious references from a poem she wrote about her two grandfathers and their Vietnam War experiences during a Veteran's Day presentation at her school. According to the report, the principal at the West Marion Elementary School was asked to review the appropriateness of the religious references in the poem being performed at a school sponsored function, as it may violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution. The school agreed with the grievance and the girl was ordered to alter the poem.
What bothers me isn't the school's knee-jerk reaction. That's typical, and I recognize it in two parts: 1) a coward's response to a public that believes they have the right to not be offended, and have been proven correct through successful litigation, 2) a school's reaction to the first response and deciding that to "err on the side of caution", as the principal puts it, saves them from having to defend themselves against a costly lawsuit that the plaintiff will invariably not have to fund due to the slavering vociferousness of the ACLU's desire to destroy any form of public religious expression. What bothers me is that we, as a society, continue to mistakenly apply the First Amendment to institutions to which it is not applicable as a means of restricting Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion.
Below, the full text of the First Amendment; we're going to break this down, and then I'm going to point you at a a dissenting viewpoint that, unfortunately, due to legal precedent happens to be the way the First Amendment is applied.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Phraseology; we're going to take this a piece at a time. First clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"
Seems simple enough, right? This is also the basis for the "Establishment Clause". So lets get into this.
The Amendment specifically states that Congress shall make no law... Congress is the Legislative Branch of the Federal Government, and thus an amendment to the Constitution was created by our Founders to limit the Federal Government's ability to create laws that establish or recognize any religion as a religion preferred by the State. There is nothing in this Clause that expressly prohibits lower entities under the Government, or public entities not associated with the Federal Government from displaying icons of a religious nature publicly, and doesn't protect the citizenry from the expression of religion in public by anyone, regardless of affiliation with the Government. Put simply, extrapolating from this first part of the Amendment that the Federal Government shall, in pursuit of compliance with the Amendment in whole, expunge all religious references from public display, or display by public representation at any level, is reaching too far for the apple. As a school is not capable of legislating, a school's allowing for a child to reference God, Allah, Thor, or whatever other deity they choose to while reading a poem they, themselves, wrote is protected by the remainder of the Amendment.
"...or (make no law...) prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" refers again to the limits on Congress concerning the creating of laws limiting freedom of religion. Since its been argued successfully, and to our detriment, that a publicly funded entity should be held to higher restraints concerning religious display, regardless of its legislative powers, one could also conversely argue that since the school, in this case, would violate the Establishment Clause by allowing for the poem to be read as written, that they would also violate the Freedom Exercise Clause by prohibiting the child's poem to be read. This circular reference paradox is directly caused by the misapplication of judicial precedent regarding the Establishment Clause and its applicability to lower governmental bodies with no legislative powers. A school is not Congress, just as much as a city community center, lets say, in Santa Monica, CA, isn't Congress. The Establishment Clause applies only to Congress.
"...or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;" This is pretty self explanatory, but we still manage to get it wrong. There are those who feel that since words can hurt we must prevent this pain by preventing the unfettered use of language to express an individual. I'm not talking about libel or yelling fire in a crowded building. I'm talking about political correctness and the overbearing need to force people to not offend others. You're no more protected by the First Amendment from being offended than the school is obligated to wipe religion out of that little girls poem. For some reason, though, we've created an industry around litigation centered on the protection of the feelings of people from the expression of others. This seems to only apply to religious types, or Conservatives, though. No one has, to my knowledge, suggested we bind Louie CK's lips shut for calling Sarah Palin the vile things he has; at least, no one has and received face in the media for having done so. Unless you are exposed to what CK has said on the radio, in his act, and on TV, you'd not know, and therefore not be offended. The same can be said for any other type of expression, say, Mark Levin or Rush Limbaugh, for instance. If what they say doesn't sit well with you, change the channel, but don't go crying to the Government to forcibly "change the channel" for the entire population. That is not your place, and the changing of the channel is not the Government's place, as indicated by this Clause.
"...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." This seems pretty self explanatory as well. Congress shall not legislate away the right to peaceably assemble, protest publicly, or petition for the redress of grievances against the Government. Since this isn't part of the topic at hand, I'm not going to delve too deep into this, except to say that while Occupy Wall Street started out as a peaceable protest movement, it quickly spun out of control, as most mob mentality movements will. Once the peace was disturbed by the mob the protest movement gave up its right to assemble. If a citizen was part of the mob and arrested for defecating on a police vehicle, that arrest is not without cause, and the police officer should not be reprimanded for carrying out their duties in the prevention of further carrying out of doodie.
For a dissenting opinion on the Establishment Clause, and the history of its application to public discourse, to the detriment of society, please visit the Introduction to the Establishment Clause at Exploring Constitutional Law.
November 24, 2012
We Hold These Truths to be Self Evident...Part I - by Dan Lewis of The Spitcracker Picayune
Dan Lewis posted the first in a series of studies on the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights at The Spitcracker Picayune. A very good read. I had the following comment:
"... else we chafe ourselves and bleed."
For this bleeding to happen we must voluntarily give up there trappings of Liberty in favor of tyranny. Remember, for your liberty to be taken by Government, you, as the governed, must agree to have those in office imbued with the power to strip your liberty from you. You, along with others, also have the power to empower Government to strip away the liberties of others, in most cases without their consent, through a majority vote to pass bad policy, or bad policy makers.
November 22, 2012
Happy Thanksgiving
As the holiday season begins most Americans begin to think about family, friends, giving and the love they share with those they hold dear. Much of what we have to be thankful for is due to the efforts and bravery of our men and women in uniform who are deployed today. While I'm safe at home this year with my family, I would like to recognize those heroes who cannot be with their loved ones to celebrate this uniquely American holiday, as I remember what it has been like, and may again, to be away from where I'd much rather be at a time of Thanksgiving.
To our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, Guardians; I salute you, and wish you a safe and bountiful Thanksgiving!
Be safe and prosperous today! Happy Thanksgiving!
November 21, 2012
Conservatism Explained
There isn't a lot of push within what most Americans would think of as the bastions of Conservatism to actually express what being a Conservative means. I believe the GOP's biggest problem over the course of the last 30 years and more has been a blurring of morality; a penchant for personal gain, regardless of means, if you will. Politicians find very shortly after election that they're able to amass a vast amount of power and wealth in a relatively short amount of time if they only go along to get along inside the Beltway.
Conservatism isn't about one aspect of one's life, it is a lifestyle. People who are Conservative believe what they believe to be true because over the course of history and the expanse of observation of human nature the core aspects of Conservatism have been proven over and over again. To espouse Conservatism isn't the be all and end all of what it means to be a Conservative. It is simply a beginning. One must live their lives within the confines of moral and ethical purity; to do the right thing every time, especially when no one is looking. What one does when no one is there to witness their actions is the simplest measure of the quality of one's character, and the willingness to hold oneself to being ethically and morally pure even when temptation would cause human nature to prompt us to take care of Number One at the unknowing expense of humanity, in whole or in part, is anathema to Conservatism.
Once the ethical and moral litmus test comes back positive for Conservatism there are a few Core Values that Conservatives apply to their lives. These Core Values, much like the Core Values of our military services, shape the lens through which a Conservative views the world around them, and guides them through the tumult that invariably stands between humanity and prosperity.
Conservatism's Core Values are:
Our Nation lives and breathes these Values in some shape or form. Although not every American is able to identify with more than a few of Conservatism's Core Values, most will find that they believe in at least one of these keystones that make up what it means to be a Constitutional Conservative. Sadly, temptation, always the enemy of every man, woman and child in this great nation, pulls the attention of even the most devoted Conservative away from the application of these values to their lives. Diversion of attention isn't a failing. Allowing for temptation to spur action in the hearts of man, at the expense of others, is a severe failing, and can be traced as a direct causative factor in nearly every detrimental aspect of American life.
The path toward solving the problems that face America today is very much the same as it was during the founding of the United States following the Revolutionary War. Many of our problems stem from what temptation causes man to do unto his fellow man. Application of Conservatism, Constitutional and otherwise, is a spectacular first step down this path. Many have already begun taking this step.
Will you join them, and us, in starting down the path toward restoring America to its former greatness?
This post was also contributed to The Spitcracker Picayune
Conservatism isn't about one aspect of one's life, it is a lifestyle. People who are Conservative believe what they believe to be true because over the course of history and the expanse of observation of human nature the core aspects of Conservatism have been proven over and over again. To espouse Conservatism isn't the be all and end all of what it means to be a Conservative. It is simply a beginning. One must live their lives within the confines of moral and ethical purity; to do the right thing every time, especially when no one is looking. What one does when no one is there to witness their actions is the simplest measure of the quality of one's character, and the willingness to hold oneself to being ethically and morally pure even when temptation would cause human nature to prompt us to take care of Number One at the unknowing expense of humanity, in whole or in part, is anathema to Conservatism.
Once the ethical and moral litmus test comes back positive for Conservatism there are a few Core Values that Conservatives apply to their lives. These Core Values, much like the Core Values of our military services, shape the lens through which a Conservative views the world around them, and guides them through the tumult that invariably stands between humanity and prosperity.
Conservatism's Core Values are:
- Constitutional Republicanism, or the preservation of the true representative republic under which all Americans are supposed to be governed by, as outlined in the Constitution
- Limited Federalism, or the intentional hobbling of the Federal Government so as to purposefully prevent a totalitarian tyranny from springing up within the centralized aspects of government that are necessary
- Sovereignty of the States over the wishes of the Administrative State, except where the Constitution outlines enumerated powers held exclusively by the Federal Government
- The Right to Ownership of Personal Arms, or the right to own a means of protecting oneself from assault, regardless of source
- Fiscal Conservatism, or the application of proper and just stewardship of the public trust that is accumulated by the Government through taxation and tariffs as a means to fund the necessary functions of Federalism
- Peace Through Strength, or the forming, training, supplying and sustaining of a strong military force as a means of deterrence to aggression to enemies foreign and domestic as well as a means to stand by and defend our allies from the same
- A Strong Currency, made and kept strong through the application of all of the other Core Values.
Our Nation lives and breathes these Values in some shape or form. Although not every American is able to identify with more than a few of Conservatism's Core Values, most will find that they believe in at least one of these keystones that make up what it means to be a Constitutional Conservative. Sadly, temptation, always the enemy of every man, woman and child in this great nation, pulls the attention of even the most devoted Conservative away from the application of these values to their lives. Diversion of attention isn't a failing. Allowing for temptation to spur action in the hearts of man, at the expense of others, is a severe failing, and can be traced as a direct causative factor in nearly every detrimental aspect of American life.
The path toward solving the problems that face America today is very much the same as it was during the founding of the United States following the Revolutionary War. Many of our problems stem from what temptation causes man to do unto his fellow man. Application of Conservatism, Constitutional and otherwise, is a spectacular first step down this path. Many have already begun taking this step.
Will you join them, and us, in starting down the path toward restoring America to its former greatness?
This post was also contributed to The Spitcracker Picayune
November 20, 2012
James "Jim" Pisano - An Introduction
As The Spitcracker Picayune gets off the ground, it came up in discussion that the contributors should take a few minutes to introduce themselves. Well, here goes.
My name is James Pisano, but I go by Jim. For some reason James never bridges the gap to Jim for a lot of people, so I figured I'd put it out at the forefront.
I'm a 14 year Active Duty Chief Electronics Technician in the United States Coast Guard. Nearly all of my adult life has been viewed through the eyes of a career military man, and many of my opinions have been formed through this lens. Speaking of opinions, I will most likely be posting my opinion more often than researched facts. One of the things that I've run into in my interactions is a demand for factual representation of my opinions, which I find to be a logically flawed thought. If I were writing about facts I'd make citations to where I found my facts. When I cite facts I'll link to the source material, but most of the time the research is outside of my area of expertise unless it involves tech specs, schematics or engineering requirements.
I care deeply about the safety and security of the citizenry of the United States of America. As a volunteer service member I recognize the special kind of people that make up the military. We may not all represent a Conservative mindset, but the fact that we volunteered for service, especially in the last decade, knowing what worldwide deploy-ability at a moment's notice means, tells me that to give of ones self in this manner is the highest form of self sacrifice many people are able to decide to make. Every one of our Service Members is a treasure, and their legacy should be protected and promoted wherever and whenever possible.
I am these things, in this order: Guardian, Chief, Constitutional Conservative, Husband, Father, Technician. Many will note that I didn't list religion as a part of who I am. I recognize the importance many people hold for religion in their lives. I personally do not practice any religious denominations, instead choosing to observe my spirituality privately in the confines of my own home and with my family. I grew up Catholic, having been Dedicated but not Baptized. Upon reaching an age where I was able to decide on my own what I would like to do concerning religion I choose my path absent influence, and I've been happy with my choice ever since.
I'm an advocate of responsible fiscal conservatism, Constitutional Conservatism, limited Federal Government, States Rights, and Pro-Life concerns. I do not believe the Federal Government, at present, is limiting itself to the constraints of the Constitution, and I believe that eventually the American people will realize, only too late it seems, that their liberties have been stripped, quietly, from their souls. Those who govern our Nation have failed to recognize the hobbles put in place over their power to govern, and I believe it is high time for the concerned citizenry they lord over to endeavor to remind them.
My contributions to TSP will consist mostly of reactions to current events, mostly political, and will revolve around the application of a Conservative viewpoint either for or against the topic being discussed. If you're interested in a particular topic for me to write about please contact me via Google Plus and I'll get to writing.
In closing, it is an honor to have been asked to be a contributor to The Spitcracker Picayune, and I look forward to seeing how far we can reach in our effort to educate and inform Americans about what is really going on with their Nation and its Government.
Post Election Thoughts - Reactions One Week Later
I wrote this on Wednesday, 07NOV12, the morning after waking to find out President Obama was going to have another four years in office. BOLD TEXT indicates my reflecting on my feelings nearly two weeks ago:
Here's what I'm seeing from what happened last night:
1. The American people have spoken. Although I do not believe Conservatism is a minority mentality in America, what is exposed through the evidence from yesterday's election is that Conservatives are not well represented, and thus will not be able to well represent Americans in its political endeavors This needs to change if America is going to become a powerful leader on the world stage again, instead of a complicit follower.
2. Americans, as a whole, do not understand the damage that has been done to our ability to sustain ourselves as a Nation. We've forgotten what self reliance means, and have traded hard work and dignity in for revenge politics a la Valarie Jarrett, David Axelrod and President Obama. America, to our dismay, has shown that the sensationalism of the dirty political game is what makes them happy.
We continue to see this represented in what happened last week with the Hostess bankruptcy proceedings. Even in the midst of corporate failure the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union's public euthanization of Hostess (their leadership knew that Hostess wouldn't be able to meet their demands, and held firm anyway, regardless of the need to work for their employees) represents a failure of the Left to realize that corporations do not exist to provide work, benefits and pensions for employees. The private sector is about the creation of wealth, not the creation of jobs. One begets the other, but without the former the latter simply cannot exist. The BCTGM, in what they called "good faith" for their workers, intentionally destroyed a cornerstone of American culture for the last 82 years. Their disregard for the livelihoods of the families of the 18.5k employees that are now out of work due to their actions is appalling, and should shown as such by our media. Instead, Hostess is being vilified by the media and by those in Leftist circles. The news doesn't indicate the truth of the matter. Instead this is being portrayed as a story of revenge made good. Hostess failed to properly care for its working class employees, instead giving lavish bonuses to its executives while the company was in the throws of bankruptcy. How else can anyone see this but as a story of the bourgeoisie getting over on the proletariat? Hostess was faced with unfunded liabilities that were going to crush it regardless of an agreement with the BCTGM. When the company reached an agreement with the Teamsters Union last week it was hopeful that the BCTGM would see there was a way to save the jobs of the employees if they would simply allow for Hostess to work through bankruptcy in a way that would make the company profitable again. The BCTGM didn't blink, calling bluff where none existed, and now 18,500 people are out of work, along with the entire support apparatus that existed to enable an 82 year old company to be viable. Entitlement. Business does not exist to create jobs, but to create wealth. The creation of wealth necessitates the creation of jobs because wealth creation requires labor. Hostess wasn't cheating their workers. The company was bleeding money out of its union negotiated benefits and pension packages and needed a way out. The executives that sought bankruptcy were rewarded for their efforts to save the company, and would have been regardless of the union's efforts to destroy the company in what seemed like their proving a point. I wonder if the 18,500 BCTGM employees out of work now understand what that point is?
3. We, as a Nation, are in for a devaluation of the dollar as a world currency. The world, as we know it, will begin to stop trading commodities in our currency and we will begin to see a downward spiral into banana republic status as we continue to try to print our way out of the obligations Keynesian fiscal policies will create for our progeny, and theirs. America will see its credit rating dropped from the As and we will become the biggest Greece this world has ever known. The rest of the world will be forced to cut us off for fear of our failure taking us down with them.
4. Because the House remained in GOP control and the Senate did not change control we will see a perpetual Continuing Resolution built on a 2009 budget baseline that included over $1T in spending that was intended to be temporary. Instead of what President Obama promised in a reduction of our National Debt and reduction of our Deficit Spending we will see at least $5T more added to our debt with $1.3T/yr deficit spending per year until Obama leaves office.
President Obama has expressed confidence that Congress will give him the $1.6T tax increase over the next decade he feels he needs to reduce the deficit. This is a useless statement, however. The President first ran for office on a promise that he would reduce the deficit starting on day 1, but the Super Majority in Congress, held by Democrats until 2011, refused to pass a budget, instead passing continuing resolution after continuing resolution, every single one containing the full balance of the first stimulus package from 2009. This effectively ballooned the deficit to over $1.3T per year over the last budget passed by President Bush. Obama blamed Bush for the deficit, but has shown absolutely no interest whatsoever in pushing Congress in the direction of passing a budget that doesn't include $1.3T more spending than our Nation is able to generate in tax revenue. His only plan to change this dynamic is to raise taxes. When asked about reducing spending he evades the question, talks about how he's commissioned a committee or some such study to help identify waste in Government, and then ask for the next question. In every instance where waste in Government has been indicated as something that can be cut the conversation is evaded or Obama indicates that he takes the suggestions of his committees very seriously and will consider their input in due course. Little is said about the fact that the budget recommendations made by his commissions have been rejected by his Administration, and every single budget proposal he's made has been rejected soundly. If the Obama Administration had any intention of decreasing the deficit the President would have vetoed the Bill authorizing the stimulus and requested Congress change the language to exclude this addition to 2009's expenditures from 2010's baseline budget. This simple change would have eliminated over $4T of the deficit, and debt, President Obama has racked up in four years.
5. There will be continued attacks on the non-governmental institutions that have helped define what it means to be an American. The Constitution will see attack after attack as Justice Ginsburg retires and two more lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court are appointed by President Obama and Harry Reid. These appointments will be divisive, have defined designs on their personal interpretations of the Constitution and what it means in terms of how the Government can control the individual and the individual entity. We will see an increased fervor from those already in our Government for Command and Control governance, where the regulatory state will determine your outcome regardless of the legal ramifications of your actions within your state of residency. If you wish to succeed it will be at the behest of the Government, not because of your desire to do so.
6. Iran and radical Islam will be emboldened by our inability to throw off the shackles of tyranny which bind us to our fate. Ahmadinejad and others will see this election as akin to what happened in 2009 in Tahrir Square through violence and unproductive demonstration against a totalitarian regime, and recognize our unfulfilled will to oust a dictatorial despot as further evidence that we do not possess the means to prevent him from developing a nuclear device. Iran will reach that goal or Israel will be forced to stop them, or Israel will be attacked from another aggressor, and they will have to protect themselves on their own. This will spark the powder keg that is the Middle East into what could very well become the catalyst to WW3. Under President Obama we will not be prepared to protect ourselves or our allies, and we will not be prepared to feed and power ourselves without the rest of the world's resources available for our purchase because the Command and Control state will not allow for continued domestic energy and agricultural development.
Leading the world in a "Peace through Strength/Strength through Leadership" mentality is a foreign concept to this Administration. For the last four years we've done nothing but capitulate and appease our aggressors and the aggressors of our allies, to our detriment. Palestine has been attacking Israel for decades, but since the election we've seen a dramatic increase in these attacks. There isn't anything this Nation, under its current leadership, is willing to do to stem the tide that is building against Israel. Our President has indicated that Israel has the right to defend itself, but has said nothing about whether or not he will stand with them in their defense. It has been discovered (surprisingly after nearly two weeks of shelling) that Hamas has been supplied with weapons from Iran. Egypt's new Islamist regime has expressed solidarity with Hamas in their attacks on Israel. Our media has shown they're also tied to Hamas in their reporting of the events as they unfold, calling Israel's response to being brazenly attacked "assassinations" instead of retaliations. There have been political cartoons in newspapers across the United States trivializing the attacks from Hamas while at the same time implying that Israel's responses have been overblown and uncalled for. World wide, news organizations have been showing images and video of grieving families crying over children that have been touched by the violence, conveniently leaving out the fact that the Palestinian children being shown were killed by poorly maintained Hamas munitions that detonated prior to deployment, or missed their mark entirely, while Hamas militants have hidden the evidence of a Hamas fired rocket or missile having caused the damage and the family crying out for the annihilation of Israel. Demonstrably, the mainstream media in the United States, and worldwide, has a bias against Israel.
7. Because the President and those in the Senate will see their continued status in power as a mandate from the people for them to lead us to their designs of what this Nation should be we will see massive increases in taxes for the wealthy and what is known as the upper middle class. Those who have means will leave this country for nations friendlier to their wealth, and those who do not have means will suffer at the hands of a Nation that does not value their productivity as much as it values punishing it through wealth redistributive measures. Those who are in the so-called middle class will find it harder to succeed, and those who are poor will become poorer still. There will be a rash of selling of stock and a retraction from the market by those who have capital but are unwilling to spend it in anticipation of the increased taxation that will come beginning in 2013 and continue with the implementation of ObamaCare.
Already there has been a shrinking away from capital markets as businesses with much to lose are preparing for their tax liabilities beginning in 2013. Many companies have begun to publicly indicate what their plans for 2013 will mean to their workforce, and the picture they're painting isn't very pretty. There will be a new 29.5 hour work week for non-salary employees (read: wage earners, mostly below the poverty line, and many below several multiples thereof). This change in many labor practices will be in direct response to the mandate in ObamaCare that businesses with over 50 employees SHALL supply every employee working over 30 hours in a single week (hence to be referred to as "full time", a ludicrous thought process) with Government approved health insurance. Businesses with low profit margins, relying on shift labor to churn through volume consumption will increase headcount and reduce hours to make up the gap while at the same time dodge the requirement AND the tax/fine associated with not providing health insurance to their employee. Those working in low skill employment will find their hours cut from 8 hours a day/5 days a week to 4 hours a day/5 days a week, with no tolerance by the employer for over clocking, and no options for overtime. Hourly employers will hire twice the headcount, get the same amount of work out of two employees that they would have otherwise had one employee accomplish, and both employees will slide further into poverty as they're forced to work three or four jobs in order to feed their families. Again, entitlement. Business exists to create wealth, not jobs. Obama and the Left has made the conversation about ObamaCare not about the impacts to the economy, but about the health care that everyone will have. They fail to mention that you'll have to lose what health insurance you may have once had to obtain ObamaCare, and you may not be able to feed yourself while you're waiting in line for your Government mandated minimal care at the hands of overworked, under staffed medical professionals who will be leaving their jobs in droves due to the increased burdens ObamaCare places on them in terms of patient to provider ratios. Simply put, you cannot add 39M patients to what will have been known as MediCare/MediCaid without adding doctors. The Administration has indicated they see a need, due to ObamaCare, for at least 52k more private practice doctors in the coming years to deal with the increased patient load ObamaCare will create. They haven't really paid much attention to the fact that MediCare has reduced payments to doctors who take Medicare patients steadily over the years, so much so that it will eventually be impossible to make a profit as a private practice doctor in the United States. That's alright, though. Everyone will have insurance, right?
We're in for a very rough four years, everyone. If you measure our Nation's success in terms of the unemployment numbers and GDP, both are in store for a respective downturn as those who produce begin to find new markets to move their productive activities into. War will not become a thing of the past, and we will see many more instances where the controversy in Libya, and the failures of our Nation to adequately deal with the aftermath will become the norm.
We have been shown to be the moral minority. That doesn't need to be our death knell, but at present it will be discouraging. Do not despair. When confronted with the truths about Conservatism in the face of the lies of Liberalism and outside of the echo chamber that is the mainstream media, the American People invariably choose the former over the latter. We have to find a way to cleanse the GOP of those less than upstanding examples of who and what we stand for, and better educate those who are willing to listen. Our message is clear, but the minds of those receptive to it are not, and the hearts of those who would co-opt our souls for avarice and power are all too common.
This is not the end, everyone. It is a beginning. Eventually Americans will realize what they've done to themselves. Once they do, we will be there to help guide them out of the dark and into the light that is Freedom, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Here's what I'm seeing from what happened last night:
1. The American people have spoken. Although I do not believe Conservatism is a minority mentality in America, what is exposed through the evidence from yesterday's election is that Conservatives are not well represented, and thus will not be able to well represent Americans in its political endeavors This needs to change if America is going to become a powerful leader on the world stage again, instead of a complicit follower.
2. Americans, as a whole, do not understand the damage that has been done to our ability to sustain ourselves as a Nation. We've forgotten what self reliance means, and have traded hard work and dignity in for revenge politics a la Valarie Jarrett, David Axelrod and President Obama. America, to our dismay, has shown that the sensationalism of the dirty political game is what makes them happy.
We continue to see this represented in what happened last week with the Hostess bankruptcy proceedings. Even in the midst of corporate failure the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union's public euthanization of Hostess (their leadership knew that Hostess wouldn't be able to meet their demands, and held firm anyway, regardless of the need to work for their employees) represents a failure of the Left to realize that corporations do not exist to provide work, benefits and pensions for employees. The private sector is about the creation of wealth, not the creation of jobs. One begets the other, but without the former the latter simply cannot exist. The BCTGM, in what they called "good faith" for their workers, intentionally destroyed a cornerstone of American culture for the last 82 years. Their disregard for the livelihoods of the families of the 18.5k employees that are now out of work due to their actions is appalling, and should shown as such by our media. Instead, Hostess is being vilified by the media and by those in Leftist circles. The news doesn't indicate the truth of the matter. Instead this is being portrayed as a story of revenge made good. Hostess failed to properly care for its working class employees, instead giving lavish bonuses to its executives while the company was in the throws of bankruptcy. How else can anyone see this but as a story of the bourgeoisie getting over on the proletariat? Hostess was faced with unfunded liabilities that were going to crush it regardless of an agreement with the BCTGM. When the company reached an agreement with the Teamsters Union last week it was hopeful that the BCTGM would see there was a way to save the jobs of the employees if they would simply allow for Hostess to work through bankruptcy in a way that would make the company profitable again. The BCTGM didn't blink, calling bluff where none existed, and now 18,500 people are out of work, along with the entire support apparatus that existed to enable an 82 year old company to be viable. Entitlement. Business does not exist to create jobs, but to create wealth. The creation of wealth necessitates the creation of jobs because wealth creation requires labor. Hostess wasn't cheating their workers. The company was bleeding money out of its union negotiated benefits and pension packages and needed a way out. The executives that sought bankruptcy were rewarded for their efforts to save the company, and would have been regardless of the union's efforts to destroy the company in what seemed like their proving a point. I wonder if the 18,500 BCTGM employees out of work now understand what that point is?
3. We, as a Nation, are in for a devaluation of the dollar as a world currency. The world, as we know it, will begin to stop trading commodities in our currency and we will begin to see a downward spiral into banana republic status as we continue to try to print our way out of the obligations Keynesian fiscal policies will create for our progeny, and theirs. America will see its credit rating dropped from the As and we will become the biggest Greece this world has ever known. The rest of the world will be forced to cut us off for fear of our failure taking us down with them.
4. Because the House remained in GOP control and the Senate did not change control we will see a perpetual Continuing Resolution built on a 2009 budget baseline that included over $1T in spending that was intended to be temporary. Instead of what President Obama promised in a reduction of our National Debt and reduction of our Deficit Spending we will see at least $5T more added to our debt with $1.3T/yr deficit spending per year until Obama leaves office.
President Obama has expressed confidence that Congress will give him the $1.6T tax increase over the next decade he feels he needs to reduce the deficit. This is a useless statement, however. The President first ran for office on a promise that he would reduce the deficit starting on day 1, but the Super Majority in Congress, held by Democrats until 2011, refused to pass a budget, instead passing continuing resolution after continuing resolution, every single one containing the full balance of the first stimulus package from 2009. This effectively ballooned the deficit to over $1.3T per year over the last budget passed by President Bush. Obama blamed Bush for the deficit, but has shown absolutely no interest whatsoever in pushing Congress in the direction of passing a budget that doesn't include $1.3T more spending than our Nation is able to generate in tax revenue. His only plan to change this dynamic is to raise taxes. When asked about reducing spending he evades the question, talks about how he's commissioned a committee or some such study to help identify waste in Government, and then ask for the next question. In every instance where waste in Government has been indicated as something that can be cut the conversation is evaded or Obama indicates that he takes the suggestions of his committees very seriously and will consider their input in due course. Little is said about the fact that the budget recommendations made by his commissions have been rejected by his Administration, and every single budget proposal he's made has been rejected soundly. If the Obama Administration had any intention of decreasing the deficit the President would have vetoed the Bill authorizing the stimulus and requested Congress change the language to exclude this addition to 2009's expenditures from 2010's baseline budget. This simple change would have eliminated over $4T of the deficit, and debt, President Obama has racked up in four years.
5. There will be continued attacks on the non-governmental institutions that have helped define what it means to be an American. The Constitution will see attack after attack as Justice Ginsburg retires and two more lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court are appointed by President Obama and Harry Reid. These appointments will be divisive, have defined designs on their personal interpretations of the Constitution and what it means in terms of how the Government can control the individual and the individual entity. We will see an increased fervor from those already in our Government for Command and Control governance, where the regulatory state will determine your outcome regardless of the legal ramifications of your actions within your state of residency. If you wish to succeed it will be at the behest of the Government, not because of your desire to do so.
6. Iran and radical Islam will be emboldened by our inability to throw off the shackles of tyranny which bind us to our fate. Ahmadinejad and others will see this election as akin to what happened in 2009 in Tahrir Square through violence and unproductive demonstration against a totalitarian regime, and recognize our unfulfilled will to oust a dictatorial despot as further evidence that we do not possess the means to prevent him from developing a nuclear device. Iran will reach that goal or Israel will be forced to stop them, or Israel will be attacked from another aggressor, and they will have to protect themselves on their own. This will spark the powder keg that is the Middle East into what could very well become the catalyst to WW3. Under President Obama we will not be prepared to protect ourselves or our allies, and we will not be prepared to feed and power ourselves without the rest of the world's resources available for our purchase because the Command and Control state will not allow for continued domestic energy and agricultural development.
Leading the world in a "Peace through Strength/Strength through Leadership" mentality is a foreign concept to this Administration. For the last four years we've done nothing but capitulate and appease our aggressors and the aggressors of our allies, to our detriment. Palestine has been attacking Israel for decades, but since the election we've seen a dramatic increase in these attacks. There isn't anything this Nation, under its current leadership, is willing to do to stem the tide that is building against Israel. Our President has indicated that Israel has the right to defend itself, but has said nothing about whether or not he will stand with them in their defense. It has been discovered (surprisingly after nearly two weeks of shelling) that Hamas has been supplied with weapons from Iran. Egypt's new Islamist regime has expressed solidarity with Hamas in their attacks on Israel. Our media has shown they're also tied to Hamas in their reporting of the events as they unfold, calling Israel's response to being brazenly attacked "assassinations" instead of retaliations. There have been political cartoons in newspapers across the United States trivializing the attacks from Hamas while at the same time implying that Israel's responses have been overblown and uncalled for. World wide, news organizations have been showing images and video of grieving families crying over children that have been touched by the violence, conveniently leaving out the fact that the Palestinian children being shown were killed by poorly maintained Hamas munitions that detonated prior to deployment, or missed their mark entirely, while Hamas militants have hidden the evidence of a Hamas fired rocket or missile having caused the damage and the family crying out for the annihilation of Israel. Demonstrably, the mainstream media in the United States, and worldwide, has a bias against Israel.
7. Because the President and those in the Senate will see their continued status in power as a mandate from the people for them to lead us to their designs of what this Nation should be we will see massive increases in taxes for the wealthy and what is known as the upper middle class. Those who have means will leave this country for nations friendlier to their wealth, and those who do not have means will suffer at the hands of a Nation that does not value their productivity as much as it values punishing it through wealth redistributive measures. Those who are in the so-called middle class will find it harder to succeed, and those who are poor will become poorer still. There will be a rash of selling of stock and a retraction from the market by those who have capital but are unwilling to spend it in anticipation of the increased taxation that will come beginning in 2013 and continue with the implementation of ObamaCare.
Already there has been a shrinking away from capital markets as businesses with much to lose are preparing for their tax liabilities beginning in 2013. Many companies have begun to publicly indicate what their plans for 2013 will mean to their workforce, and the picture they're painting isn't very pretty. There will be a new 29.5 hour work week for non-salary employees (read: wage earners, mostly below the poverty line, and many below several multiples thereof). This change in many labor practices will be in direct response to the mandate in ObamaCare that businesses with over 50 employees SHALL supply every employee working over 30 hours in a single week (hence to be referred to as "full time", a ludicrous thought process) with Government approved health insurance. Businesses with low profit margins, relying on shift labor to churn through volume consumption will increase headcount and reduce hours to make up the gap while at the same time dodge the requirement AND the tax/fine associated with not providing health insurance to their employee. Those working in low skill employment will find their hours cut from 8 hours a day/5 days a week to 4 hours a day/5 days a week, with no tolerance by the employer for over clocking, and no options for overtime. Hourly employers will hire twice the headcount, get the same amount of work out of two employees that they would have otherwise had one employee accomplish, and both employees will slide further into poverty as they're forced to work three or four jobs in order to feed their families. Again, entitlement. Business exists to create wealth, not jobs. Obama and the Left has made the conversation about ObamaCare not about the impacts to the economy, but about the health care that everyone will have. They fail to mention that you'll have to lose what health insurance you may have once had to obtain ObamaCare, and you may not be able to feed yourself while you're waiting in line for your Government mandated minimal care at the hands of overworked, under staffed medical professionals who will be leaving their jobs in droves due to the increased burdens ObamaCare places on them in terms of patient to provider ratios. Simply put, you cannot add 39M patients to what will have been known as MediCare/MediCaid without adding doctors. The Administration has indicated they see a need, due to ObamaCare, for at least 52k more private practice doctors in the coming years to deal with the increased patient load ObamaCare will create. They haven't really paid much attention to the fact that MediCare has reduced payments to doctors who take Medicare patients steadily over the years, so much so that it will eventually be impossible to make a profit as a private practice doctor in the United States. That's alright, though. Everyone will have insurance, right?
We're in for a very rough four years, everyone. If you measure our Nation's success in terms of the unemployment numbers and GDP, both are in store for a respective downturn as those who produce begin to find new markets to move their productive activities into. War will not become a thing of the past, and we will see many more instances where the controversy in Libya, and the failures of our Nation to adequately deal with the aftermath will become the norm.
We have been shown to be the moral minority. That doesn't need to be our death knell, but at present it will be discouraging. Do not despair. When confronted with the truths about Conservatism in the face of the lies of Liberalism and outside of the echo chamber that is the mainstream media, the American People invariably choose the former over the latter. We have to find a way to cleanse the GOP of those less than upstanding examples of who and what we stand for, and better educate those who are willing to listen. Our message is clear, but the minds of those receptive to it are not, and the hearts of those who would co-opt our souls for avarice and power are all too common.
This is not the end, everyone. It is a beginning. Eventually Americans will realize what they've done to themselves. Once they do, we will be there to help guide them out of the dark and into the light that is Freedom, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Post Election Thoughts
Here's what I'm seeing from what happened last night:
1. The American people have spoken. Although I do not believe Conservatism is a minority mentality in America, what is exposed through the evidence from yesterday's election is that Conservatives are not well represented, and thus will not be able to well represent Americans in its political endeavors This needs to change if America is going to become a powerful leader on the world stage again, instead of a complicit follower.
2. Americans, as a whole, do not understand the damage that has been done to our ability to sustain ourselves as a Nation. We've forgotten what self reliance means, and have traded hard work and dignity in for revenge politics a la Valarie Jarrett, David Axelrod and President Obama. America, to our dismay, has shown that the sensationalism of the dirty political game is what makes them happy.
3. We, as a Nation, are in for a devaluation of the dollar as a world currency. The world, as we know it, will begin to stop trading commodities in our currency and we will begin to see a downward spiral into banana republic status as we continue to try to print our way out of the obligations Keynesian fiscal policies will create for our progeny, and theirs. America will see its credit rating dropped from the As and we will become the biggest Greece this world has ever known. The rest of the world will be forced to cut us off for fear of our failure taking us down with them.
4. Because the House remained in GOP control and the Senate did not change control we will see a perpetual Continuing Resolution built on a 2009 budget baseline that included over $1T in spending that was intended to be temporary. Instead of what President Obama promised in a reduction of our National Debt and reduction of our Deficit Spending we will see at least $5T more added to our debt with $1.3T/yr deficit spending per year until Obama leaves office.
5. There will be continued attacks on the non-governmental institutions that have helped define what it means to be an American. The Constitution will see attack after attack as Justice Ginsburg retires and two more lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court are appointed by President Obama and Harry Reid. These appointments will be divisive, have defined designs on their personal interpretations of the Constitution and what it means in terms of how the Government can control the individual and the individual entity. We will see an increased fervor from those already in our Government for Command and Control governance, where the regulatory state will determine your outcome regardless of the legal ramifications of your actions within your state of residency. If you wish to succeed it will be at the behest of the Government, not because of your desire to do so.
6. Iran will be emboldened by our inability to throw off the shackles of tyranny which bind us to our fate. Ahmadinejad will see this election as akin to what happened in 2009 in Tahrir Square through violence and unproductive demonstration against a totalitarian regime, and recognize our unfulfilled will to oust a dictatorial despot as further evidence that we do not possess the means to prevent him from developing a nuclear device. Iran will reach that goal or Israel will be forced to stop them, and they will have to do so on their own. This will spark the powder keg that is the Middle East into what could very well become the catalyst to WW3. Under President Obama we will not be prepared to protect ourselves or our allies, and we will not be prepared to feed and power ourselves without the rest of the world's resources available for our purchase because the Command and Control state will not allow for continued domestic energy and agricultural development.
7. Because the President and those in the Senate will see their continued status in power as a mandate from the people for them to lead us to their designs of what this Nation should be we will see massive increases in taxes for the wealthy and what is known as the upper middle class. Those who have means will leave this country for nations friendlier to their wealth, and those who do not have means will suffer at the hands of a Nation that does not value their productivity as much as it values punishing it through wealth redistributive measures. Those who are in the so-called middle class will find it harder to succeed, and those who are poor will become poorer still. There will be a rash of selling of stock and a retraction from the market by those who have capital but are unwilling to spend it in anticipation of the increased taxation that will come beginning in 2013 and continue with the implementation of ObamaCare.
We're in for a very rough four years, everyone. If you measure our Nation's success in terms of the unemployment numbers and GDP, both are in store for a respective downturn as those who produce begin to find new markets to move their productive activities into. War will not become a thing of the past, and we will see many more instances where Libya's failures will become the norm.
We have been shown to be the moral minority. That doesn't need to be our death knell, but at present it will be discouraging. Do not despair. When confronted with the truths about Conservatism in the face of the lies of Liberalism and outside of the echo chamber that is the mainstream media, the American People invariably choose the former over the latter. We have to find a way to cleanse the GOP of those less than upstanding examples of who and what we stand for, and better educate those who are willing to listen. Our message is clear, but the minds of those receptive to it are not, and the hearts of those who would co-opt our souls for avarice and power are all too common.
This is not the end, everyone. It is a beginning. Fight Club and the Dogs of War are not dead. Eventually Americans will realize what they've done to themselves. Once they do we will be there to help guide them out of the dark and into the light that is Freedom, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
1. The American people have spoken. Although I do not believe Conservatism is a minority mentality in America, what is exposed through the evidence from yesterday's election is that Conservatives are not well represented, and thus will not be able to well represent Americans in its political endeavors This needs to change if America is going to become a powerful leader on the world stage again, instead of a complicit follower.
2. Americans, as a whole, do not understand the damage that has been done to our ability to sustain ourselves as a Nation. We've forgotten what self reliance means, and have traded hard work and dignity in for revenge politics a la Valarie Jarrett, David Axelrod and President Obama. America, to our dismay, has shown that the sensationalism of the dirty political game is what makes them happy.
3. We, as a Nation, are in for a devaluation of the dollar as a world currency. The world, as we know it, will begin to stop trading commodities in our currency and we will begin to see a downward spiral into banana republic status as we continue to try to print our way out of the obligations Keynesian fiscal policies will create for our progeny, and theirs. America will see its credit rating dropped from the As and we will become the biggest Greece this world has ever known. The rest of the world will be forced to cut us off for fear of our failure taking us down with them.
4. Because the House remained in GOP control and the Senate did not change control we will see a perpetual Continuing Resolution built on a 2009 budget baseline that included over $1T in spending that was intended to be temporary. Instead of what President Obama promised in a reduction of our National Debt and reduction of our Deficit Spending we will see at least $5T more added to our debt with $1.3T/yr deficit spending per year until Obama leaves office.
5. There will be continued attacks on the non-governmental institutions that have helped define what it means to be an American. The Constitution will see attack after attack as Justice Ginsburg retires and two more lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court are appointed by President Obama and Harry Reid. These appointments will be divisive, have defined designs on their personal interpretations of the Constitution and what it means in terms of how the Government can control the individual and the individual entity. We will see an increased fervor from those already in our Government for Command and Control governance, where the regulatory state will determine your outcome regardless of the legal ramifications of your actions within your state of residency. If you wish to succeed it will be at the behest of the Government, not because of your desire to do so.
6. Iran will be emboldened by our inability to throw off the shackles of tyranny which bind us to our fate. Ahmadinejad will see this election as akin to what happened in 2009 in Tahrir Square through violence and unproductive demonstration against a totalitarian regime, and recognize our unfulfilled will to oust a dictatorial despot as further evidence that we do not possess the means to prevent him from developing a nuclear device. Iran will reach that goal or Israel will be forced to stop them, and they will have to do so on their own. This will spark the powder keg that is the Middle East into what could very well become the catalyst to WW3. Under President Obama we will not be prepared to protect ourselves or our allies, and we will not be prepared to feed and power ourselves without the rest of the world's resources available for our purchase because the Command and Control state will not allow for continued domestic energy and agricultural development.
7. Because the President and those in the Senate will see their continued status in power as a mandate from the people for them to lead us to their designs of what this Nation should be we will see massive increases in taxes for the wealthy and what is known as the upper middle class. Those who have means will leave this country for nations friendlier to their wealth, and those who do not have means will suffer at the hands of a Nation that does not value their productivity as much as it values punishing it through wealth redistributive measures. Those who are in the so-called middle class will find it harder to succeed, and those who are poor will become poorer still. There will be a rash of selling of stock and a retraction from the market by those who have capital but are unwilling to spend it in anticipation of the increased taxation that will come beginning in 2013 and continue with the implementation of ObamaCare.
We're in for a very rough four years, everyone. If you measure our Nation's success in terms of the unemployment numbers and GDP, both are in store for a respective downturn as those who produce begin to find new markets to move their productive activities into. War will not become a thing of the past, and we will see many more instances where Libya's failures will become the norm.
We have been shown to be the moral minority. That doesn't need to be our death knell, but at present it will be discouraging. Do not despair. When confronted with the truths about Conservatism in the face of the lies of Liberalism and outside of the echo chamber that is the mainstream media, the American People invariably choose the former over the latter. We have to find a way to cleanse the GOP of those less than upstanding examples of who and what we stand for, and better educate those who are willing to listen. Our message is clear, but the minds of those receptive to it are not, and the hearts of those who would co-opt our souls for avarice and power are all too common.
This is not the end, everyone. It is a beginning. Fight Club and the Dogs of War are not dead. Eventually Americans will realize what they've done to themselves. Once they do we will be there to help guide them out of the dark and into the light that is Freedom, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Back into the Breech
Once again, I'm going to get my stuff all in one sock and start writing again. I've found an outlet and a group of friends over at www.spitcrackerpicayune.com that will help keep me focused and on task. Everything I post there I'll be linking to posts here. When I have long form posts on G+ they'll show up here as well, starting with a post I wrote the day after the 06NOV12 election and a follow up post I wrote a week and some later.
Back into the breech!
July 4, 2011
Everyone have a Safe and Happy Independence Day!!!
I finally posted the National Ensign on my home on Friday. I should have done it on Flag Day, but I didn't get home from work that night until almost 7pm, and by then it was too late. Anyway, today, above all other days, it is our duty to recognize the cost of Freedom, and pay homage to the men and women, service members, emergency personnel and civil servants, who have given everything or have pledged to sacrifice all they have in order to protect the Freedom we all possess.
June 22, 2011
The Constitution of the United States - Article I
My study of the Constitution begins here:
Article I
Section 2, Clause 5:
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment
Once Senators begin spouting off about how Congress should start Impeachment Hearings the Senators involved should be required to re-read this Section and Clause.
Section 3, Clause 6:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
This is the reason why Senators, even if under the belief that someone has conducted themselves in a manner that would warrant Impeachment, should keep their opinions on the matter to themselves. The conflict of interest created by Senators pre-judging they would ultimately be responsible for presiding over would be abundantly apparent. It would also present the appearance of the "judging body" in the event of Impeachment Hearings being biased against the accused by virtue of the fact that a member of the body called for the Hearings, thereby affirming their belief in the accused person's guilt.
Section 8, Clause 3 (The Commerce Clause):
Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
This is one of the most misunderstood and misrepresented of the Clauses in the Constitution. Specifically, the middle statement, wherein is indicated that Congress has the power to regulate Commerce "among the several States". This is a simple statement. Commerce among the States is under the purview of Congress. Simply put, this means that Commerce between the States shall be regulated as Congress sees fit. This Clause does not indicate anything other than Commerce among the States, which means Commerce that is not carried out by Citizens and Non-Governmental organizations is exempt from this oversight by Congress. Simply put, if the States wish to conduct Commerce related activity the activity is subject to Congressional approval, and conversely, if a private Citizen, Business or Non-Governmental Organization wishes to conduct Commerce related activity they are free to do so without hindrance from Congressional oversight.
Section 10, Clause 2: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
Unless I read this Clause incorrectly, this Clause indicates that all net proceeds collected by States who are able to gain Consent of the Congress to levy taxes on Imports and Exports shall then transfer said proceeds to the US Treasury for their specific Use. This basically means that the gasoline, liquor and tobacco taxes, and other such taxes that vary from State to State are actually the property of the US Treasure, not the State they are collected in. I wonder what would happen if the Treasury were to re-direct the California $0.185/gal gasoline tax from California Department of Transportation projects to something else entirely?
Article II, tomorrow...
Article I
Section 2, Clause 5:
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment
Once Senators begin spouting off about how Congress should start Impeachment Hearings the Senators involved should be required to re-read this Section and Clause.
Section 3, Clause 6:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
This is the reason why Senators, even if under the belief that someone has conducted themselves in a manner that would warrant Impeachment, should keep their opinions on the matter to themselves. The conflict of interest created by Senators pre-judging they would ultimately be responsible for presiding over would be abundantly apparent. It would also present the appearance of the "judging body" in the event of Impeachment Hearings being biased against the accused by virtue of the fact that a member of the body called for the Hearings, thereby affirming their belief in the accused person's guilt.
Section 8, Clause 3 (The Commerce Clause):
Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
This is one of the most misunderstood and misrepresented of the Clauses in the Constitution. Specifically, the middle statement, wherein is indicated that Congress has the power to regulate Commerce "among the several States". This is a simple statement. Commerce among the States is under the purview of Congress. Simply put, this means that Commerce between the States shall be regulated as Congress sees fit. This Clause does not indicate anything other than Commerce among the States, which means Commerce that is not carried out by Citizens and Non-Governmental organizations is exempt from this oversight by Congress. Simply put, if the States wish to conduct Commerce related activity the activity is subject to Congressional approval, and conversely, if a private Citizen, Business or Non-Governmental Organization wishes to conduct Commerce related activity they are free to do so without hindrance from Congressional oversight.
Section 10, Clause 2: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
Unless I read this Clause incorrectly, this Clause indicates that all net proceeds collected by States who are able to gain Consent of the Congress to levy taxes on Imports and Exports shall then transfer said proceeds to the US Treasury for their specific Use. This basically means that the gasoline, liquor and tobacco taxes, and other such taxes that vary from State to State are actually the property of the US Treasure, not the State they are collected in. I wonder what would happen if the Treasury were to re-direct the California $0.185/gal gasoline tax from California Department of Transportation projects to something else entirely?
Article II, tomorrow...
I want to get back into this!
I find that when I write I'm happier. Strange, that, considering that when I write I am often complaining about something. I think I'm happier because when I write it lets me vent my spleen about the things that really light my hair on fire. That could be it. Anyway, I'm going to try to get back into it, and I have planned a study of the Constitution of the United States as a starting point. I'm going to go through, Amendment by Amendment, in hopes of gaining a deeper understanding of what being an American truly means.
It should be fun! Or boring... Depending on your perspective. We shall see.
It should be fun! Or boring... Depending on your perspective. We shall see.
March 28, 2010
Banned for a Reason
An article I unfortunately cannot direct-link to (pay-wall) in today's SF Chronicle has a strange bent to it, especially considering the source. The bent is "neutral", which is entirely unexpected. Here's the deal...
Seattle, in 1993, passed a public ballot initiative that banned sitting or lying on public sidewalks in certain areas of the city. The initiative's goal was to prevent people from loitering around the areas that would otherwise be usable as places of business. This was passed in reaction to a major department store chain closing its location in Downtown Seattle. The closure resulted in a domino cascade of storefront closures in the area which then resulted in an increase in vagrancy, loitering, and panhandling. The area became a preferred location for the homeless because there was still traffic from tourists passing through the area. Tourists are a source of income for panhandlers, homeless or otherwise, and everyone knows in business the first rule for success is LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION!
The Sit/Lie Ban allowed police officers to issue "Move Along" warnings to people who were in violation, followed by a $50 citation. Ironically, the majority of offenders who would warrant a citation would never have been able to pay it, but the intent wasn't to generate a revenue stream for the city; advocates of the law wanted the blight that had become the area around where Fredrick & Nelson used to be in 1992 to become a center for commerce again. Dissenters referred to the law as "...Fascism on Seattle's streets.", indicating that homeless have nowhere else to go.
Both of these views in the same article in the SF Chronicle wasn't expected, and was actually pretty refreshing. There's more, though. Gavin Newsom, SF's mayor, wants to copy the law, but make the provisioning city wide. It would effectively limit stationary panhandlers, homeless, or anyone from sitting or lying on the sidewalks in the city between the hours of 7am and 11pm, a wider hour range than the Seattle law. Police Officers would be empowered to issue "Move Along" warnings followed by $50 citations to those who fail to comply.
Both the Seattle law and the SF proposal are molded around the goal of limiting or eliminating vagrancy interfering with or deterring tourism. Tourism is the lifeblood of both these cities, and vagrancy chases tourists out of the tourist traps, thus robbing the businesses and the cities of revenue. Both cities are very liberal, opting to spend taxpayer money to support vagrants with programs aimed at feeding, clothing and housing the impoverished. I'm of a mind that these programs enable the same types of behavior that cause poverty; drug use, laziness, reliable income via aggressive panhandling and no incentive to seeking legitimate work due to an oppressive tax structure (which deters business and job growth) and high housing costs. The ironic part of all of this is that homeless people don't pay taxes, but tourists pay sales and municipal taxes to local governments, which in turn bolster the local governments revenue streams, which are then used to support the poor. The dissenting view is that laws preventing vagrancy from taking place everywhere is an affront to the poor; an attack to their civil liberties.
Attacking a homeless person's civil liberties would be more along the lines of arresting a poor person for holding a sign in public. Warning a homeless person that it is inappropriate for them to lie on the sidewalk, or in an abandoned storefront during city business hours isn't impinging on their civil liberties... Its more like protecting a revenue stream by protecting one's storefront and environs. If it wasn't a homeless person, but a drunk man lying on the sidewalk vomiting on the steps of Mary-Lou's Scrapbook Emporium the police would be called upon to resolve the situation, and decried vociferously if they failed to do so. The argument that homeless oftentimes have nowhere to go is systemic, and has solutions that can be implemented alongside policy that enforces common public courtesies.
Allowing the image of a city to be subverted by the idea that the city is complacent in protecting its primary industry harms everyone: tourists, locals, businesses and the poor. Comparing the local government's responsibility to develop and enforce laws that protect the public at large, as opposed to protecting a minority (homeless), to the wholesale oppression of said minority is naive and irresponsible. Not only can SF protect its primary industry, but the city can also use this protection as leverage to be able to then provide services with the "bought revenue" this protection would create. Since the detractors to this sort of law are also in favor of spending public funds to provide services to those who do not provide said funds, you'd figure finding ways to protect the revenue streams that provide those funds would be part and parcel to any solution... Often times you'll find a less than holistic view to social issues from the Left. The core issue isn't making sure their solutions are sustainable, but making sure the minority is protected, regardless of their participation in the protection.
Seattle, in 1993, passed a public ballot initiative that banned sitting or lying on public sidewalks in certain areas of the city. The initiative's goal was to prevent people from loitering around the areas that would otherwise be usable as places of business. This was passed in reaction to a major department store chain closing its location in Downtown Seattle. The closure resulted in a domino cascade of storefront closures in the area which then resulted in an increase in vagrancy, loitering, and panhandling. The area became a preferred location for the homeless because there was still traffic from tourists passing through the area. Tourists are a source of income for panhandlers, homeless or otherwise, and everyone knows in business the first rule for success is LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION!
The Sit/Lie Ban allowed police officers to issue "Move Along" warnings to people who were in violation, followed by a $50 citation. Ironically, the majority of offenders who would warrant a citation would never have been able to pay it, but the intent wasn't to generate a revenue stream for the city; advocates of the law wanted the blight that had become the area around where Fredrick & Nelson used to be in 1992 to become a center for commerce again. Dissenters referred to the law as "...Fascism on Seattle's streets.", indicating that homeless have nowhere else to go.
Both of these views in the same article in the SF Chronicle wasn't expected, and was actually pretty refreshing. There's more, though. Gavin Newsom, SF's mayor, wants to copy the law, but make the provisioning city wide. It would effectively limit stationary panhandlers, homeless, or anyone from sitting or lying on the sidewalks in the city between the hours of 7am and 11pm, a wider hour range than the Seattle law. Police Officers would be empowered to issue "Move Along" warnings followed by $50 citations to those who fail to comply.
Both the Seattle law and the SF proposal are molded around the goal of limiting or eliminating vagrancy interfering with or deterring tourism. Tourism is the lifeblood of both these cities, and vagrancy chases tourists out of the tourist traps, thus robbing the businesses and the cities of revenue. Both cities are very liberal, opting to spend taxpayer money to support vagrants with programs aimed at feeding, clothing and housing the impoverished. I'm of a mind that these programs enable the same types of behavior that cause poverty; drug use, laziness, reliable income via aggressive panhandling and no incentive to seeking legitimate work due to an oppressive tax structure (which deters business and job growth) and high housing costs. The ironic part of all of this is that homeless people don't pay taxes, but tourists pay sales and municipal taxes to local governments, which in turn bolster the local governments revenue streams, which are then used to support the poor. The dissenting view is that laws preventing vagrancy from taking place everywhere is an affront to the poor; an attack to their civil liberties.
Attacking a homeless person's civil liberties would be more along the lines of arresting a poor person for holding a sign in public. Warning a homeless person that it is inappropriate for them to lie on the sidewalk, or in an abandoned storefront during city business hours isn't impinging on their civil liberties... Its more like protecting a revenue stream by protecting one's storefront and environs. If it wasn't a homeless person, but a drunk man lying on the sidewalk vomiting on the steps of Mary-Lou's Scrapbook Emporium the police would be called upon to resolve the situation, and decried vociferously if they failed to do so. The argument that homeless oftentimes have nowhere to go is systemic, and has solutions that can be implemented alongside policy that enforces common public courtesies.
Allowing the image of a city to be subverted by the idea that the city is complacent in protecting its primary industry harms everyone: tourists, locals, businesses and the poor. Comparing the local government's responsibility to develop and enforce laws that protect the public at large, as opposed to protecting a minority (homeless), to the wholesale oppression of said minority is naive and irresponsible. Not only can SF protect its primary industry, but the city can also use this protection as leverage to be able to then provide services with the "bought revenue" this protection would create. Since the detractors to this sort of law are also in favor of spending public funds to provide services to those who do not provide said funds, you'd figure finding ways to protect the revenue streams that provide those funds would be part and parcel to any solution... Often times you'll find a less than holistic view to social issues from the Left. The core issue isn't making sure their solutions are sustainable, but making sure the minority is protected, regardless of their participation in the protection.
March 3, 2010
A Liberal Thinktank thinks a Conservative Idea will Work?
In this article posted at Fox News the Conservative ideas regarding TORT Reform as it applies to the health-care industry are getting a thorough going over by both sides. I'm certain the Liberals are trying to gain ground they have already lost and would otherwise lose due to their blithe disregard for the viewpoint of their constituents should they push the shambles of a health-care reform they have now through Congress, but if they're willing to fall on their sword by actually implementing TORT Reform nation-wide based on the example set by Texas it would be a better start than any of the other "reforms" in the bills in the House and Senate as they stand today. TORT Reform on its own restored the trust and good faith in the state of Texas' ability to provide quality health care to its residents. That alone would be worthwhile, but the benefits didn't stop there... Texas is now a sought out work location for the majority of graduating doctors due to TORT Reform, higher pay, higher patient coverage levels and a better work environment in general.
What do you want to bet California will try to find a way to go the opposite direction if Congress follows Texas' lead?
What do you want to bet California will try to find a way to go the opposite direction if Congress follows Texas' lead?
February 9, 2010
You Got That Right!
I received this from my father this morning. Think about what's being said by the Australian President, and then thing about what we as a country have done to ourselves.
America, Canada , all Europe ...... Needs a President like this....
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd - Australia
Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia , as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks..
Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques..
Quote:
"IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians."
"This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom. We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, Learn the Language!"
"Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture."
"We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us."
"This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, THE RIGHT TO LEAVE.."
"If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted."
Maybe if we circulate this , American citizens will find the backbone to start speaking and voicing the same truths..
America, Canada , all Europe ...... Needs a President like this....
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd - Australia
Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia , as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks..
Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques..
Quote:
"IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians."
"This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom. We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, Learn the Language!"
"Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture."
"We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us."
"This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, THE RIGHT TO LEAVE.."
"If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted."
Maybe if we circulate this , American citizens will find the backbone to start speaking and voicing the same truths..
February 6, 2010
We need more Leaders, not more Politicians
The "R-Word". How droll. I'm very interested in the R-Words (Ronald Reagan) becoming a household term again. One of the biggest problems with this country right now is that those who believe in the principles set in place by the Founders and reinforced at a time when it was most needed (by President Reagan) have been forgotten by those who govern. A new breed of leader (not Politician) is needed, and this dire need is felt most by those who have lost friends and family overseas without having a real goal for those fighting for Freedom everywhere. This desperate need is felt by those who have lost their livelihood due to over regulation and poor judgment by those who are in a position where both these mistakes can cripple the masses.
The US Government is not our keeper. It never was. The US Government's responsibilities end at the protection of our Freedom and our lives from enemies of Freedom.
Liberalism belief, having a fervor not unlike that inspired by religion, out of the unswerving pursuit of the ultimate goal of "Utopia" forgets or ignores the guidance of our nation's Founders. They want to increase the burden of government by forcing services upon you. They want to punish those who do not NEED the services they want to force on everyone. Services are a form of control when they are not earned. That's why when you go out to get fast food, or a haircut, or lumber to build a good-neighbor fence you have the choice of Mc Donald's vs. Jack-in-the-Box, or Supercuts vs. Joe the Barber, or TrueValue vs. The Home Depot. If one doesn't give you the service you want you take your Dollar elsewhere. You've earned that choice by earning your Dollar. The government under Liberalism doesn't want you to have that choice because they don't want you to take your Dollar anywhere. As far as they are concerned, it isn't your Dollar in the first place, and in their reality you wouldn't have any Dollars to make those choices for yourself anyway. If you were to NEED something the government would provide, and you'd be either happy with the service, or at least not NEED anymore. Of course, NEED would be determined by someone who, in the beginning, more often than not won't know what your NEEDS are. Over time this faceless "someone" will have been so removed from your idea of NEED that you'll be lucky to be given Government Cheese when you're actually lactose intolerant.
The cornerstone destroying problem with Liberalism is that human nature inherently houses a overarching need to achieve more. Liberalism is the restriction or removal of this desire. How else would the government's providing of services better left to the competition of a free market be acceptable? Once a person's ambition is crushed and replaced with poorly met (and often unmet) NEEDS the Liberal government has you, and you now have your "Utopia", where a ruling class provides what you NEED without an ounce more able to be obtained. After all, you don't NEED it, do you? What you WANT is irrelevant.
The US Government is not our keeper. It never was. The US Government's responsibilities end at the protection of our Freedom and our lives from enemies of Freedom.
Liberalism belief, having a fervor not unlike that inspired by religion, out of the unswerving pursuit of the ultimate goal of "Utopia" forgets or ignores the guidance of our nation's Founders. They want to increase the burden of government by forcing services upon you. They want to punish those who do not NEED the services they want to force on everyone. Services are a form of control when they are not earned. That's why when you go out to get fast food, or a haircut, or lumber to build a good-neighbor fence you have the choice of Mc Donald's vs. Jack-in-the-Box, or Supercuts vs. Joe the Barber, or TrueValue vs. The Home Depot. If one doesn't give you the service you want you take your Dollar elsewhere. You've earned that choice by earning your Dollar. The government under Liberalism doesn't want you to have that choice because they don't want you to take your Dollar anywhere. As far as they are concerned, it isn't your Dollar in the first place, and in their reality you wouldn't have any Dollars to make those choices for yourself anyway. If you were to NEED something the government would provide, and you'd be either happy with the service, or at least not NEED anymore. Of course, NEED would be determined by someone who, in the beginning, more often than not won't know what your NEEDS are. Over time this faceless "someone" will have been so removed from your idea of NEED that you'll be lucky to be given Government Cheese when you're actually lactose intolerant.
The cornerstone destroying problem with Liberalism is that human nature inherently houses a overarching need to achieve more. Liberalism is the restriction or removal of this desire. How else would the government's providing of services better left to the competition of a free market be acceptable? Once a person's ambition is crushed and replaced with poorly met (and often unmet) NEEDS the Liberal government has you, and you now have your "Utopia", where a ruling class provides what you NEED without an ounce more able to be obtained. After all, you don't NEED it, do you? What you WANT is irrelevant.
February 4, 2010
...if you want it or Not!
If the government is so overly concerned about health care costs maybe they should remove restrictions to health insurance competition. There are only 8 or 10 reputable companies in California, for instance, that meet the standards for California's health insurance minimums, and two of them are State subsidised (Blue Cross and Blue Shield). There are 35 Million documented Californians. That competition pool is pretty slim, for that size of a customer base, and doesn't offer much in the way of incentive for the companies to cut costs. If employers are to be encouraged to provide health insurance for their employees it would make better economic sense to allow for competition to drive costs down. Fewer and fewer companies are willing to do business in California because of the high tax cost of doing business, further exaserbating the chances of competition.
TORT reform will also drive down costs, as it has in Texas. Exhorberant judgements in litigation against doctors and hospitals in malpractice suits drives a doctor's cost of doing business up through high malpractice insurance premiums, and that cost is always passed on to the consumer.
Don't like that I talk about healthcare in the terms of it being a business? That is one of the biggest problems with the thought process of Americans these days... It IS business. If you can't afford the cost of participating in the economy its either because you choose not to be productive, or you have a disability that prevents your participation. If you're not disabled then your lack of access is your fault, as access is NOT a right, but a privilage.
Conversely, it would be the same as saying that every American has the right to own a car, regardless of their ability to pay for one. That is Communism, play and simple, and it is wrong, unsustainable, and ultimately leads to the fall of every nation that attempts it.
I was at : 621-629 E a St, Hayward, CA 94541,
TORT reform will also drive down costs, as it has in Texas. Exhorberant judgements in litigation against doctors and hospitals in malpractice suits drives a doctor's cost of doing business up through high malpractice insurance premiums, and that cost is always passed on to the consumer.
Don't like that I talk about healthcare in the terms of it being a business? That is one of the biggest problems with the thought process of Americans these days... It IS business. If you can't afford the cost of participating in the economy its either because you choose not to be productive, or you have a disability that prevents your participation. If you're not disabled then your lack of access is your fault, as access is NOT a right, but a privilage.
Conversely, it would be the same as saying that every American has the right to own a car, regardless of their ability to pay for one. That is Communism, play and simple, and it is wrong, unsustainable, and ultimately leads to the fall of every nation that attempts it.
I was at : 621-629 E a St, Hayward, CA 94541,
I have a Problem... A Big Problem
What happens when the only realistic measure of shelter from Governmental wholesale destruction of the US economy is to move out of the TSP's market based funds and into their no risk Government securities? If things keep going as they are the Government securities I can invest in will be worthless as well. What is one to do?
February 1, 2010
Tax the Job Producers, and then give Them a Carrot
Thats right, a capital "Them". The rhetoric from the Left typically labels rich Americans and businesses as "Them", so I'll just carry it forward for "Them". The President and his buddies in Congress plan on letting Tax Breaks expire for "Them" in order to blunt the blow to our deficit the $3.8B budget the President plans to sign. The expectation, he says, is that the richest of Americans can afford the taxes (upwards of $0.60 on every dollar they make), so they should pay "Their fair share".
The only problem I see is that these "Them" the Left talks so condescendingly about employ those who the Left would pass those increased taxes on to as entitlements, all the while demonizing them because they're rich. Well, in order to protect their evil profits "They" will shed labor, inventory, production, and possibly their businesses if the taxes prove too much for them to remain in business. That will sort of cut into the taxes "They" are supposed to pay, thus cutting into tax revenue, increasing unemployment, the deficit and damaging the economy further.
You'll never get the Left to realize this, though. Dynamic economic modeling; taking into account the fact that economics has a human component, prone to the fight or flight instinct, and the ambitions that make up the core of human nature, seems to be foreign to the Left.
LOWER TAXES IMPROVES BUSINESS, THUS IMPROVING TAX REVENUE! GET IT? NO? Then find a new job, because you suck at this one!
The only problem I see is that these "Them" the Left talks so condescendingly about employ those who the Left would pass those increased taxes on to as entitlements, all the while demonizing them because they're rich. Well, in order to protect their evil profits "They" will shed labor, inventory, production, and possibly their businesses if the taxes prove too much for them to remain in business. That will sort of cut into the taxes "They" are supposed to pay, thus cutting into tax revenue, increasing unemployment, the deficit and damaging the economy further.
You'll never get the Left to realize this, though. Dynamic economic modeling; taking into account the fact that economics has a human component, prone to the fight or flight instinct, and the ambitions that make up the core of human nature, seems to be foreign to the Left.
LOWER TAXES IMPROVES BUSINESS, THUS IMPROVING TAX REVENUE! GET IT? NO? Then find a new job, because you suck at this one!
January 29, 2010
Credit vs. Break... Neither does the Job...
One of the problems with the President's proposed Tax Credits, or Tax Breaks is they don't do anything for small businesses that have, until now, suffered due to a slump in revenue from poor sales. So far the recession has destroyed employment. Small businesses are the biggest source of employment in the country, and they've been shedding labor hours and boosting productivity of those left in order to just stay above water. Many have gone into debt or folded completely due to the flagging economy. Tax Breaks or Credits don't do much for small businesses in a bad way for the short term because in order to hire someone you must have capital available to be able to meet payroll while your new hire's productivity is tuned into a revenue stream. This takes time, and most small businesses have been operating on the borrowed variety of this commodity for a while.
The most effective way to incentivise small businesses into hiring more employees is to eliminate their immediate tax burden for the new hire, as well as existing employees. Small businesses who end up having to pay quarterly estimated taxes that are lower than current levels will have capital on hand in order to re-invest in growth. This can take the form of asset aquisition (generating sales tax revenue) or headcount (generating income tax revenue). The hard part is that Liberals don't get that. When you reduce income and capital taxes for individuals they spend more money instead of saving for tax day, which generates sales taxes. When you reduce income and capital taxes on businesses they invest the increased revenue in more assets and employment, thus increasing all tax revenue across the board. Tax breaks do nothing in the short term because businesses continue to operate at the same revenue level due to tax breaks not taking effect until the business files their tax return.
This delaying of revenue generation does nothing to drive growth in the private sector, and should seriously be re-evaluated. No real growth is going to be felt for years if this is the "fix" that is put in place, and by then countless more job losses and small business failures will continue to cripple our economy.
I was at : 6942-7298 San Leandro St, Oakland, CA 94621,
The most effective way to incentivise small businesses into hiring more employees is to eliminate their immediate tax burden for the new hire, as well as existing employees. Small businesses who end up having to pay quarterly estimated taxes that are lower than current levels will have capital on hand in order to re-invest in growth. This can take the form of asset aquisition (generating sales tax revenue) or headcount (generating income tax revenue). The hard part is that Liberals don't get that. When you reduce income and capital taxes for individuals they spend more money instead of saving for tax day, which generates sales taxes. When you reduce income and capital taxes on businesses they invest the increased revenue in more assets and employment, thus increasing all tax revenue across the board. Tax breaks do nothing in the short term because businesses continue to operate at the same revenue level due to tax breaks not taking effect until the business files their tax return.
This delaying of revenue generation does nothing to drive growth in the private sector, and should seriously be re-evaluated. No real growth is going to be felt for years if this is the "fix" that is put in place, and by then countless more job losses and small business failures will continue to cripple our economy.
I was at : 6942-7298 San Leandro St, Oakland, CA 94621,
No Paper!
Today is the first day I didn't receive a San Jose Mercury Newspaper. I'm not too distraught, though. When I canceled my susbscription they were prepared to sell me the paper at a 70% discount off of face value. The reason for this, I believe, is that the parent company for SJMN and several other Bay Area rags filed for bankruptcy this week. Bum city. I don't like to hear that a company has to risk going out of business in reorganization, but when I don't agree with the Liberal opinion shaping that takes place in lieu of news reporting I won't shed a tear, either.
I was at : 29480 Pacific St, Hayward, CA 94544,
I was at : 29480 Pacific St, Hayward, CA 94544,
January 27, 2010
Tax Them, and They will Leave
So Oregon has it in for private industry, and the public there is complicite in their destruction. That's alright, Oregon industry... If you want to move your business, I hear Texas is still pro-Capitalism!
I was at : 801-899 Oak St, Oakland, CA 94607,
I was at : 801-899 Oak St, Oakland, CA 94607,
Giving Back... That which was Taken!
So an Ohio State Senator is raising a stink about something that's been reported on Fox News several times in the past year. I can't say for sure, as I don't consume the litterbox leavings found on CNN, but this is the first time I've seen any other media outlet even mention the barest of depths of the "Reinvestment".
Yeah, $300M spent nation wide on signs to tell the receiving public the work being done is being done with their money. Well, actually, not really. Most of the stimulus dollars were borrowed. Yeah, the Administration and Congress had already spent the tax dollars collected; or expected to be, at least... Can they collect tax dollars from you if you're unemployed?
I was at : 760 Fletcher Ln, Hayward, CA 94544,
Yeah, $300M spent nation wide on signs to tell the receiving public the work being done is being done with their money. Well, actually, not really. Most of the stimulus dollars were borrowed. Yeah, the Administration and Congress had already spent the tax dollars collected; or expected to be, at least... Can they collect tax dollars from you if you're unemployed?
I was at : 760 Fletcher Ln, Hayward, CA 94544,
Too Fast!
Why the hell would we want to make the same mistake the Country made with then unknown Senator Obama with now unknown Senator Brown? I can't believe what I'm hearing... Then again, knee-jerkers are among us, and the swoon on the Left for Obama is invariably going to be repeated with Brown on the Right, especially in the news...
I was at : 11th St, Union City, CA 94587,
I was at : 11th St, Union City, CA 94587,
January 26, 2010
Want to Improve Job News? Cut Federal and State Taxes on Small Business
That's all I'm sayin'! Well, that and if the President wants to improve his craptacular approval numbers he should take my advice! People who don't have work are less worried about their health insurance issues than they are about their housing costs, or other necessities... You know, like eating? Does health insurance pay for that?
I was at : 801-899 Oak St, Oakland, CA 94607,
I was at : 801-899 Oak St, Oakland, CA 94607,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
