by Humphrey Stevenson
Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) along with Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY), Harry Reid (D-NV), et al has introduced a new bill in the Senate to get Americans back to work. The bill is entitled “The Americans Want to Work Act” (S.3706). The bill contains three basic provisions. The first provision of the bill would provide for twenty additional weeks of unemployment compensation. (I’m sorry, but did I miss something?) The second extends and increases the HIRE Act payroll tax exemptions to businesses. Finally, the bill doubles the tax credit for businesses to hire the long term unemployed.
The bill would create a fifth tier of unemployment insurance to provide twenty additional weeks of benefits for those who have exhausted their benefits and live in states with unemployment rates of 7.5% or higher. Now that’s an interesting number. Let’s look at some of the states with significantly high unemployment rates, like California (12.3%), Florida (11.4%), Illinois (10.4%), Michigan (13.2%), Nevada (14.2%), and Ohio (10.5%). One wonders if this is a benefit specifically targeted at states the Democrats are counting on to maintain control of the House and Senate after November and are electorally rich which Obama will need in 2012.
That is twenty additional weeks of unemployment benefits on top of the ninety-nine weeks that have already been approved. It is little wonder why many have started to refer to unemployment as “funemployment.” Many of the unemployed are weighing the relaxation of going to the beach or playing golf and collecting unemployment benefits against the drudgery and pay of some job that might be available.
Obviously, the loss of a job and that income is not a welcomed occurrence. However, the replacement of that income becomes a necessity and necessity is the mother of invention as my parents used to say. These extended unemployment benefit de-incentivizes people from stretching themselves, looking for work in another field or possibly starting their own business. They certainly don’t provide much incentive to take any job that is available simply because the person needs the income. To quote John Lott in an article on the Fox News website, “You subsidize something and you get more of it.” Most people are not self-starters, regardless of what their resume’ says. They need a push. It’s simply human nature. Unfortunately, our government is subsidizing laziness.
The bill would also extend the HIRE Act through the end of 2011. This act was signed into law earlier this year and provides certain tax incentives for businesses to hire the long term unemployed. Specifically, employers are exempt from their share of a new employee’s Social Security payroll taxes. The employee must still pay their share. The employer also receives an additional $1,000 in tax credits if the employee is retained for one year. The business receives these exemptions if the employee had been unemployed for at least 60 days. Additionally, this new bill would double the tax credits if the new employee had exhausted all unemployment benefits and the employee is retained for at least one year.
Senator Stabenow stated that from February to June of this year, businesses had hired 5.6 million long term unemployed people for a “potential tax savings of $10.4 billion” as evidence that the HIRE Act was creating jobs. Once again, a Democrat fails to understand basic business principles. Companies are not in business to provide jobs. They are in business to produce and market goods and services, hopefully, at a profit. Employees are a means to that end. I’m not saying that employers would not take advantage of these tax credits if they happen to hire an eligible employee, they probably would. But the need for that employee must exist first. If a business has no need for any additional employees, they will not hire no matter how many tax incentives the government offers.
If the Democrats were truly interested in creating jobs, they would cut personal and corporate taxes period, and not tie the cuts to hiring a certain type of worker. This would incentivize the purchase and thereby the production of goods and services. Businesses would need to hire more employees to keep up with increased demand (not to mention they would not be punished for making a profit) and unemployment would fall naturally.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
The Kings of Our Age
by Humphrey Stevenson
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
This beautiful sentence begins the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. This was a statement of what the Founders believed about mankind; that no person is created any better than any other person. We all came into the world the same way; that’s why we all have a bellybutton. Further, that all rights granted to the individual come from God not from any other person or government.
Do our leaders today really believe that they are no better than we are? They have a bloated sense of moral superiority. Their values are unattainable to the unwashed masses. They believe themselves to be superior to the Founders therefore the Constitution is an obstacle to be circumvented. They are so needed that any failings are to be disregarded. Just as kings, the elite were born to rule.
We, the surfs, are to pay the taxes the elite prescribe. We are to be told what to eat, what to drive, how to live. If sacrifice is needed, we are to suffer the lack. In the eyes of the elite, we are at best hick, hayseed boobs and at worst racist, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals.
We know that our ruling elite class believes that they can create rights. They told us they could. They say that with ObamaCare they have made health care a right. However, for one person to have a right means that no other is deprived of their rights. Rights are not transferred from one person to another. For instance, your right to life does not require that someone else die. But for person A to have a “right” to health care means that person B must pay for it, which means that person B is deprived of his right to his property. This is not a transfer of rights; it is simply a transfer of wealth. Therefore, health care is not a right no matter how many laws the elite pass.
They couldn’t have passed ObamaCare by calling it what it really was, a wealth transfer; so they declared it a human right and as long as no one understands what rights are and from where they come, the elite will keep on doing it.
The elite can take $ 26 billion of our money and pay off their friends in the teachers’ unions and public sector unions for their support in the November elections. I know, Obama said it was fully paid for by closing tax loopholes for multinational corporations. If this is true, then once again it proves the elite have no idea of the consequences of their tax policies. They obviously don’t realize that these policies will cause these multinational corporations to completely leave the U.S. and cause even more loss of jobs. Or maybe they do and it is part of the plan to create more dependency on the Federal government.
The ruling elite believe that they can control the economy better than the market. Thomas DiLorenzo in an article on the Ludwig von Mises Institute website describes how similar the regulatory control the Federal government exercises over the economic life of the US today is similar to the way F.A. Hayek describes the economic control by the German government of the late 1920’s and 1930’s. Our ruling elite have set up a system in which economic control is not direct but more hidden by the myriad of regulations of the various executive branch “alphabet” Federal agencies. In Germany, the government controlled about 53 percent of the means of production. Today the Federal government controls roughly 45 percent of the means of production. As DiLorenzo said, “It may sound shocking to some, but modern-day America compares "favorably" to fascist Germany of the 1930s with regard to the degree to which the state interferes with and controls economic activity.”
The solution to the problem of our elite ruling class will not be found in the Federal government no matter how many Republicans we elect to Congress. Congress is becoming irrelevant by the power it has transferred to the executive branch. The Federal government binds the states to itself by offering the so called aid to states. We must elect state legislators and governors that will exercise financial discipline and thereby be in a position to disconnect your state from the Federal government system.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
This beautiful sentence begins the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. This was a statement of what the Founders believed about mankind; that no person is created any better than any other person. We all came into the world the same way; that’s why we all have a bellybutton. Further, that all rights granted to the individual come from God not from any other person or government.
Do our leaders today really believe that they are no better than we are? They have a bloated sense of moral superiority. Their values are unattainable to the unwashed masses. They believe themselves to be superior to the Founders therefore the Constitution is an obstacle to be circumvented. They are so needed that any failings are to be disregarded. Just as kings, the elite were born to rule.
We, the surfs, are to pay the taxes the elite prescribe. We are to be told what to eat, what to drive, how to live. If sacrifice is needed, we are to suffer the lack. In the eyes of the elite, we are at best hick, hayseed boobs and at worst racist, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals.
We know that our ruling elite class believes that they can create rights. They told us they could. They say that with ObamaCare they have made health care a right. However, for one person to have a right means that no other is deprived of their rights. Rights are not transferred from one person to another. For instance, your right to life does not require that someone else die. But for person A to have a “right” to health care means that person B must pay for it, which means that person B is deprived of his right to his property. This is not a transfer of rights; it is simply a transfer of wealth. Therefore, health care is not a right no matter how many laws the elite pass.
They couldn’t have passed ObamaCare by calling it what it really was, a wealth transfer; so they declared it a human right and as long as no one understands what rights are and from where they come, the elite will keep on doing it.
The elite can take $ 26 billion of our money and pay off their friends in the teachers’ unions and public sector unions for their support in the November elections. I know, Obama said it was fully paid for by closing tax loopholes for multinational corporations. If this is true, then once again it proves the elite have no idea of the consequences of their tax policies. They obviously don’t realize that these policies will cause these multinational corporations to completely leave the U.S. and cause even more loss of jobs. Or maybe they do and it is part of the plan to create more dependency on the Federal government.
The ruling elite believe that they can control the economy better than the market. Thomas DiLorenzo in an article on the Ludwig von Mises Institute website describes how similar the regulatory control the Federal government exercises over the economic life of the US today is similar to the way F.A. Hayek describes the economic control by the German government of the late 1920’s and 1930’s. Our ruling elite have set up a system in which economic control is not direct but more hidden by the myriad of regulations of the various executive branch “alphabet” Federal agencies. In Germany, the government controlled about 53 percent of the means of production. Today the Federal government controls roughly 45 percent of the means of production. As DiLorenzo said, “It may sound shocking to some, but modern-day America compares "favorably" to fascist Germany of the 1930s with regard to the degree to which the state interferes with and controls economic activity.”
The solution to the problem of our elite ruling class will not be found in the Federal government no matter how many Republicans we elect to Congress. Congress is becoming irrelevant by the power it has transferred to the executive branch. The Federal government binds the states to itself by offering the so called aid to states. We must elect state legislators and governors that will exercise financial discipline and thereby be in a position to disconnect your state from the Federal government system.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
The Liberal Tea Party
by Humphrey Stevenson
The liberals figure if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em and the liberals certainly have been taking their lumps from the tea parties of late. With this in mind they are going to start themselves a Tea Party. According to an article in the Washington Post the coalition of some 170 liberal and civil rights groups will be called “One Nation.” (It would seem that “Under God” didn’t make the cut.) They are hoping to counter the Tea Parties’ power and influence and “help the progressive movement find its voice again.”
The major groups involved are the usual suspects. They include the National Council of La Raza, the Service Employees International Union, the NAACP, the AFL-CIO, and the United States Student Association.
They think that in working together they can defeat the conservative resistance. They came to feel their strength in unity when the Health Care bill passed earlier this year. They feel that they were instrumental in getting the bill passed against “heavy resistance.” Heavy resistance? The Democrats had and continue to have majorities in both Houses of Congress. All it took was bribing a few squeamish Democrat members of Congress and the bill was assured of passage.
While the Tea Parties differ on some issues, on major issues they tend to agree. This is done without some central authority to coordinate the tea parties stand on these matters. This agreement is shocking to the liberal left and has led them to undertake fruitless searches for the Tea Parties’ leadership. The Tea Parties agree on limited, decentralized government, lower taxes, the right to personal property, reverence for God, respect for the family, and maximizing liberty for the people. The left does not understand that the reason for the general agreement between the various Tea Parties is not because of some central authority. It is due to the fact that these are heartfelt, deeply held beliefs that define us as conservatives and our basic core values guide our position on issues.
With the left, every position is a political calculation. They have no core values other than maximum governmental control and they are generally a coalition of disparate groups. Therefore, they must carefully consider the effect of a particular position on one or more of their groups. Further, the central authority must make sure that any group that might get short-shifted in a position decision does not leave the fold. This must be no mean feat. For example, I have never understood why minority parents who want a better education for their children could stay so beholden to a group dead set against school vouchers out of deference to the teachers’ unions.
It seems curious why at least one of these founding groups would want anything to do something “Tea Party-ish.” The NAACP is drafting a resolution condemning racist elements in the Tea Parties. Softening the language of an earlier draft, the civil rights organization settled on, "What we take issue with is the Tea Party's continued tolerance for bigotry and bigoted statements. The time has come for them to accept the responsibility that comes with influence and make clear there is no place for racism and anti-Semitism, homophobia and other forms of bigotry in their movement.”
NAACP Chairman Benjamin Todd Jealous went further in his speech to the convention. He compared the Tea Parties to the White Citizens Council of the 1950s and ‘60s and suggested that Tea Party members routinely carry signs calling for the lynching of Barack Obama and Eric Holder. The evidence he provided was the discredited claims that Tea Partiers shouted racial epitaphs and spat upon black congressmen outside of the Capital back in April.
The first part of the second sentence of the quote points to what the NAACP really has a problem with, the Tea Parties’ influence. The Tea Parties are making a difference while the NAACP sees its own, once formidable, influence waning. So, though childish, it is understandable that the NAACP would lash out at the Tea Parties. But, can’t they come up with something more original than racism. It seems that is all they have anymore. Of course, this charge is coming from a group that supports a political party that up until a couple of weeks ago had a Senator that was a former Klansman.
Once again the left reveals that it has zero understanding of what the Tea Parties are and why they are becoming a force in resisting tyranny.
The liberals figure if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em and the liberals certainly have been taking their lumps from the tea parties of late. With this in mind they are going to start themselves a Tea Party. According to an article in the Washington Post the coalition of some 170 liberal and civil rights groups will be called “One Nation.” (It would seem that “Under God” didn’t make the cut.) They are hoping to counter the Tea Parties’ power and influence and “help the progressive movement find its voice again.”
The major groups involved are the usual suspects. They include the National Council of La Raza, the Service Employees International Union, the NAACP, the AFL-CIO, and the United States Student Association.
They think that in working together they can defeat the conservative resistance. They came to feel their strength in unity when the Health Care bill passed earlier this year. They feel that they were instrumental in getting the bill passed against “heavy resistance.” Heavy resistance? The Democrats had and continue to have majorities in both Houses of Congress. All it took was bribing a few squeamish Democrat members of Congress and the bill was assured of passage.
While the Tea Parties differ on some issues, on major issues they tend to agree. This is done without some central authority to coordinate the tea parties stand on these matters. This agreement is shocking to the liberal left and has led them to undertake fruitless searches for the Tea Parties’ leadership. The Tea Parties agree on limited, decentralized government, lower taxes, the right to personal property, reverence for God, respect for the family, and maximizing liberty for the people. The left does not understand that the reason for the general agreement between the various Tea Parties is not because of some central authority. It is due to the fact that these are heartfelt, deeply held beliefs that define us as conservatives and our basic core values guide our position on issues.
With the left, every position is a political calculation. They have no core values other than maximum governmental control and they are generally a coalition of disparate groups. Therefore, they must carefully consider the effect of a particular position on one or more of their groups. Further, the central authority must make sure that any group that might get short-shifted in a position decision does not leave the fold. This must be no mean feat. For example, I have never understood why minority parents who want a better education for their children could stay so beholden to a group dead set against school vouchers out of deference to the teachers’ unions.
It seems curious why at least one of these founding groups would want anything to do something “Tea Party-ish.” The NAACP is drafting a resolution condemning racist elements in the Tea Parties. Softening the language of an earlier draft, the civil rights organization settled on, "What we take issue with is the Tea Party's continued tolerance for bigotry and bigoted statements. The time has come for them to accept the responsibility that comes with influence and make clear there is no place for racism and anti-Semitism, homophobia and other forms of bigotry in their movement.”
NAACP Chairman Benjamin Todd Jealous went further in his speech to the convention. He compared the Tea Parties to the White Citizens Council of the 1950s and ‘60s and suggested that Tea Party members routinely carry signs calling for the lynching of Barack Obama and Eric Holder. The evidence he provided was the discredited claims that Tea Partiers shouted racial epitaphs and spat upon black congressmen outside of the Capital back in April.
The first part of the second sentence of the quote points to what the NAACP really has a problem with, the Tea Parties’ influence. The Tea Parties are making a difference while the NAACP sees its own, once formidable, influence waning. So, though childish, it is understandable that the NAACP would lash out at the Tea Parties. But, can’t they come up with something more original than racism. It seems that is all they have anymore. Of course, this charge is coming from a group that supports a political party that up until a couple of weeks ago had a Senator that was a former Klansman.
Once again the left reveals that it has zero understanding of what the Tea Parties are and why they are becoming a force in resisting tyranny.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
The Dirtiest Word
by Humphrey Stevenson
The late comedian George Carlin used to do a bit about the seven words you can’t say on television, the seven dirtiest words. However, I think Mr. Carlin forgot one. He probably overlooked it because you can say this word on television; it is no “four letter word.” In fact, it is held up as possibly the greatest of words and it only has two letters. It is nonetheless the dirtiest (or at least the most damaging) word in the English language. The word is “we.”
I love our Constitution but I question the opening phrase of it. I’m not the only person who has a problem with the phrase that opens our Constitution. No less than Patrick Henry questioned the phrase in 1788 during the Virginia Ratification Debate when he said, “My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask who authorized them to speak the language of ‘We, the People,’ instead of ‘We, the States’?”
Patrick Henry was pointing out two facts. One, the states were being asked to ratify the Constitution and thereby join the Union, not the people and two; our Union is a union of free and independent states and not a nation of people. The people are citizens of their state. Henry thought of himself as a Virginian much more than an American.
Back during the Barack Obama campaign for President, there were mindless chants of “Yes, we can!” That phrase did not mean “Yes, this group of free thinking individuals can!” It meant “Yes, the collective can!” or “Yes, the State can!”
When used in this way, “we” destroys individual responsibility and thereby individual rights and freedoms. In the mind of the collectivist there are no individual rights, only collective rights. The needs, wants and desires are of the individual no relevance. They are to be subjugated to the good of collective.
My father, a World War II veteran, once told me that when the bullets start flying, you’re not fighting for your country anymore; you’re fighting for yourself, for survival. General George Patton expressed a similar sentiment when he said, “The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.”
My dad and General Patton’s wisdom has application to undertakings other than war. You don’t improve your country by giving up your personal ambitions for the collective. You improve it by unapologetically working toward your own accomplishments and success.
You think Henry Ford developed the assembly line because he was altruistic and just wanted to provide good paying jobs to thousands of unskilled workers? Maybe he did it so he could make the automobile affordable to the common man and improve the lives of millions of average citizens. No, these laudable results of Mr. Ford’s work were incidental to his actual motivation; to sell cars at a profit and become filthy rich. You want solar energy? Great, figure out a way someone can get rich off of it and you will have it.
There is nothing wrong with that motivation. However, the collectivist has no regard for individual accomplishment. He would agree with “the Scholars” in Ayn Rand’s great novel Anthem when they said, “What is not done collectively cannot be good.” To a collectivist, all must be done by “we.” It matters not how long it takes or how much it cost or how shoddy it is once done. What is accomplished by the individual is fraught with danger or greed or racism or any other manner of evil but that which is done by “we” is pure and good and right and when it fails you are not to question the results, only praise the intentions.
I have great faith, not in the American people (as harsh as that may sound) but in the American person, the individual. I believe that individuals pursuing the betterment of their own lives, unencumbered by the burdens of the collective, results not only in the improvement of the individual, but society as well.
On that final day, when you stand before the Judge of the Universe, you will stand there alone. You will answer for your actions as an individual. He will care little (and maybe not at all) about the collective.
The late comedian George Carlin used to do a bit about the seven words you can’t say on television, the seven dirtiest words. However, I think Mr. Carlin forgot one. He probably overlooked it because you can say this word on television; it is no “four letter word.” In fact, it is held up as possibly the greatest of words and it only has two letters. It is nonetheless the dirtiest (or at least the most damaging) word in the English language. The word is “we.”
I love our Constitution but I question the opening phrase of it. I’m not the only person who has a problem with the phrase that opens our Constitution. No less than Patrick Henry questioned the phrase in 1788 during the Virginia Ratification Debate when he said, “My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask who authorized them to speak the language of ‘We, the People,’ instead of ‘We, the States’?”
Patrick Henry was pointing out two facts. One, the states were being asked to ratify the Constitution and thereby join the Union, not the people and two; our Union is a union of free and independent states and not a nation of people. The people are citizens of their state. Henry thought of himself as a Virginian much more than an American.
Back during the Barack Obama campaign for President, there were mindless chants of “Yes, we can!” That phrase did not mean “Yes, this group of free thinking individuals can!” It meant “Yes, the collective can!” or “Yes, the State can!”
When used in this way, “we” destroys individual responsibility and thereby individual rights and freedoms. In the mind of the collectivist there are no individual rights, only collective rights. The needs, wants and desires are of the individual no relevance. They are to be subjugated to the good of collective.
My father, a World War II veteran, once told me that when the bullets start flying, you’re not fighting for your country anymore; you’re fighting for yourself, for survival. General George Patton expressed a similar sentiment when he said, “The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.”
My dad and General Patton’s wisdom has application to undertakings other than war. You don’t improve your country by giving up your personal ambitions for the collective. You improve it by unapologetically working toward your own accomplishments and success.
You think Henry Ford developed the assembly line because he was altruistic and just wanted to provide good paying jobs to thousands of unskilled workers? Maybe he did it so he could make the automobile affordable to the common man and improve the lives of millions of average citizens. No, these laudable results of Mr. Ford’s work were incidental to his actual motivation; to sell cars at a profit and become filthy rich. You want solar energy? Great, figure out a way someone can get rich off of it and you will have it.
There is nothing wrong with that motivation. However, the collectivist has no regard for individual accomplishment. He would agree with “the Scholars” in Ayn Rand’s great novel Anthem when they said, “What is not done collectively cannot be good.” To a collectivist, all must be done by “we.” It matters not how long it takes or how much it cost or how shoddy it is once done. What is accomplished by the individual is fraught with danger or greed or racism or any other manner of evil but that which is done by “we” is pure and good and right and when it fails you are not to question the results, only praise the intentions.
I have great faith, not in the American people (as harsh as that may sound) but in the American person, the individual. I believe that individuals pursuing the betterment of their own lives, unencumbered by the burdens of the collective, results not only in the improvement of the individual, but society as well.
On that final day, when you stand before the Judge of the Universe, you will stand there alone. You will answer for your actions as an individual. He will care little (and maybe not at all) about the collective.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Forced Charity
by Humphrey Stevenson
This past Sunday morning, I was perusing my local newspaper when I ran across a story about a local food bank requesting volunteers to help pack boxes. I thought, “That’s nice. A local charity has so much food they need help getting it out.” But then I made the mistake of actually reading the story and I felt the back of my neck take on the temperature of my coffee. The reason the food bank had 60 tractor-trailer loads of food and household items was that they had proudly received a $2 million Federal grant.
My objection is not the giving of funds to a food bank to help the needy, it who’s doing the “giving.” I encourage people to give to the charitable organizations of their choice. But here we have the Federal government using taxpayer money (or worse, money borrowed from the Chinese) to fund a charity.
This is not an isolated incident. According to a paper prepared by the Cato Institute during the Bush administration, overall charities receive nearly one third of their funding from Federal grants. Charities even employ persons skilled in writing grant applications in order to better their chance at receiving the government funding. They become dependent on this source of funding.
So why would the Federal government provide funds to charities instead of relying on the famous generosity of the American people? For the same reason it owns car companies, banks, mortgage providers, student loan providers, etc. In this way the Federal government, and not the individual giver, will decide which charities receive funding and which will not. In order to receive the Federal money, the organization must abide by the regulations set forth by the Federal government. This can turn charities into quasi-governmental agencies.
Many times the Federal government uses its control of these funds to force organizations to take certain actions. A few years ago the Federal government threatened to withhold Federal Highway Funds to States that did not raise their legal drinking age to 21. Whatever you or I may think the legal drinking age should be, can we agree that this is something a State is capable of determining without the supervision of Big Brother? It may be my latent Libertarianism surfacing but I think if someone is old enough to join the military and be sent to a foreign land and possibly lose their life, they’re old enough to have a beer.
A city applies to the Federal government for funding for some project. Think about the route the money takes to get there. A person in a city is taxed by the Federal government so that the Federal government can send that money back to that city to fund the project. Even worse, the same person is taxed by the Federal government who then sends the money to another city halfway across the country.
A spokesperson for the food bank was quoted as saying, “We’re grateful for the money we received to purchase food this summer, a time when food donations are typically down and the need increases because children don’t have access to their free or reduced-price school meals.”
Is this why we have these government indoctrination centers, to provide free meals to children? Don’t these children have parents? Where are they and what about their parental responsibility? Sorry, but I digress.
Maybe it’s not a digression because it’s all related to the same thing. Once again, it’s the Federal government encouraging individuals and organizations to give up their responsibility, whether that is parents feeding their kids, states building their roads, cities paying their cops or charitable organizations raising their own money, to become dependent on the benevolence of the Federal government. As dependence on the Federal government grows it becomes more indispensable. As it becomes more indispensable, it becomes more powerful.
Does it really matter? Isn’t the most important thing helping the poor? That’s the thing about big government people; they have a soft spot for the poor. That is as long as they can handle the money in transit.
Americans are the most generous people on the planet. Charity need not be forcibly extracted from the people by the IRS. When it is it cannot truly be called charity. Also, it gives people a reason not to be charitable. If a taxpayer feels they are funding these organizations through their taxes, they have less incentive to give.
This past Sunday morning, I was perusing my local newspaper when I ran across a story about a local food bank requesting volunteers to help pack boxes. I thought, “That’s nice. A local charity has so much food they need help getting it out.” But then I made the mistake of actually reading the story and I felt the back of my neck take on the temperature of my coffee. The reason the food bank had 60 tractor-trailer loads of food and household items was that they had proudly received a $2 million Federal grant.
My objection is not the giving of funds to a food bank to help the needy, it who’s doing the “giving.” I encourage people to give to the charitable organizations of their choice. But here we have the Federal government using taxpayer money (or worse, money borrowed from the Chinese) to fund a charity.
This is not an isolated incident. According to a paper prepared by the Cato Institute during the Bush administration, overall charities receive nearly one third of their funding from Federal grants. Charities even employ persons skilled in writing grant applications in order to better their chance at receiving the government funding. They become dependent on this source of funding.
So why would the Federal government provide funds to charities instead of relying on the famous generosity of the American people? For the same reason it owns car companies, banks, mortgage providers, student loan providers, etc. In this way the Federal government, and not the individual giver, will decide which charities receive funding and which will not. In order to receive the Federal money, the organization must abide by the regulations set forth by the Federal government. This can turn charities into quasi-governmental agencies.
Many times the Federal government uses its control of these funds to force organizations to take certain actions. A few years ago the Federal government threatened to withhold Federal Highway Funds to States that did not raise their legal drinking age to 21. Whatever you or I may think the legal drinking age should be, can we agree that this is something a State is capable of determining without the supervision of Big Brother? It may be my latent Libertarianism surfacing but I think if someone is old enough to join the military and be sent to a foreign land and possibly lose their life, they’re old enough to have a beer.
A city applies to the Federal government for funding for some project. Think about the route the money takes to get there. A person in a city is taxed by the Federal government so that the Federal government can send that money back to that city to fund the project. Even worse, the same person is taxed by the Federal government who then sends the money to another city halfway across the country.
A spokesperson for the food bank was quoted as saying, “We’re grateful for the money we received to purchase food this summer, a time when food donations are typically down and the need increases because children don’t have access to their free or reduced-price school meals.”
Is this why we have these government indoctrination centers, to provide free meals to children? Don’t these children have parents? Where are they and what about their parental responsibility? Sorry, but I digress.
Maybe it’s not a digression because it’s all related to the same thing. Once again, it’s the Federal government encouraging individuals and organizations to give up their responsibility, whether that is parents feeding their kids, states building their roads, cities paying their cops or charitable organizations raising their own money, to become dependent on the benevolence of the Federal government. As dependence on the Federal government grows it becomes more indispensable. As it becomes more indispensable, it becomes more powerful.
Does it really matter? Isn’t the most important thing helping the poor? That’s the thing about big government people; they have a soft spot for the poor. That is as long as they can handle the money in transit.
Americans are the most generous people on the planet. Charity need not be forcibly extracted from the people by the IRS. When it is it cannot truly be called charity. Also, it gives people a reason not to be charitable. If a taxpayer feels they are funding these organizations through their taxes, they have less incentive to give.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Phony versus True Conservatism
by Humphrey Stevenson
The other day I was on my way home from the gym and found myself behind a car with a Gingrich/Romney 2012 bumper sticker. My immediate reaction was, “Please, not those two.” They strike me as “phony conservatives.” Oh, not that they don’t believe what they say, just that what they say isn’t true conservatism. Their philosophy seems to be our Federal government will be fine once we change who’s in charge.
For instance, Romney instituted a health care plan for Massachusetts. Constitutionally that’s fine; if a State wants to institute a health care plan for its citizens OK, but it’s not philosophically conservative. There are many on the Right that think it is foolish to go into the elections with “Repeal Obamacare” as our mantra. They feel it must be “Repeal and Replace.” They say, “We must have a plan of our own.” If you ask a phony conservative to describe their health care plan for our country he will argue specific points of health care. If you ask the same of a true conservative, he will say, “I don’t have one.” That may sound simplistic but it’s not that, it’s a different philosophy, “Who is he that he should plan your health care for you?” The true conservative wants you to be free to choose the health care services that make sense to you, based on the free market.
The true conservative understands personal responsibility and its relationship to personal liberty. You can’t have one without the other. If you have no responsibility, you have no liberty. However, personal responsibility is difficult and the Federal government says, Oh, don’t worry about that, we’ll handle that responsibility for you. You just enjoy the ‘liberty’.” What you didn’t realize was they took your responsibility because it was necessary in order to take your liberty, which is really what they wanted in the first place.
This same conservative concept is true for the States as well. The idea of State sovereignty is nice but it’s meaningless unless a State is taking responsibility for itself and its citizens. However, our States have become far too dependent on the Federal government … and it has been by design. Federal funds to a State are one of the greatest scams in history. Think about how it works. The Federal government takes your money through taxes. Then launders it through some Federal program or other and uses the money (your money) to procure your State’s dependence.
We must return to the Federalism as outlined in our Constitution. I love this quote from Bruce Fein, Former Associate Deputy Attorney General. “Federalism creates competition in good government. If a state does something stupid, people can pick up, they leave, businesses go, and they’ve got to reform.” However, “When the Congress acts, everybody’s saddled with the same burden.” So if Congress does something stupid, we are all burdened under the same stupidity.
Is there anything this Federal government does well? I know your answer; the military. But if that is true then someone explain to me what we are doing in Afghanistan. If we’re fighting the Taliban, then let’s attack the enemy, kill the enemy, break its equipment and bring our men and women home. This is how we fought World War II; all out. We would accept nothing less than unconditional surrender. Anything less is unfair to the people who have committed their lives to the defense of our nation. Some say we’re “nation building,” whatever that means. This government is destroying its own nation at home, is this truly the government that should be building other nations?
This government has the reverse-Midas tough, everything it touches turns to excrement. It can’t execute its Constitutional responsibilities with any degree of proficiency. In spite of this, they want more; more power, more money. This is going to be the battle of our time. For example, Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) told a group of young Democrats, “Give us more authority and ability.” Yes, you read that right Barney Frank thinks that this Federal megalith of absolute incompetence should have more authority not less.
This Federal government is a living, breathing beast. It preys on individual liberty and private property. Progressives (now called Democrats) have been on a hundred year mission to feed and grow this beast. There is no middle ground now; you either favor the beast or you stand against it. The only solution to save individual liberty and private property is true conservatives committed to the destruction of the beast.
The other day I was on my way home from the gym and found myself behind a car with a Gingrich/Romney 2012 bumper sticker. My immediate reaction was, “Please, not those two.” They strike me as “phony conservatives.” Oh, not that they don’t believe what they say, just that what they say isn’t true conservatism. Their philosophy seems to be our Federal government will be fine once we change who’s in charge.
For instance, Romney instituted a health care plan for Massachusetts. Constitutionally that’s fine; if a State wants to institute a health care plan for its citizens OK, but it’s not philosophically conservative. There are many on the Right that think it is foolish to go into the elections with “Repeal Obamacare” as our mantra. They feel it must be “Repeal and Replace.” They say, “We must have a plan of our own.” If you ask a phony conservative to describe their health care plan for our country he will argue specific points of health care. If you ask the same of a true conservative, he will say, “I don’t have one.” That may sound simplistic but it’s not that, it’s a different philosophy, “Who is he that he should plan your health care for you?” The true conservative wants you to be free to choose the health care services that make sense to you, based on the free market.
The true conservative understands personal responsibility and its relationship to personal liberty. You can’t have one without the other. If you have no responsibility, you have no liberty. However, personal responsibility is difficult and the Federal government says, Oh, don’t worry about that, we’ll handle that responsibility for you. You just enjoy the ‘liberty’.” What you didn’t realize was they took your responsibility because it was necessary in order to take your liberty, which is really what they wanted in the first place.
This same conservative concept is true for the States as well. The idea of State sovereignty is nice but it’s meaningless unless a State is taking responsibility for itself and its citizens. However, our States have become far too dependent on the Federal government … and it has been by design. Federal funds to a State are one of the greatest scams in history. Think about how it works. The Federal government takes your money through taxes. Then launders it through some Federal program or other and uses the money (your money) to procure your State’s dependence.
We must return to the Federalism as outlined in our Constitution. I love this quote from Bruce Fein, Former Associate Deputy Attorney General. “Federalism creates competition in good government. If a state does something stupid, people can pick up, they leave, businesses go, and they’ve got to reform.” However, “When the Congress acts, everybody’s saddled with the same burden.” So if Congress does something stupid, we are all burdened under the same stupidity.
Is there anything this Federal government does well? I know your answer; the military. But if that is true then someone explain to me what we are doing in Afghanistan. If we’re fighting the Taliban, then let’s attack the enemy, kill the enemy, break its equipment and bring our men and women home. This is how we fought World War II; all out. We would accept nothing less than unconditional surrender. Anything less is unfair to the people who have committed their lives to the defense of our nation. Some say we’re “nation building,” whatever that means. This government is destroying its own nation at home, is this truly the government that should be building other nations?
This government has the reverse-Midas tough, everything it touches turns to excrement. It can’t execute its Constitutional responsibilities with any degree of proficiency. In spite of this, they want more; more power, more money. This is going to be the battle of our time. For example, Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) told a group of young Democrats, “Give us more authority and ability.” Yes, you read that right Barney Frank thinks that this Federal megalith of absolute incompetence should have more authority not less.
This Federal government is a living, breathing beast. It preys on individual liberty and private property. Progressives (now called Democrats) have been on a hundred year mission to feed and grow this beast. There is no middle ground now; you either favor the beast or you stand against it. The only solution to save individual liberty and private property is true conservatives committed to the destruction of the beast.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Let’s Get a Grip on Our Oil
by Humphrey Stevenson
The Deepwater Horizon accident and the resultant oil spill have brought to the forefront our dependence on crude oil. There are many saying we must find an alternative to crude oil. But think for a moment of all the things that we take for granted that are derived from crude oil. It’s not just the gasoline in your car’s fuel tank and the oil in your car’s engine. Look around you; all of the plastics, paints, home heating oil, fuel for many power plants, synthetic fibers (polyester, nylon, etc.), countless chemical compounds. I could go on and on. In our modern world, saying lets find an alternative to crude oil is like saying let’s find an alternative to water. It’s just not practical. Crude oil is necessary and there is no getting around that fact.
Also, there is nothing unnatural about crude oil. It is just as much a part of the earth as soil or rocks. It has been here for millions of years and for nearly that long the oil has been seeping through the ocean floor into the water. I recently read a story about a now-extinct group of American Indians called the Karankawas that inhabited the south Texas coastal areas until the mid-1800’s. The Karankawas would collect the tar balls that washed up onto the south Texas shore and use the material to line their baskets and pottery to make them waterproof.
What must be done is to be sure that the crude is extracted in the safest and least environmentally disruptive manner possible. To do this, oil rigs must be located in such a way that when accidents happen our equipment and expertise is not outstripped by the hostility of the environment in which they are located.
The problem with the Deepwater Horizon accident was not the accident itself, although it was tragic due to the eleven lives that were lost. What turned this into an environmental disaster was the location, forty-eight miles offshore and in nearly one mile of water. These conditions greatly reduce the resources that can be used to battle the leak. I recently spoke with a friend of mine that has over 30 years experience in this industry and he told me that if this same accident happened onshore or near-shore, in a few hundred feet of water, the well would have been capped within three days and the environmental impact would have been negligible.
So our Federal government’s response to the Deepwater Horizon accident was a moratorium on further oil exploration. This is akin to shutting down the entire airline industry because of one plane crash. A plane crash is a tragedy, but it is also an accident. We seem to have accepted that as long as we have these huge mechanical birds flying around and the law of gravity is in force, there will occasionally be a an accident. Despite our best efforts, it’s a fact of life.
Unfortunately, we have very little experience or equipment useful with an oil well rupture located one mile underwater. My friend described the response to the spill as playing “Mr. Wizard” in the kitchen sink. Only in this case the kitchen sink is the Gulf of Mexico.
But this is not the fault of BP or the oil industry in general. They have been forced into this situation because we have allowed the extremists in our society to dictate our energy and environmental policy. These extremist do not want any exploration or development domestic sources of energy and they use the environment as an excuse. As a result, we get extreme policies; policies that close off areas where oil could be extracted easily and safely with minimal disruption to the environment.
The reason these environmental extremist have gained this power is that we, the American voter, elect politicians beholden to these extremists, either because they are kindred spirits or because the politician depends on the extremists for campaign cash. We must become a more educated voter. We must make sure that these candidates understand the necessity of safe, domestic oil production. Then we must hold their feet to the fire and make sure they follow through with legislation to open up easily accessible areas for domestic oil development. As we can now see, our oil industry can drill in extreme areas but when something goes wrong, the problems are just as extreme.
The Deepwater Horizon accident and the resultant oil spill have brought to the forefront our dependence on crude oil. There are many saying we must find an alternative to crude oil. But think for a moment of all the things that we take for granted that are derived from crude oil. It’s not just the gasoline in your car’s fuel tank and the oil in your car’s engine. Look around you; all of the plastics, paints, home heating oil, fuel for many power plants, synthetic fibers (polyester, nylon, etc.), countless chemical compounds. I could go on and on. In our modern world, saying lets find an alternative to crude oil is like saying let’s find an alternative to water. It’s just not practical. Crude oil is necessary and there is no getting around that fact.
Also, there is nothing unnatural about crude oil. It is just as much a part of the earth as soil or rocks. It has been here for millions of years and for nearly that long the oil has been seeping through the ocean floor into the water. I recently read a story about a now-extinct group of American Indians called the Karankawas that inhabited the south Texas coastal areas until the mid-1800’s. The Karankawas would collect the tar balls that washed up onto the south Texas shore and use the material to line their baskets and pottery to make them waterproof.
What must be done is to be sure that the crude is extracted in the safest and least environmentally disruptive manner possible. To do this, oil rigs must be located in such a way that when accidents happen our equipment and expertise is not outstripped by the hostility of the environment in which they are located.
The problem with the Deepwater Horizon accident was not the accident itself, although it was tragic due to the eleven lives that were lost. What turned this into an environmental disaster was the location, forty-eight miles offshore and in nearly one mile of water. These conditions greatly reduce the resources that can be used to battle the leak. I recently spoke with a friend of mine that has over 30 years experience in this industry and he told me that if this same accident happened onshore or near-shore, in a few hundred feet of water, the well would have been capped within three days and the environmental impact would have been negligible.
So our Federal government’s response to the Deepwater Horizon accident was a moratorium on further oil exploration. This is akin to shutting down the entire airline industry because of one plane crash. A plane crash is a tragedy, but it is also an accident. We seem to have accepted that as long as we have these huge mechanical birds flying around and the law of gravity is in force, there will occasionally be a an accident. Despite our best efforts, it’s a fact of life.
Unfortunately, we have very little experience or equipment useful with an oil well rupture located one mile underwater. My friend described the response to the spill as playing “Mr. Wizard” in the kitchen sink. Only in this case the kitchen sink is the Gulf of Mexico.
But this is not the fault of BP or the oil industry in general. They have been forced into this situation because we have allowed the extremists in our society to dictate our energy and environmental policy. These extremist do not want any exploration or development domestic sources of energy and they use the environment as an excuse. As a result, we get extreme policies; policies that close off areas where oil could be extracted easily and safely with minimal disruption to the environment.
The reason these environmental extremist have gained this power is that we, the American voter, elect politicians beholden to these extremists, either because they are kindred spirits or because the politician depends on the extremists for campaign cash. We must become a more educated voter. We must make sure that these candidates understand the necessity of safe, domestic oil production. Then we must hold their feet to the fire and make sure they follow through with legislation to open up easily accessible areas for domestic oil development. As we can now see, our oil industry can drill in extreme areas but when something goes wrong, the problems are just as extreme.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Rand Paul is a Racist?
by Humphrey Stevenson
Ever since Tea Party favorite, Dr. Rand Paul, laid waste to the establishment Republican candidate, Trey Grayson, in the Kentucky Senatorial primary, the media has been looking for an avenue of attack against Dr. Paul in order to render him irrelevant. They think they see an avenue in Rand Paul’s statements regarding the 1964 Civil Rights Act, specifically how the Act empowers the Federal government to regulate private businesses.
In an appearance on MSNBC, Dr. Paul was asked by Rachel Maddow if he thought a private business should have the right to refuse service to African-Americans. To which, Paul replied “yes.” This was a “gotcha” question by a second-rate host on a viewer less network.
To refuse to serve a person based on the color of their skin is a bad business decision but freedom requires the right to make a bad business decision. That is what Rand Paul tried to explain to Rachel Maddow. She, however, could not see past her “gotcha” charge of racism to understand this.
A restaurant is not a public establishment, like a public library or a courthouse, because it is not owned by the public. It may be open to the public but it is someone’s private property, like your living room. So it’s not a question of racism; it’s a question of private property rights. If you have no say in who you will allow on your property but the government tells you, then who really owns the property?
The Jim Crow laws of the old South prevented businesses from serving black people the same as whites. This was an overstep by the state or local governments in that it told private businesses who they could not serve. So it was correct to abolish the Jim Crow laws but not to replace them with another overstep, this time by the Federal government, in the opposite direction. Abolish the Jim Crow laws and free the businesses to serve who they will.
Freedom does not mean that only the good people are free. The bigot is free to be a bigot. Do you have any recourse if you have a bigot owning a restaurant and refusing to serve minorities? Certainly you do. You can refuse to frequent his establishment. You can encourage your family and friends to not frequent it. You can picket the establishment; write letters to the editor of the local paper; take out ads publicizing the fact; write blogs; call the local TV news. Do anything you can to get the word out that this restaurant will not serve minorities. If he will not change, then let the owner live with the consequences of his decision. Does it matter if a bigot owns a restaurant if no one eats there?
You don’t kill flies with a sledgehammer. So you don’t use the sledgehammer of the Federal government to deal with a bigot restaurateur. The Federal government will necessarily stomp all over the private property rights of every business owner in this town or any other town, regardless of whether the other business owners are good, bad or indifferent. It has to in order to deal with the bigot restaurateur. Not every problem in our society can or should be solved by some government action. More times than not the government “solution” does more harm than good.
Much of the reason for the attacks on Rand Paul is to attack the Tea Party movement itself. The Left calls Rand Paul a racist for the same reason they use the term “Tea-baggers.” It’s just a label. The Left fears the Tea Parties and whatever they fear, they attack. They fear the movement for what it represents; a groundswell of conservative political thought, deeply held Christian values and reverence for the Founders.
Further, there is a reason that the attacks on Dr. Paul center on a charge of racism. They must continue to portray the conservative ascendency as racist, because there is a truth the Left does not wish to have discovered. Many black Americans are starting to see the light; that decades of use by the Democrat party has left them little more than … used. There are 32 black candidates for congress running as Republicans this year, most of these from southern states; the largest number since reconstruction. This is not characteristic of a racist party and the ideas of Rand Paul are not the ideas of a racist.
Ever since Tea Party favorite, Dr. Rand Paul, laid waste to the establishment Republican candidate, Trey Grayson, in the Kentucky Senatorial primary, the media has been looking for an avenue of attack against Dr. Paul in order to render him irrelevant. They think they see an avenue in Rand Paul’s statements regarding the 1964 Civil Rights Act, specifically how the Act empowers the Federal government to regulate private businesses.
In an appearance on MSNBC, Dr. Paul was asked by Rachel Maddow if he thought a private business should have the right to refuse service to African-Americans. To which, Paul replied “yes.” This was a “gotcha” question by a second-rate host on a viewer less network.
To refuse to serve a person based on the color of their skin is a bad business decision but freedom requires the right to make a bad business decision. That is what Rand Paul tried to explain to Rachel Maddow. She, however, could not see past her “gotcha” charge of racism to understand this.
A restaurant is not a public establishment, like a public library or a courthouse, because it is not owned by the public. It may be open to the public but it is someone’s private property, like your living room. So it’s not a question of racism; it’s a question of private property rights. If you have no say in who you will allow on your property but the government tells you, then who really owns the property?
The Jim Crow laws of the old South prevented businesses from serving black people the same as whites. This was an overstep by the state or local governments in that it told private businesses who they could not serve. So it was correct to abolish the Jim Crow laws but not to replace them with another overstep, this time by the Federal government, in the opposite direction. Abolish the Jim Crow laws and free the businesses to serve who they will.
Freedom does not mean that only the good people are free. The bigot is free to be a bigot. Do you have any recourse if you have a bigot owning a restaurant and refusing to serve minorities? Certainly you do. You can refuse to frequent his establishment. You can encourage your family and friends to not frequent it. You can picket the establishment; write letters to the editor of the local paper; take out ads publicizing the fact; write blogs; call the local TV news. Do anything you can to get the word out that this restaurant will not serve minorities. If he will not change, then let the owner live with the consequences of his decision. Does it matter if a bigot owns a restaurant if no one eats there?
You don’t kill flies with a sledgehammer. So you don’t use the sledgehammer of the Federal government to deal with a bigot restaurateur. The Federal government will necessarily stomp all over the private property rights of every business owner in this town or any other town, regardless of whether the other business owners are good, bad or indifferent. It has to in order to deal with the bigot restaurateur. Not every problem in our society can or should be solved by some government action. More times than not the government “solution” does more harm than good.
Much of the reason for the attacks on Rand Paul is to attack the Tea Party movement itself. The Left calls Rand Paul a racist for the same reason they use the term “Tea-baggers.” It’s just a label. The Left fears the Tea Parties and whatever they fear, they attack. They fear the movement for what it represents; a groundswell of conservative political thought, deeply held Christian values and reverence for the Founders.
Further, there is a reason that the attacks on Dr. Paul center on a charge of racism. They must continue to portray the conservative ascendency as racist, because there is a truth the Left does not wish to have discovered. Many black Americans are starting to see the light; that decades of use by the Democrat party has left them little more than … used. There are 32 black candidates for congress running as Republicans this year, most of these from southern states; the largest number since reconstruction. This is not characteristic of a racist party and the ideas of Rand Paul are not the ideas of a racist.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Freedom of Speech is Good; or Not
by Humphrey Stevenson
Our Founding Fathers guaranteed in the First Amendment our God given right of freedom of speech. They did this because a person is not truly free if he is not free to express his views. The left, who like to think of themselves as the most tolerant among us, seem to not be quite so tolerant of speech they find does not fall in line with their political views.
In a speech at Hampton University, President Obama bemoaned devices such as iPod, iPad and X-Box as diversions. He suggested that these type devices provide 24/7 access to arguments that Obama said “don’t always rank all that high on the truth meter.” In addition, he decried the blogs and talk radio as “putting new pressures on our country and on our democracy.” Notice that Obama specifically points to the new media (blogs and talk radio), where much of the content is conservative in nature. How are these media outlets “putting new pressures” on our country? They may be putting new pressures on his administration in that people now have a choice in where they obtain their information and don’t have to settle for the liberal spin offered by the old media.
This view does not seem to correlate with what President Obama said just a few months ago. On November 16, 2009, while speaking to and taking questions from a group of Chinese students, Obama said that information should be free. The President said that he was “a big believer in openness when it comes to the flow of information,” adding that “vocal criticism of his polices had made him a better leader.” So it seems that the Chinese should access information from any source they wish but the same does not hold true for Americans.
President Obama’s regulatory czar Cass Sunstein wrote a paper in 2008 in which he openly called for banning conspiracy theories. One theory Sunstein would like to ban is the idea that global warming is a “deliberate fraud.” His ideas included outright banning of conspiracy theorizing, taxing the activity (monetarily or otherwise) and infiltrating “extremist” groups. Can you say Tea Parties? He also suggested that right wing websites should include links to opposing views and vice versa. According to Sunstein this could be done either voluntarily or by force.
In a report from the President’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships under Section C – Environment and Climate Change this is the very first recommendation: “Recommendation 1: Form an Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and assign Faith- and Community-Based Liaisons to EPA regional offices.”
In the report, the reason for recommendation is described, “Houses of worship can exert a powerful influence when they practice good energy stewardship and preaches and teaches about conservation as a moral value, it has a powerful influence.” This means that at least Obama’s Advisory Council wants global warming theory preached from America’s pulpits. I don’t have a problem if a pastor feels led to teach conservation in his church, but this is a government agency pushing pastors to teach a particular political agenda. Hopefully, America’s pastors are too busy preaching the Word of God to push Obama’s agenda.
We have an agency of the Federal Government “partnering” with churches. Is this like Federal Government partnering with GM where Obama picks the CEO? Maybe it’s like the Federal Government partnering with Freddy and Fanny and controls the vast majority of home mortgages.
Where is the left squawking about separation of church and state? Remember the left’s endless attacks on Sarah Palin because she was a church going Christian. I remember the hissy-fit the left threw when George W. Bush first announced his “faith-based initiatives.” Even I had a queasy feeling in the pit of my stomach. But here the administration is planning to “partner” with churches and is admittedly going to influence the teachings of the church and the silence from the left is deafening. I guess this sacred separation of church and state only works one way.
It leaves one wondering why try limiting speech they don’t like and encourage speech they do, all in direct violation of the Constitution. Why not just defeat the ideas on their merits? This is not the actions of a President of the United States but the actions of a leader in some third world dictatorship. I remember when the American tanks rolled into Bagdad and seeing those huge murals of Saddam Hussein. Is that next for us?
Our Founding Fathers guaranteed in the First Amendment our God given right of freedom of speech. They did this because a person is not truly free if he is not free to express his views. The left, who like to think of themselves as the most tolerant among us, seem to not be quite so tolerant of speech they find does not fall in line with their political views.
In a speech at Hampton University, President Obama bemoaned devices such as iPod, iPad and X-Box as diversions. He suggested that these type devices provide 24/7 access to arguments that Obama said “don’t always rank all that high on the truth meter.” In addition, he decried the blogs and talk radio as “putting new pressures on our country and on our democracy.” Notice that Obama specifically points to the new media (blogs and talk radio), where much of the content is conservative in nature. How are these media outlets “putting new pressures” on our country? They may be putting new pressures on his administration in that people now have a choice in where they obtain their information and don’t have to settle for the liberal spin offered by the old media.
This view does not seem to correlate with what President Obama said just a few months ago. On November 16, 2009, while speaking to and taking questions from a group of Chinese students, Obama said that information should be free. The President said that he was “a big believer in openness when it comes to the flow of information,” adding that “vocal criticism of his polices had made him a better leader.” So it seems that the Chinese should access information from any source they wish but the same does not hold true for Americans.
President Obama’s regulatory czar Cass Sunstein wrote a paper in 2008 in which he openly called for banning conspiracy theories. One theory Sunstein would like to ban is the idea that global warming is a “deliberate fraud.” His ideas included outright banning of conspiracy theorizing, taxing the activity (monetarily or otherwise) and infiltrating “extremist” groups. Can you say Tea Parties? He also suggested that right wing websites should include links to opposing views and vice versa. According to Sunstein this could be done either voluntarily or by force.
In a report from the President’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships under Section C – Environment and Climate Change this is the very first recommendation: “Recommendation 1: Form an Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and assign Faith- and Community-Based Liaisons to EPA regional offices.”
In the report, the reason for recommendation is described, “Houses of worship can exert a powerful influence when they practice good energy stewardship and preaches and teaches about conservation as a moral value, it has a powerful influence.” This means that at least Obama’s Advisory Council wants global warming theory preached from America’s pulpits. I don’t have a problem if a pastor feels led to teach conservation in his church, but this is a government agency pushing pastors to teach a particular political agenda. Hopefully, America’s pastors are too busy preaching the Word of God to push Obama’s agenda.
We have an agency of the Federal Government “partnering” with churches. Is this like Federal Government partnering with GM where Obama picks the CEO? Maybe it’s like the Federal Government partnering with Freddy and Fanny and controls the vast majority of home mortgages.
Where is the left squawking about separation of church and state? Remember the left’s endless attacks on Sarah Palin because she was a church going Christian. I remember the hissy-fit the left threw when George W. Bush first announced his “faith-based initiatives.” Even I had a queasy feeling in the pit of my stomach. But here the administration is planning to “partner” with churches and is admittedly going to influence the teachings of the church and the silence from the left is deafening. I guess this sacred separation of church and state only works one way.
It leaves one wondering why try limiting speech they don’t like and encourage speech they do, all in direct violation of the Constitution. Why not just defeat the ideas on their merits? This is not the actions of a President of the United States but the actions of a leader in some third world dictatorship. I remember when the American tanks rolled into Bagdad and seeing those huge murals of Saddam Hussein. Is that next for us?
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Grecian Formula Makes My Hair Hurt
by Humphrey Stevenson
My hair may be going gray but if it’s all the same I think I’ll forgo any Grecian Formula hair treatments and just let it happen because it is thought that hair colorants can make it become thinner and I would prefer to keep the hair I have, even if it does become gray. The US Federal Government, on the other hand, has been on the Grecian formula for the better part of the last 100 years but now the treatment have greatly increased. For the sake of our fiscal sanity (if not our hair), our leaders need to look at Greece and see where that formula ultimately leads.
We have all seen the images of the riots in the streets of Athens. Three people were tragically killed when the rioters burned a bank. The violence centers on the fact that these rioters see their free ride coming to an end because the government can no longer afford to provide it. In actuality, they never could afford it. If these rioters cared about their country they would accept the situation as necessary. But just like a junkie, they will do anything for another fix; easy money instead of drugs.
During the angry demonstrations, the rioters shouted, “War against the capitalists” and “No more sacrifices.” Many of the rioters were civil-service employees who obviously do not understand a fundamental truth; without the private sector (those hated capitalists), the public sector could not exist.
Facing a crippling debt that has reached about 125% of GDP, the Greek government passed an austerity package. After many years of continuous pay increases for public sector employees, the package calls for pay freezes, pay cuts and lay-offs. In addition, many generous bonuses will be capped or eliminated altogether. Reductions in the pension plan include an increase in the retirement age, increase the service time requirement to become fully vested, and lowering of pension benefits. The value added tax (VAT) will increase from 21 to 23%. Taxes on fuel, alcohol and tobacco will see a 10% rise. There is also a plan to crack down on tax evasion. In the future, the government looks to reducing the economy’s reliance on the public sector with the possible privatization of some industries.
Rather than to let Greece solve its own problem or become another shining example of why socialism doesn’t work, the European Union and the International Monetary Fund have come up with an ingenious idea; solve Greece’s debt problem with … more debt. A cool $1 trillion has been pledged to bailout Greece and other EU member nations on the brink of bankruptcy. Just like our bailout plan, the Greek bailout plan is doomed to failure, because it does not address the underlying problem. It simply delays the inevitable. A day of reckoning will come.
Just like Greece, the US is facing a debt bomb of its own. According to an article in Investors Business Daily, US treasury bonds could lose their AAA rating in 2017 or 2018 as the cost to service the debt reaches above 18% of federal revenue. Under more adverse conditions, that tipping point could be reached as early as 2013. Some economists see the federal debt reaching 90% of GDP in 2020, when it stood at 53% of GDP at the end of 2009.
Much of Americas debt problem is the same as that of Greece; the entitlement mentality. The people of Greece, most of who work (if you want to call it that) in the public sector, have been conditioned to believe that they are owed ever increasing wages, pensions and benefits. Politicians have pandered to them for their support. It doesn’t matter a whit to the recipient that the economy of their country can’t possibly sustain that level of benefits; they are entitled to it. Once they are told that their benefits may have to be reduced or eliminated, their frustration boils over in rage.
The situation Greece is dealing with is the same situation that destroyed the Soviet Union and will destroy any other socialist nation. Margaret Thatcher summed it up better than anyone else I ever heard on the subject, “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” Lady Thatcher’s profound statement of fact is also a warning, especially for the United States. Get off the Grecian formula and get off it fast. The Grecian formula is socialism; the solution is capitalism.
My hair may be going gray but if it’s all the same I think I’ll forgo any Grecian Formula hair treatments and just let it happen because it is thought that hair colorants can make it become thinner and I would prefer to keep the hair I have, even if it does become gray. The US Federal Government, on the other hand, has been on the Grecian formula for the better part of the last 100 years but now the treatment have greatly increased. For the sake of our fiscal sanity (if not our hair), our leaders need to look at Greece and see where that formula ultimately leads.
We have all seen the images of the riots in the streets of Athens. Three people were tragically killed when the rioters burned a bank. The violence centers on the fact that these rioters see their free ride coming to an end because the government can no longer afford to provide it. In actuality, they never could afford it. If these rioters cared about their country they would accept the situation as necessary. But just like a junkie, they will do anything for another fix; easy money instead of drugs.
During the angry demonstrations, the rioters shouted, “War against the capitalists” and “No more sacrifices.” Many of the rioters were civil-service employees who obviously do not understand a fundamental truth; without the private sector (those hated capitalists), the public sector could not exist.
Facing a crippling debt that has reached about 125% of GDP, the Greek government passed an austerity package. After many years of continuous pay increases for public sector employees, the package calls for pay freezes, pay cuts and lay-offs. In addition, many generous bonuses will be capped or eliminated altogether. Reductions in the pension plan include an increase in the retirement age, increase the service time requirement to become fully vested, and lowering of pension benefits. The value added tax (VAT) will increase from 21 to 23%. Taxes on fuel, alcohol and tobacco will see a 10% rise. There is also a plan to crack down on tax evasion. In the future, the government looks to reducing the economy’s reliance on the public sector with the possible privatization of some industries.
Rather than to let Greece solve its own problem or become another shining example of why socialism doesn’t work, the European Union and the International Monetary Fund have come up with an ingenious idea; solve Greece’s debt problem with … more debt. A cool $1 trillion has been pledged to bailout Greece and other EU member nations on the brink of bankruptcy. Just like our bailout plan, the Greek bailout plan is doomed to failure, because it does not address the underlying problem. It simply delays the inevitable. A day of reckoning will come.
Just like Greece, the US is facing a debt bomb of its own. According to an article in Investors Business Daily, US treasury bonds could lose their AAA rating in 2017 or 2018 as the cost to service the debt reaches above 18% of federal revenue. Under more adverse conditions, that tipping point could be reached as early as 2013. Some economists see the federal debt reaching 90% of GDP in 2020, when it stood at 53% of GDP at the end of 2009.
Much of Americas debt problem is the same as that of Greece; the entitlement mentality. The people of Greece, most of who work (if you want to call it that) in the public sector, have been conditioned to believe that they are owed ever increasing wages, pensions and benefits. Politicians have pandered to them for their support. It doesn’t matter a whit to the recipient that the economy of their country can’t possibly sustain that level of benefits; they are entitled to it. Once they are told that their benefits may have to be reduced or eliminated, their frustration boils over in rage.
The situation Greece is dealing with is the same situation that destroyed the Soviet Union and will destroy any other socialist nation. Margaret Thatcher summed it up better than anyone else I ever heard on the subject, “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” Lady Thatcher’s profound statement of fact is also a warning, especially for the United States. Get off the Grecian formula and get off it fast. The Grecian formula is socialism; the solution is capitalism.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
No Crying Over Spilled Oil
by Humphrey Stevenson
On April 20, an oil platform operated by British Petroleum named Deepwater Horizon exploded and collapsed in over 5,000 feet of water in the Gulf of Mexico killing eleven oil workers and resulting in a massive crude oil spill. We’ve all heard the legend of the emperor Nero fiddling while Rome burned. What was the Obama administration doing while the Gulf of Mexico was turning into the La Brea Tar Pits?
President Obama claimed, “We’ve made preparations from day one to stage equipment for a worst case scenario.” If true, then why did he sit on his hands for over a week as crude oil gushed into the Gulf of Mexico? At that point, Obama dispatched an Interior Department “SWAT Team” to inspect oil rigs. I didn’t even know the Interior Department had SWAT Teams. According to US Department of the Interior web site the purposes of the department is to, “…manage and sustain America’s lands, water, wildlife, and energy resources, honors our nation’s responsibilities to tribal nations…” We’re not talking about the FBI or the CIA. In the words of Chief Roy Mobey from the late 1970’s sitcom “Carter Country,” “What’s to swat?”
Ben Raines of the Mobile Press-Register says that a plan was already in place and pre-approved to deal with an event like the Deepwater Horizon accident and had been since 1994. Under the plan, the government would immediately deploy fire booms capable of containing and burning off over 75,000 gallons of oil per hour. This would have been enough to contain the spill dozens of miles offshore. The problem was that when the accident occurred the government did not have a single fire boom on hand. They had to purchase the only one available from a supplier in Illinois and then requested the supplier to call customers in other countries to see if the US could borrow their fire booms. By the time it could be deployed, some nine days after the accident, the winds had shifted to the south and it could not be used due to the soot from the burn being blown onshore.
The Washington Examiner quotes a former oil spill cleanup manger for NOAA, Ron Gouget, who agreed that the proper materials were not in place to deal with the spill but also says the reason not to burn immediately may have been a political. The burn would create a great deal of soot. However, Gouget claimed that had they started to burn immediately 90% of the oil could have been contained.
President Obama seems to have a two-fold plan to deal with the disaster. One, have Attorney General Eric Holder dispatch an army of lawyers to the Gulf to monitor the spill and two, shut down all further offshore drilling, all the while keeping the blame squarely focused on BP and not his administration’s inept (to be kind) response to the spill.
But could his lack of urgency to deal with the spill be part of a strategy. Obama’s love of so-called “green energy” (wind mills, solar energy and other assorted nonsense) is well documented. So how would Obama push for the destruction of “dirty energy” and call for expansion of “clean energy”? Let’s look at what we know about the Obama administration and its modus operandi. As Rahm Emanuel said, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” This administration feeds on crisis. If they don’t have a crisis, they’ll invent one. The stimulus plan was pushed with an economic crisis. The health care takeover was pushed with an insurance crisis. The financial takeover is being pushed with a Wall Street crisis. So, what better way to push for “green energy” than with an environmental crisis? I’ll spell out what others have tiptoed around; I believe this administration wants this oil spill to be a catastrophe.
If my theory is correct, the administration is scoring points with the various environmental groups. These groups used the occasion of the Deepwater Horizon accident to sign a letter to Congress condemning offshore drilling as “unacceptable.” This includes any drilling provisions in their precious Cap and Trade bill.
We all must understand that our modern world requires energy and that means fossil fuels and the extraction of these fuels is inherently dangerous and accidents will happen. When they do, our government should be ready lend assistance so that the loss of life, the impact to the environment and the interruption in the supply of energy can be minimized, not use them to promote a political agenda.
On April 20, an oil platform operated by British Petroleum named Deepwater Horizon exploded and collapsed in over 5,000 feet of water in the Gulf of Mexico killing eleven oil workers and resulting in a massive crude oil spill. We’ve all heard the legend of the emperor Nero fiddling while Rome burned. What was the Obama administration doing while the Gulf of Mexico was turning into the La Brea Tar Pits?
President Obama claimed, “We’ve made preparations from day one to stage equipment for a worst case scenario.” If true, then why did he sit on his hands for over a week as crude oil gushed into the Gulf of Mexico? At that point, Obama dispatched an Interior Department “SWAT Team” to inspect oil rigs. I didn’t even know the Interior Department had SWAT Teams. According to US Department of the Interior web site the purposes of the department is to, “…manage and sustain America’s lands, water, wildlife, and energy resources, honors our nation’s responsibilities to tribal nations…” We’re not talking about the FBI or the CIA. In the words of Chief Roy Mobey from the late 1970’s sitcom “Carter Country,” “What’s to swat?”
Ben Raines of the Mobile Press-Register says that a plan was already in place and pre-approved to deal with an event like the Deepwater Horizon accident and had been since 1994. Under the plan, the government would immediately deploy fire booms capable of containing and burning off over 75,000 gallons of oil per hour. This would have been enough to contain the spill dozens of miles offshore. The problem was that when the accident occurred the government did not have a single fire boom on hand. They had to purchase the only one available from a supplier in Illinois and then requested the supplier to call customers in other countries to see if the US could borrow their fire booms. By the time it could be deployed, some nine days after the accident, the winds had shifted to the south and it could not be used due to the soot from the burn being blown onshore.
The Washington Examiner quotes a former oil spill cleanup manger for NOAA, Ron Gouget, who agreed that the proper materials were not in place to deal with the spill but also says the reason not to burn immediately may have been a political. The burn would create a great deal of soot. However, Gouget claimed that had they started to burn immediately 90% of the oil could have been contained.
President Obama seems to have a two-fold plan to deal with the disaster. One, have Attorney General Eric Holder dispatch an army of lawyers to the Gulf to monitor the spill and two, shut down all further offshore drilling, all the while keeping the blame squarely focused on BP and not his administration’s inept (to be kind) response to the spill.
But could his lack of urgency to deal with the spill be part of a strategy. Obama’s love of so-called “green energy” (wind mills, solar energy and other assorted nonsense) is well documented. So how would Obama push for the destruction of “dirty energy” and call for expansion of “clean energy”? Let’s look at what we know about the Obama administration and its modus operandi. As Rahm Emanuel said, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” This administration feeds on crisis. If they don’t have a crisis, they’ll invent one. The stimulus plan was pushed with an economic crisis. The health care takeover was pushed with an insurance crisis. The financial takeover is being pushed with a Wall Street crisis. So, what better way to push for “green energy” than with an environmental crisis? I’ll spell out what others have tiptoed around; I believe this administration wants this oil spill to be a catastrophe.
If my theory is correct, the administration is scoring points with the various environmental groups. These groups used the occasion of the Deepwater Horizon accident to sign a letter to Congress condemning offshore drilling as “unacceptable.” This includes any drilling provisions in their precious Cap and Trade bill.
We all must understand that our modern world requires energy and that means fossil fuels and the extraction of these fuels is inherently dangerous and accidents will happen. When they do, our government should be ready lend assistance so that the loss of life, the impact to the environment and the interruption in the supply of energy can be minimized, not use them to promote a political agenda.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Arizona Fights Back
by Humphrey Stevenson
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed into law what is said to be one of the toughest anti-illegal immigration bills in the nation. She explained why the legislation was so necessary, “There is no higher priority than protecting the citizens of Arizona. We cannot sacrifice our safety to the murderous greed of drug cartels. We cannot stand idly by as drop houses, kidnappings and violence compromise our quality of life. We cannot delay while the destruction happening south of our international border creeps its way north. We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act. But decades of federal inaction and misguided policy have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation.”
Arizona is dealing with a special problem. It is being invaded by criminals. How do I know they’re criminals? They crossed our border illegally. That is a crime. Article 4, Section 4 of our Constitution mandates that our Federal Government is to protect a state from an invasion. What do we expect a state to do when the Federal Government will not live up to its responsibility to secure the boarders? The State of Arizona has taken seriously its responsibility to protect its citizens from cross-border criminals.
President Obama called the legislation “irresponsible” and “misguided.” It is clear that the President plans to use the controversy to introduce his own “immigration reform” legislation by saying, “If we continue to fail to act at a federal level, we will continue to see misguided efforts opening up around the country.”
Obama told a crowd of supporters in Iowa, “Now, suddenly, if you don't have your papers, and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you're going to get harassed.” This is pure demagoguery because he knows (or he should know) that the law does not allow for racial profiling. The police must already be in “legal contact” with the suspect before the “reasonable suspicion” of them being in the country illegally can come into play, meaning that police cannot simply see someone of Hispanic descent and ask to see their documentation. But so what if they could? Federal law already requires that all resident aliens carry their green card at all times.
While we’re on the subject of profiling, anyone who has watched any police dramas knows that profiling is a way many crimes are solved. Experts will examine the facts of a crime and based on those facts construct a profile of a likely perpetrator. It’s used in everyday law enforcement as well; we just don’t think of it as profiling. For example, police are taught that intoxicated people tend to exhibit certain behavior traits when driving. A policeman sees a driver exhibiting these traits and pulls them over on suspicion of drunk driving. That in its basic sense is profiling but I don’t think you or I want the police to stop doing it because it makes us all safer on the road.
Reverend Al Sharpton, never one to let a good race controversy go to waste, said he will dispatch “Freedom Walkers” to Arizona reminiscent of the Freedom Riders of the 1960’s. “Where we will walk down the streets with no ID and submit ourselves to arrest,” Sharpton said. I have a better idea for Reverend Al’s Freedom Walkers. He could take his group into Mexico. Then, in solidarity with the “undocumented workers,” have them sneak across the border into Arizona. He could call them “Freedom Crossers.”
President of Mexico, Felipe Calderon is up in arms over Arizona’s new law. Strange, you would think that the President Calderon would be happy to keep his best workers in Mexico. Or perhaps he knows that those that are pouring over the border into the US are not his best and he’s happy to be rid of them. He knows that many of these illegal immigrants are coming here not to work but to avail themselves of the social welfare of our country or to engage in crime. Maybe you’ve heard the old phrase, “Good neighbors respect property lines.” The same is true on the world stage. Good international neighbors respect borders.
There is no one who is a bigger supporter of immigration than I. Just please come through the front door and sign the guest register; don’t climb in the back window. But we all know where this controversy is leading; amnesty for all those sneak in the back way.
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed into law what is said to be one of the toughest anti-illegal immigration bills in the nation. She explained why the legislation was so necessary, “There is no higher priority than protecting the citizens of Arizona. We cannot sacrifice our safety to the murderous greed of drug cartels. We cannot stand idly by as drop houses, kidnappings and violence compromise our quality of life. We cannot delay while the destruction happening south of our international border creeps its way north. We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act. But decades of federal inaction and misguided policy have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation.”
Arizona is dealing with a special problem. It is being invaded by criminals. How do I know they’re criminals? They crossed our border illegally. That is a crime. Article 4, Section 4 of our Constitution mandates that our Federal Government is to protect a state from an invasion. What do we expect a state to do when the Federal Government will not live up to its responsibility to secure the boarders? The State of Arizona has taken seriously its responsibility to protect its citizens from cross-border criminals.
President Obama called the legislation “irresponsible” and “misguided.” It is clear that the President plans to use the controversy to introduce his own “immigration reform” legislation by saying, “If we continue to fail to act at a federal level, we will continue to see misguided efforts opening up around the country.”
Obama told a crowd of supporters in Iowa, “Now, suddenly, if you don't have your papers, and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you're going to get harassed.” This is pure demagoguery because he knows (or he should know) that the law does not allow for racial profiling. The police must already be in “legal contact” with the suspect before the “reasonable suspicion” of them being in the country illegally can come into play, meaning that police cannot simply see someone of Hispanic descent and ask to see their documentation. But so what if they could? Federal law already requires that all resident aliens carry their green card at all times.
While we’re on the subject of profiling, anyone who has watched any police dramas knows that profiling is a way many crimes are solved. Experts will examine the facts of a crime and based on those facts construct a profile of a likely perpetrator. It’s used in everyday law enforcement as well; we just don’t think of it as profiling. For example, police are taught that intoxicated people tend to exhibit certain behavior traits when driving. A policeman sees a driver exhibiting these traits and pulls them over on suspicion of drunk driving. That in its basic sense is profiling but I don’t think you or I want the police to stop doing it because it makes us all safer on the road.
Reverend Al Sharpton, never one to let a good race controversy go to waste, said he will dispatch “Freedom Walkers” to Arizona reminiscent of the Freedom Riders of the 1960’s. “Where we will walk down the streets with no ID and submit ourselves to arrest,” Sharpton said. I have a better idea for Reverend Al’s Freedom Walkers. He could take his group into Mexico. Then, in solidarity with the “undocumented workers,” have them sneak across the border into Arizona. He could call them “Freedom Crossers.”
President of Mexico, Felipe Calderon is up in arms over Arizona’s new law. Strange, you would think that the President Calderon would be happy to keep his best workers in Mexico. Or perhaps he knows that those that are pouring over the border into the US are not his best and he’s happy to be rid of them. He knows that many of these illegal immigrants are coming here not to work but to avail themselves of the social welfare of our country or to engage in crime. Maybe you’ve heard the old phrase, “Good neighbors respect property lines.” The same is true on the world stage. Good international neighbors respect borders.
There is no one who is a bigger supporter of immigration than I. Just please come through the front door and sign the guest register; don’t climb in the back window. But we all know where this controversy is leading; amnesty for all those sneak in the back way.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Stamping Out the Brushfires
Humphrey Stevenson
"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." — Samuel Adams
On April 15, hundreds of tax day Tea Parties took place across the Republic to express concerns about the present government and its direction. These were peaceful, respectful gatherings of Americans availing themselves of the First Amendment rights. Whether they agree or disagree with the message, all Americans should be proud of the way the message was delivered. Alas, the left did not see it that way.
The Reverend Jacques De Graff appeared on the Fox News show “Hannity.” He could not resist denigrating at the TEA Parties by referring to them as the “Teabag” movement. You can say it was just an offhand remark but it seems a man of the cloth could choose his words a bit more carefully. Of course, he is just a petty, frustrated little man facing resistance he does not understand.
HBO funny man Bill Maher called TEA Parties a “perfectly good Klan rally.” I hate to disagree with such a learned man as Bill Maher but I don’t remember any sheets or hoods at the Tea Party with which I was associated. I did see a few crosses but none of them were burning. Perhaps his little joke would have been funny if it had any basis in fact.
I grew up in the Deep South and know something of the history of the KKK. You know all those racist, rednecks in the Klan? They were all Democrats. You don’t find Republicans in the Klan. Republicans opposed slavery and Jim Crow laws and favored civil rights for African Americans. Mr. Maher really should bone up on his history before he runs off at the mouth. But he doesn’t have to take my word for it. He could just ask Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV). I hear he was once an Exalted Cyclops in the Klan.
In a speech at a symposium commemorating the 15th anniversary of the OKC bombing, Bill Clinton suggested that the same concern expressed by the TEA Parties can lead to violent acts like the bombing. His implication seems to be that many TEA Party attendees are Tim McVeigh wannabes with a hair trigger. The former President said that prior to the OKC Bombing “…the fabric of American life had been unraveling” and “…we see some of that today." I’ll concede Mr. Clinton points; he is right on both counts. But who is doing the unraveling? It isn’t the TEA Parties; it’s this present administration. The TEA Parties are about sewing it back together not blowing it up.
President Obama said in a speech at a DNC fund raiser in Miami that he was amused by the people attending the TEA Party rallies. He has increased the deficit to unfathomable levels, nationalized two car companies, student loans and the health care system and this arrogant, two-bit tyrant has the gall to suggest that we should thank him. Obama said he was amused by the TEA Parties. However, he is not amused; he is angry.
The Democrats do not see their electoral success in 2008 as simply winning a few elections. They misread it as total victory; a sea change; a mandate to “fundamentally transform this nation” as Obama said at the time. But the people are saying “No”; they’re pushing back.
This was not in the plan. The Democrats figured that once they took over half the country would be cheering wildly for the apparent government largesse and the other half would quietly accept the situation. They control every branch of government and still the people will not submit. This has left them frustrated and angry.
So they lash out. They denigrate, name call, crack jokes and make inane comparisons between the TEA Parties and domestic terrorists like Tim McVeigh and the KKK. It’s pitiful really because it’s all they can do. For what they absolutely dare not do is argue the specific ideas of the TEA Parties. You see, deep down in places they will not talk about, even these Democrats know the TEA Parties are right. Just don’t hold your breath waiting for them to admit it.
All of these slights and digs and innuendos are just a cover for their real fear. The statist Democrats are trying the stamp out these brushfires of freedom before November and they combine into an inferno of liberty.
"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." — Samuel Adams
On April 15, hundreds of tax day Tea Parties took place across the Republic to express concerns about the present government and its direction. These were peaceful, respectful gatherings of Americans availing themselves of the First Amendment rights. Whether they agree or disagree with the message, all Americans should be proud of the way the message was delivered. Alas, the left did not see it that way.
The Reverend Jacques De Graff appeared on the Fox News show “Hannity.” He could not resist denigrating at the TEA Parties by referring to them as the “Teabag” movement. You can say it was just an offhand remark but it seems a man of the cloth could choose his words a bit more carefully. Of course, he is just a petty, frustrated little man facing resistance he does not understand.
HBO funny man Bill Maher called TEA Parties a “perfectly good Klan rally.” I hate to disagree with such a learned man as Bill Maher but I don’t remember any sheets or hoods at the Tea Party with which I was associated. I did see a few crosses but none of them were burning. Perhaps his little joke would have been funny if it had any basis in fact.
I grew up in the Deep South and know something of the history of the KKK. You know all those racist, rednecks in the Klan? They were all Democrats. You don’t find Republicans in the Klan. Republicans opposed slavery and Jim Crow laws and favored civil rights for African Americans. Mr. Maher really should bone up on his history before he runs off at the mouth. But he doesn’t have to take my word for it. He could just ask Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV). I hear he was once an Exalted Cyclops in the Klan.
In a speech at a symposium commemorating the 15th anniversary of the OKC bombing, Bill Clinton suggested that the same concern expressed by the TEA Parties can lead to violent acts like the bombing. His implication seems to be that many TEA Party attendees are Tim McVeigh wannabes with a hair trigger. The former President said that prior to the OKC Bombing “…the fabric of American life had been unraveling” and “…we see some of that today." I’ll concede Mr. Clinton points; he is right on both counts. But who is doing the unraveling? It isn’t the TEA Parties; it’s this present administration. The TEA Parties are about sewing it back together not blowing it up.
President Obama said in a speech at a DNC fund raiser in Miami that he was amused by the people attending the TEA Party rallies. He has increased the deficit to unfathomable levels, nationalized two car companies, student loans and the health care system and this arrogant, two-bit tyrant has the gall to suggest that we should thank him. Obama said he was amused by the TEA Parties. However, he is not amused; he is angry.
The Democrats do not see their electoral success in 2008 as simply winning a few elections. They misread it as total victory; a sea change; a mandate to “fundamentally transform this nation” as Obama said at the time. But the people are saying “No”; they’re pushing back.
This was not in the plan. The Democrats figured that once they took over half the country would be cheering wildly for the apparent government largesse and the other half would quietly accept the situation. They control every branch of government and still the people will not submit. This has left them frustrated and angry.
So they lash out. They denigrate, name call, crack jokes and make inane comparisons between the TEA Parties and domestic terrorists like Tim McVeigh and the KKK. It’s pitiful really because it’s all they can do. For what they absolutely dare not do is argue the specific ideas of the TEA Parties. You see, deep down in places they will not talk about, even these Democrats know the TEA Parties are right. Just don’t hold your breath waiting for them to admit it.
All of these slights and digs and innuendos are just a cover for their real fear. The statist Democrats are trying the stamp out these brushfires of freedom before November and they combine into an inferno of liberty.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Opening Day
by Humphrey Stevenson
April 15th is this Thursday and we all know what that means; TEA Parties. At this moment, the defiant ones are pulling our their “Liberty or Death” t-shirts, dusting off their Stars and Stripes and Gadsden flags, making their signs and getting ready for a whole new season telling the Government to get out of our lives. Major League Baseball has Opening Day; the TEA Parties have April 15th.
The fact is that our little movement seems to be gaining momentum. Polls show that more Americans identify with the TEA Parties than with the present administration. Not bad for a bunch of fringe, right-wing nut-cases. If not a cause for celebration, it is certainly a reason to take heart.
However, as the TEA Party movement gains steam, the enemies of the movement will be sharpening their attack as well. The compliant ones are getting ready. The TEA Parties will not come as a surprise as last year. That’s fine, most TEA Partiers are more than willing to debate and defend their position. However, the compliant ones don’t debate, they can’t defend their position. Rather, they mischaracterize, they name call, they go on TV with all manner of wild accusations, none of which they can prove.
The day before the Health Care vote, Representative Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) claimed he was spat upon and called a racial slur by a TEA Party member while walking into the Capitol building. Originally, Cleaver’s office said he reported the incident to police and the man was detained briefly. Later, in an interview with Fox News, Cleaver seemed to back off his earlier statement and said he never reported anything. Video of the incident shows the man cupping his hands around his mouth and speaking loudly to the Congressman in an effort to be heard over the crowd. There, however, is no evidence of spitting and no one other than the Congressman claims to have heard the racial slur.
But, I have a question. If you are a liberal Democrat Congressman, why walk in proximity of a TEA Party anyway? It’s not as though they’re hard to spot; you can see those big, yellow flags a mile away. Also, there is a subway system that runs from the Congressional office buildings to the Capital. So, there was no need for Congressman Cleaver to have been anywhere near the TEA Party. The only reason for the Congressman to do this was to try and provoke the TEA Partiers into actions that would reflect badly on the movement. Thankfully, because of the restraint and law abiding nature of the TEA Partiers, the Congressman’s efforts were for naught, but he made claims to have been wronged anyway. Moral; if you don’t have a good incident; tell a good story.
Then there is the recent incident out in Searchlight, Nevada where Harry Reid supporters threw eggs at the TEA Party Express bus as it passed by.
In any large, grassroots movement there are going to be a few crackpots who either misunderstand the point of the movement or wish to use it for their own nefarious purposes. But I know that the vast majority of TEA Partiers are good, hardworking Americans who are deeply concerned about the direction of our Country.
I believe this was only the first attempts to try and provoke TEA Party members into actions that could be used by a willing media to cast the movement in a bad light. The TEA Partiers have not taken the bait. What will be the next step? Well if they can’t goad the TEA Partiers into action, the enemies of the movement may take actions themselves and try to make it look as if the TEA Parties are responsible.
We may have seen the beginnings of this with the death threats some Congressional members say they received following the Health Care vote. I don’t believe any of these threats have been tied directly to any TEA Parties, but there was the one incident where a “tea party participant” tried to publish the address of a Congressman.
As we go to our TEA Parties, let’s be visible; let’s be vocal; but let’s be respectful. Don’t give our enemies any ammunition to use against us. Lord knows they’re going to make up enough on their own. Don’t be timid either. We are on the right side (no pun intended) and our cause will be born out in the end.
April 15th is this Thursday and we all know what that means; TEA Parties. At this moment, the defiant ones are pulling our their “Liberty or Death” t-shirts, dusting off their Stars and Stripes and Gadsden flags, making their signs and getting ready for a whole new season telling the Government to get out of our lives. Major League Baseball has Opening Day; the TEA Parties have April 15th.
The fact is that our little movement seems to be gaining momentum. Polls show that more Americans identify with the TEA Parties than with the present administration. Not bad for a bunch of fringe, right-wing nut-cases. If not a cause for celebration, it is certainly a reason to take heart.
However, as the TEA Party movement gains steam, the enemies of the movement will be sharpening their attack as well. The compliant ones are getting ready. The TEA Parties will not come as a surprise as last year. That’s fine, most TEA Partiers are more than willing to debate and defend their position. However, the compliant ones don’t debate, they can’t defend their position. Rather, they mischaracterize, they name call, they go on TV with all manner of wild accusations, none of which they can prove.
The day before the Health Care vote, Representative Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) claimed he was spat upon and called a racial slur by a TEA Party member while walking into the Capitol building. Originally, Cleaver’s office said he reported the incident to police and the man was detained briefly. Later, in an interview with Fox News, Cleaver seemed to back off his earlier statement and said he never reported anything. Video of the incident shows the man cupping his hands around his mouth and speaking loudly to the Congressman in an effort to be heard over the crowd. There, however, is no evidence of spitting and no one other than the Congressman claims to have heard the racial slur.
But, I have a question. If you are a liberal Democrat Congressman, why walk in proximity of a TEA Party anyway? It’s not as though they’re hard to spot; you can see those big, yellow flags a mile away. Also, there is a subway system that runs from the Congressional office buildings to the Capital. So, there was no need for Congressman Cleaver to have been anywhere near the TEA Party. The only reason for the Congressman to do this was to try and provoke the TEA Partiers into actions that would reflect badly on the movement. Thankfully, because of the restraint and law abiding nature of the TEA Partiers, the Congressman’s efforts were for naught, but he made claims to have been wronged anyway. Moral; if you don’t have a good incident; tell a good story.
Then there is the recent incident out in Searchlight, Nevada where Harry Reid supporters threw eggs at the TEA Party Express bus as it passed by.
In any large, grassroots movement there are going to be a few crackpots who either misunderstand the point of the movement or wish to use it for their own nefarious purposes. But I know that the vast majority of TEA Partiers are good, hardworking Americans who are deeply concerned about the direction of our Country.
I believe this was only the first attempts to try and provoke TEA Party members into actions that could be used by a willing media to cast the movement in a bad light. The TEA Partiers have not taken the bait. What will be the next step? Well if they can’t goad the TEA Partiers into action, the enemies of the movement may take actions themselves and try to make it look as if the TEA Parties are responsible.
We may have seen the beginnings of this with the death threats some Congressional members say they received following the Health Care vote. I don’t believe any of these threats have been tied directly to any TEA Parties, but there was the one incident where a “tea party participant” tried to publish the address of a Congressman.
As we go to our TEA Parties, let’s be visible; let’s be vocal; but let’s be respectful. Don’t give our enemies any ammunition to use against us. Lord knows they’re going to make up enough on their own. Don’t be timid either. We are on the right side (no pun intended) and our cause will be born out in the end.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
US Census
The Conservative Camel
I just filled out my census form last night; well, sort of. I just filled in the number of people living in my home and sent it back. I’m not telling you to do that. I did it as protest to nosey government. They don’t need to know age or race or whether my home is a house or apartment; none of their business. The Constitution says take an “enumeration”; that is, count the people. It doesn’t say separate by race or age; just count the people.
This idea of asking race or age is to gerrymander Congressional districts so as to get the election outcome the government wants.
But there seemed to be one glaring omission in the questions that our nosey government asked. They didn’t ask if you were a US Citizen. Shouldn’t that be first question? That tells us something about our government’s priorities; don’t you think? They care about your race and age; but couldn’t care less about your citizenship.
I just filled out my census form last night; well, sort of. I just filled in the number of people living in my home and sent it back. I’m not telling you to do that. I did it as protest to nosey government. They don’t need to know age or race or whether my home is a house or apartment; none of their business. The Constitution says take an “enumeration”; that is, count the people. It doesn’t say separate by race or age; just count the people.
This idea of asking race or age is to gerrymander Congressional districts so as to get the election outcome the government wants.
But there seemed to be one glaring omission in the questions that our nosey government asked. They didn’t ask if you were a US Citizen. Shouldn’t that be first question? That tells us something about our government’s priorities; don’t you think? They care about your race and age; but couldn’t care less about your citizenship.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
The Founding Vision
by Humphrey Stevenson
I caught myself reading the Declaration of Independence. I know, I know, old stodgy document written by a bunch of men who knew nothing about today; heck they never even seen an iPhone. But, I found that it does have relevance in today’s world and maybe holds the solution to our problems. Let’s take note of a few passages:
Everybody knows this passage:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
This is our Founders statement as to the existence and the rights of men. Notice that they stated that rights come from their Creator, not their government. The next passage tells us governments’ role in rights of men:
“That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
This passage tells us our Founders view of the purpose of government. It wasn’t to provide people things; whether that is food, clothing, shelter, retirement, health care or anything else. It was to secure the rights given to men by their Creator. They felt that when men were secure in their rights, they could provide for themselves.
It also tells us where our Founders thought governments acquire their power. Notice that the passage does not say that governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed. There are many governments that have power without consent (one a little too close to home for my liking). Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. So it is only when a government has the consent of the governed that its powers are just. I think this quote from Thomas Jefferson sums it up very well:
“A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.”
Now we see what our Founders thought should be done if the government gets out of control and no longer secures the right of men.
“That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it…”
Our Founders envisioned a beautiful system of government. They understood that total freedom is anarchy but total government is tyranny. So they came up with a way to have just enough government to have a functioning society. In my view, the Founders looked to the several States to govern the people and the Federal government was to primarily govern the interaction of the States with each other and the outside world.
The Federal government was an invention of the States and was put in place to act as an agent of the States. We have moved far away from that founding principle to a point where the Federal government is the principal governing force over the people and the States are simply agents of the Federal government.
A great example of this is the recent advertisements for the census. The primary message is “fill out the census so that your state can get its fair share of Federal funds to build schools and roads.” I’m all for building roads and schools but shouldn’t funding that be a state function? Why should the people of a state have to fill out a census form in order to get proper funding? The original function of the census was simply to apportion proper representation to each state based on population. But now it’s used to dole out Federal government loot; that they took from the states in the first place.
Near the end of the document, our Founders declared, “…that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states…” and therein lies the key. They did not look to a central, overarching government to rule the people. The Founders looked to the thirteen (now fifty) “free and independent” little nations. We must reclaim this vision and see the States as not just meaningless lines on a map (sorry, GPS) but as a group of free thinking individuals that have different wants, needs and desires from the free thinking individuals of another State. We must understand that any big government “solution” is doomed to failure and only ends up further restricting the rights of men (and women).
I caught myself reading the Declaration of Independence. I know, I know, old stodgy document written by a bunch of men who knew nothing about today; heck they never even seen an iPhone. But, I found that it does have relevance in today’s world and maybe holds the solution to our problems. Let’s take note of a few passages:
Everybody knows this passage:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
This is our Founders statement as to the existence and the rights of men. Notice that they stated that rights come from their Creator, not their government. The next passage tells us governments’ role in rights of men:
“That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
This passage tells us our Founders view of the purpose of government. It wasn’t to provide people things; whether that is food, clothing, shelter, retirement, health care or anything else. It was to secure the rights given to men by their Creator. They felt that when men were secure in their rights, they could provide for themselves.
It also tells us where our Founders thought governments acquire their power. Notice that the passage does not say that governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed. There are many governments that have power without consent (one a little too close to home for my liking). Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. So it is only when a government has the consent of the governed that its powers are just. I think this quote from Thomas Jefferson sums it up very well:
“A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.”
Now we see what our Founders thought should be done if the government gets out of control and no longer secures the right of men.
“That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it…”
Our Founders envisioned a beautiful system of government. They understood that total freedom is anarchy but total government is tyranny. So they came up with a way to have just enough government to have a functioning society. In my view, the Founders looked to the several States to govern the people and the Federal government was to primarily govern the interaction of the States with each other and the outside world.
The Federal government was an invention of the States and was put in place to act as an agent of the States. We have moved far away from that founding principle to a point where the Federal government is the principal governing force over the people and the States are simply agents of the Federal government.
A great example of this is the recent advertisements for the census. The primary message is “fill out the census so that your state can get its fair share of Federal funds to build schools and roads.” I’m all for building roads and schools but shouldn’t funding that be a state function? Why should the people of a state have to fill out a census form in order to get proper funding? The original function of the census was simply to apportion proper representation to each state based on population. But now it’s used to dole out Federal government loot; that they took from the states in the first place.
Near the end of the document, our Founders declared, “…that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states…” and therein lies the key. They did not look to a central, overarching government to rule the people. The Founders looked to the thirteen (now fifty) “free and independent” little nations. We must reclaim this vision and see the States as not just meaningless lines on a map (sorry, GPS) but as a group of free thinking individuals that have different wants, needs and desires from the free thinking individuals of another State. We must understand that any big government “solution” is doomed to failure and only ends up further restricting the rights of men (and women).
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Fresh Out of Sympathy
The Conservative Camel
I am sorry but I am fresh out of sympathy for these Congress people you claim to be receiving death threats or having acts of vandalism committed against their district offices due to their vote for Obamacare.
Now, let me be perfectly clear. If you are making death threats or committing acts of vandalism; PLEASE STOP IT!!! If you are thinking of doing so; PLEASE DON’T!!! Come November, these two-bit tyrants are in for an electoral beat-down they won’t soon forget.
That being said, Mr. or Ms. Congressperson, you must know you brought much of this on yourself. The American people told you politely but firmly: NO!!! They told you no in every way they could think of, phone calls, emails, letters, polls, elections, and you arrogantly ignored them. You just better be glad that this isn’t the 1770’s or we would drag you out of that Capital building and tar and feather your butt.
I am sorry but I am fresh out of sympathy for these Congress people you claim to be receiving death threats or having acts of vandalism committed against their district offices due to their vote for Obamacare.
Now, let me be perfectly clear. If you are making death threats or committing acts of vandalism; PLEASE STOP IT!!! If you are thinking of doing so; PLEASE DON’T!!! Come November, these two-bit tyrants are in for an electoral beat-down they won’t soon forget.
That being said, Mr. or Ms. Congressperson, you must know you brought much of this on yourself. The American people told you politely but firmly: NO!!! They told you no in every way they could think of, phone calls, emails, letters, polls, elections, and you arrogantly ignored them. You just better be glad that this isn’t the 1770’s or we would drag you out of that Capital building and tar and feather your butt.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Tyranny Takes the Day
by: Humphrey Stevenson
Last Sunday night the US House of Representatives did something many of us thought they would never do. In defiance of common sense and overwhelming public opposition, the House passed the Senate Health Care Reform bill. With the signature of President Obama the following Tuesday, our long national nightmare became a reality.
The Democrats lied, cheated, and bribed their way to passing the Senate Health Care bill. To Democrats the ends justify the means; they recognize no rules, including the Constitution. Alcee Hastings, Member of the House Rules Committee (note the oxymoron), declared “There ain't no rules here, we're trying to accomplish something. . . .All this talk about rules. . . .When the deal goes down . . . we make 'em up as we go along.” To quote Rush Limbaugh, “There are rules and there are Democrats. When you have Democrats, you have no rules.”
The biggest joke of Sunday night was once again “pro-life Democrat” Bart Stupak. I thought Dennis Kucinich was cheap when he sold his vote for a ride on Air Force One but at least he got a ride on Air Force One. Bart Stupak sold his vote for a piece of paper, which he was quick to wave around like Neville Chamberlain back from his trip to Germany in 1938. Supposedly, Stupak got an executive order from President Obama barring use of federal funds for abortion procedures. Originally, Stupak had said he would accept nothing less than the long standing Hyde Amendment language being placed in the actual health care legislation. In the final analysis, I doubt Stupak’s paper will turn out to be worth any more than was Chamberlain’s. Some good did come out of this; we now know there are no pro-life Democrats.
Several of the states Attorneys General are filing suit in Federal Court to void the Health Care Law because the individual mandate in blatantly unconstitutional. The new health care legislation mandates that individuals purchase health insurance. It matters not if the individual wishes to purchase health insurance; he must do so under penalty of law. Why doesn’t the Federal government help the auto industry by mandating that every American driver must purchase a new GM or Chrysler automobile? What’s the difference? If you can mandate one, you can mandate the other. Never before has the Federal government required that a person purchase any good or service as a condition of citizenship.
If truth be told, I don’t think the Federal government cares that you don’t purchase health insurance as long as you pay the fine for not purchasing it, which in most cases will be far less than the cost of the insurance. So let’s go back to our automobile example. You have a choice, buy a new car or pay a fine. The government sees that the fine will be far less than the price of a new car, so most people choose to pay the fine. This can become one heck of a revenue racket for the Federal government if allowed to stand.
In addition to the individual mandate, this new law drops a poison pill on private insurance companies by requiring that they cover pre-existing conditions. That’s like buying auto insurance after you wreck your car and then requiring the insurance company pay for the repairs. That is not insurance; it’s passing the buck. No way can they stay in business under these conditions. It is all a sinister plan; require everyone to purchase insurance, then drive private insurance companies out of business and soon people will be clamoring for government to do something. Can you say public option? Only now it won’t be an option; it will be the only game in town.
Many commentators have said the American people lost a battle but not the war. Understand that the American people did not lose anything; in fact we clearly won the argument. However, our win along with our will was ignored. Obama and the Democrats arrogantly stuck their nose in the air and spat in the face of the American people. My father fought in the Pacific during World War II. He did that so his children would not live under tyranny; and we won’t. These two-bit tyrants can celebrate now but they will get their comeuppance. The real work will be unraveling this mess and putting this Republic back on the road to limited, Constitutional Federal government.
Last Sunday night the US House of Representatives did something many of us thought they would never do. In defiance of common sense and overwhelming public opposition, the House passed the Senate Health Care Reform bill. With the signature of President Obama the following Tuesday, our long national nightmare became a reality.
The Democrats lied, cheated, and bribed their way to passing the Senate Health Care bill. To Democrats the ends justify the means; they recognize no rules, including the Constitution. Alcee Hastings, Member of the House Rules Committee (note the oxymoron), declared “There ain't no rules here, we're trying to accomplish something. . . .All this talk about rules. . . .When the deal goes down . . . we make 'em up as we go along.” To quote Rush Limbaugh, “There are rules and there are Democrats. When you have Democrats, you have no rules.”
The biggest joke of Sunday night was once again “pro-life Democrat” Bart Stupak. I thought Dennis Kucinich was cheap when he sold his vote for a ride on Air Force One but at least he got a ride on Air Force One. Bart Stupak sold his vote for a piece of paper, which he was quick to wave around like Neville Chamberlain back from his trip to Germany in 1938. Supposedly, Stupak got an executive order from President Obama barring use of federal funds for abortion procedures. Originally, Stupak had said he would accept nothing less than the long standing Hyde Amendment language being placed in the actual health care legislation. In the final analysis, I doubt Stupak’s paper will turn out to be worth any more than was Chamberlain’s. Some good did come out of this; we now know there are no pro-life Democrats.
Several of the states Attorneys General are filing suit in Federal Court to void the Health Care Law because the individual mandate in blatantly unconstitutional. The new health care legislation mandates that individuals purchase health insurance. It matters not if the individual wishes to purchase health insurance; he must do so under penalty of law. Why doesn’t the Federal government help the auto industry by mandating that every American driver must purchase a new GM or Chrysler automobile? What’s the difference? If you can mandate one, you can mandate the other. Never before has the Federal government required that a person purchase any good or service as a condition of citizenship.
If truth be told, I don’t think the Federal government cares that you don’t purchase health insurance as long as you pay the fine for not purchasing it, which in most cases will be far less than the cost of the insurance. So let’s go back to our automobile example. You have a choice, buy a new car or pay a fine. The government sees that the fine will be far less than the price of a new car, so most people choose to pay the fine. This can become one heck of a revenue racket for the Federal government if allowed to stand.
In addition to the individual mandate, this new law drops a poison pill on private insurance companies by requiring that they cover pre-existing conditions. That’s like buying auto insurance after you wreck your car and then requiring the insurance company pay for the repairs. That is not insurance; it’s passing the buck. No way can they stay in business under these conditions. It is all a sinister plan; require everyone to purchase insurance, then drive private insurance companies out of business and soon people will be clamoring for government to do something. Can you say public option? Only now it won’t be an option; it will be the only game in town.
Many commentators have said the American people lost a battle but not the war. Understand that the American people did not lose anything; in fact we clearly won the argument. However, our win along with our will was ignored. Obama and the Democrats arrogantly stuck their nose in the air and spat in the face of the American people. My father fought in the Pacific during World War II. He did that so his children would not live under tyranny; and we won’t. These two-bit tyrants can celebrate now but they will get their comeuppance. The real work will be unraveling this mess and putting this Republic back on the road to limited, Constitutional Federal government.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Quick Thought on ObamaCare Vote
by; Humphrey Stevenson
Look at where we have gone under this administration and Congress. First they pass bills they don’t read. Now they pass bills they don’t vote on. What’s next? They pass bills that don’t exist?
Look at where we have gone under this administration and Congress. First they pass bills they don’t read. Now they pass bills they don’t vote on. What’s next? They pass bills that don’t exist?
Friday, March 12, 2010
Chicago Gun Ban
by: Humphrey Stevenson
Jack Hunter (aka The Southern Avenger) wrote an article recently in which he argued that the Supreme Court should not be deciding the legality of the Chicago gun ban because the Second Amendment does not apply to the states and in fact the City of Chicago has every right to regulate gun ownership. He buttresses his argument with a radio interview of the esteemed Constitutional historian Dr. Kevin Gutzman.
They argue that the Supreme is getting the idea that the Second Amendment applies to the States by the incorporation doctrine under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Conservative Camel finds himself in an unusual position, disagreeing with both The Southern Avenger and Dr. Gutzmen. However, I think both sides are wrong in this case. The Second Amendment does apply to the States, with all due respect to Mr. Hunter and Dr. Gutzman, but not because of the incorporation doctrine but simply the wording of the amendment.
Compare the wording of the First Amendment to the wording of the Second Amendment:
Amendment 1
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.
Notice the specific reference Congress. It does not bar State, county or local governments from making such laws. Does that mean a State could establish an official religion? It certainly does. In fact, most of the original Thirteen Colonies were founded based on an official religion for an individual colony. If Utah wanted to make Mormonism its official religion, there is nothing in the First Amendment to prevent it. Now, I don’t think Utah would because all those hardworking, taxpaying people of other faiths would leave for other states.
Now compare the First Amendment to the wording of the Second Amendment:
Amendment 2
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Notice there is no specific reference to Congress or any other lawmaking body for that matter. It simply says that the right “…shall not be infringed.” By anybody!
Jack Hunter argues that someone has to regulate the ownership of firearms because we can’t have blind people, mentally handicapped people, children or felons owning guns. However, blind people or even mentally handicapped people might own guns for any number of reasons. They might inherit a gun as a family heirloom. They might purchase antique or otherwise rare guns as an investment. When I was a child, my father gave me a shotgun as a Christmas present so that I could go hunting with him. Conversely, felons can be barred from owning firearms by the Fifth Amendment.
The danger is not in the owning or even the carrying of a firearm; it’s in the utilization. Our Founders’ wording of the Second Amendment is very specific. It gives us the right “to keep and bear arms.” It does not give us the right to discharge our guns willy-nilly whenever we feel like it. Murder is illegal; reckless endangerment is illegal and the Second Amendment does not change that fact.
While the Bill of Rights is a statement that the Federal government cannot squash the rights of a citizen, it does not then give the States free reign treat its citizens in any despicable manner it sees fit. Take the Forth Amendment. The Federal government must obtain a warrant for searches and seizures but the State can bust into your house whenever it wishes and take anything it wants? Or let’s look at the Fifth Amendment. Are we to understand that the Federal government must provide an impartial jury but your State is free to stack the jury against you?
This is in no way ment to disparage the idea of State sovereignty. Our Founders believed that men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…” In other words, they believed that the individual is sovereign also. We may disagree on interpretation, but Jack Hunter, Dr. Gutzman and I all agree that the Chicago Gun Ban should be removed and, in fact, should have never existed in the first place.
Jack Hunter (aka The Southern Avenger) wrote an article recently in which he argued that the Supreme Court should not be deciding the legality of the Chicago gun ban because the Second Amendment does not apply to the states and in fact the City of Chicago has every right to regulate gun ownership. He buttresses his argument with a radio interview of the esteemed Constitutional historian Dr. Kevin Gutzman.
They argue that the Supreme is getting the idea that the Second Amendment applies to the States by the incorporation doctrine under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Conservative Camel finds himself in an unusual position, disagreeing with both The Southern Avenger and Dr. Gutzmen. However, I think both sides are wrong in this case. The Second Amendment does apply to the States, with all due respect to Mr. Hunter and Dr. Gutzman, but not because of the incorporation doctrine but simply the wording of the amendment.
Compare the wording of the First Amendment to the wording of the Second Amendment:
Amendment 1
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.
Notice the specific reference Congress. It does not bar State, county or local governments from making such laws. Does that mean a State could establish an official religion? It certainly does. In fact, most of the original Thirteen Colonies were founded based on an official religion for an individual colony. If Utah wanted to make Mormonism its official religion, there is nothing in the First Amendment to prevent it. Now, I don’t think Utah would because all those hardworking, taxpaying people of other faiths would leave for other states.
Now compare the First Amendment to the wording of the Second Amendment:
Amendment 2
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Notice there is no specific reference to Congress or any other lawmaking body for that matter. It simply says that the right “…shall not be infringed.” By anybody!
Jack Hunter argues that someone has to regulate the ownership of firearms because we can’t have blind people, mentally handicapped people, children or felons owning guns. However, blind people or even mentally handicapped people might own guns for any number of reasons. They might inherit a gun as a family heirloom. They might purchase antique or otherwise rare guns as an investment. When I was a child, my father gave me a shotgun as a Christmas present so that I could go hunting with him. Conversely, felons can be barred from owning firearms by the Fifth Amendment.
The danger is not in the owning or even the carrying of a firearm; it’s in the utilization. Our Founders’ wording of the Second Amendment is very specific. It gives us the right “to keep and bear arms.” It does not give us the right to discharge our guns willy-nilly whenever we feel like it. Murder is illegal; reckless endangerment is illegal and the Second Amendment does not change that fact.
While the Bill of Rights is a statement that the Federal government cannot squash the rights of a citizen, it does not then give the States free reign treat its citizens in any despicable manner it sees fit. Take the Forth Amendment. The Federal government must obtain a warrant for searches and seizures but the State can bust into your house whenever it wishes and take anything it wants? Or let’s look at the Fifth Amendment. Are we to understand that the Federal government must provide an impartial jury but your State is free to stack the jury against you?
This is in no way ment to disparage the idea of State sovereignty. Our Founders believed that men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…” In other words, they believed that the individual is sovereign also. We may disagree on interpretation, but Jack Hunter, Dr. Gutzman and I all agree that the Chicago Gun Ban should be removed and, in fact, should have never existed in the first place.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
The Next Target
by: Humphrey Stevenson
A good illusionist is a master of keeping your attention on one hand while he performs the secret of the trick with the other. I’m afraid that the Obama administration is a fairly decent illusionist in its own right. While all of our attention was on the aftermath of the Blair House Health Care Summit, there was something going on behind the scenes.
Even before Obama has finished ramming through Obamacare in order to destroy your private health insurance, he has picked his next target; your private retirement accounts. Using classic Saul Alinsky tactics, the first step is to find an “enemy” to demonize. For the health care takeover it is the insurance companies. For the retirement takeover, it appears the enemy is financial advisors.
During a meeting of the Middle Class Task Force, the Obama administration announced new proposed regulations to protect workers’ retirement savings from unscrupulous financial advisors. The regulations would require financial advisors not steer clients into funds for which they receive commissions or are affiliated and base their investment advice on “objective computer models certified by independent experts.”
However, a couple of questions come to mind. First, who’s to say that a fund that pays the financial advisor a commission is not the best fund for that particular client? Second, with regard to the certified computer models, who’s going to certify that the “experts” are independent? But I bet I can answer that one; your friendly neighborhood Federal government bureaucrat.
Biden’s reasoning for the proposed regulations was, “A lot of folks are not getting the best treatment, the best advice and the most help in figuring out how to deal with their retirement plans.” Let’s give the federal government the benefit of a doubt and assume they just care so much about the American worker and want to make sure they don’t get ripped off. It still shows an incredible lack of faith in the American people. I believe people are smart enough to study the performance of their retirement funds and then go to their financial advisor and demand that changes be made.
However, I’m afraid that my experience with our Federal government has made me a bit more suspicious. There is no reason not to believe that these proposed regulations are the first tentative, baby steps in a much larger process. Next would come the cries that these financial advisors are so evil and the problem so massive that there is no solution other than intense government oversight and regulation of the industry. The administration would not use the word “takeover.” In the health care debate, the administration has been careful not to call it a takeover but it sets the stage for government control of health care.
Americans hold some $15 trillion in private retirement funds. It is the largest, untapped source of money left. Washington is broke; it covets cash. Democrats, as well as some Republicans, would love nothing better than to get their hands on this vast pool of money. Unfortunately, because of the tax incentives that are in place to encourage Americans to save for retirement, the ultimate ownership of the funds is a matter of some debate.
In fact the idea of the government taking over 401(k) accounts is not new. In October of 2008, there was a proposal before Congress that would allow Americans to use their 401(k) funds to purchase government bonds. In turn, the government would use the funds to set up a “guaranteed retirement account.” At retirement, this guaranteed retirement account would pay an inflation adjusted annuity. You might call it the “government option” retirement plan. You’ll recall that at the time 401(k) accounts were losing massive amounts of value due to the plunging stock market. This proposal was seen as a way to secure workers retirement accounts from such losses.
However, history teaches us these accounts would never remain individual retirement accounts. As with Social Security, the government would take those funds to spend them as part of the general fund. Our spending mad government would soon exhaust this fresh supply of cash as well. That would make two bankrupt government “guaranteed” retirement plans instead of one. Good luck choosing.
These people never stop. Even after tea parties, town halls, polling and elections, they are still hammer down on Obamacare. After that, win or lose, this beast of a Federal government will still be inventing new and better ways to extract our liberty and property.
A good illusionist is a master of keeping your attention on one hand while he performs the secret of the trick with the other. I’m afraid that the Obama administration is a fairly decent illusionist in its own right. While all of our attention was on the aftermath of the Blair House Health Care Summit, there was something going on behind the scenes.
Even before Obama has finished ramming through Obamacare in order to destroy your private health insurance, he has picked his next target; your private retirement accounts. Using classic Saul Alinsky tactics, the first step is to find an “enemy” to demonize. For the health care takeover it is the insurance companies. For the retirement takeover, it appears the enemy is financial advisors.
During a meeting of the Middle Class Task Force, the Obama administration announced new proposed regulations to protect workers’ retirement savings from unscrupulous financial advisors. The regulations would require financial advisors not steer clients into funds for which they receive commissions or are affiliated and base their investment advice on “objective computer models certified by independent experts.”
However, a couple of questions come to mind. First, who’s to say that a fund that pays the financial advisor a commission is not the best fund for that particular client? Second, with regard to the certified computer models, who’s going to certify that the “experts” are independent? But I bet I can answer that one; your friendly neighborhood Federal government bureaucrat.
Biden’s reasoning for the proposed regulations was, “A lot of folks are not getting the best treatment, the best advice and the most help in figuring out how to deal with their retirement plans.” Let’s give the federal government the benefit of a doubt and assume they just care so much about the American worker and want to make sure they don’t get ripped off. It still shows an incredible lack of faith in the American people. I believe people are smart enough to study the performance of their retirement funds and then go to their financial advisor and demand that changes be made.
However, I’m afraid that my experience with our Federal government has made me a bit more suspicious. There is no reason not to believe that these proposed regulations are the first tentative, baby steps in a much larger process. Next would come the cries that these financial advisors are so evil and the problem so massive that there is no solution other than intense government oversight and regulation of the industry. The administration would not use the word “takeover.” In the health care debate, the administration has been careful not to call it a takeover but it sets the stage for government control of health care.
Americans hold some $15 trillion in private retirement funds. It is the largest, untapped source of money left. Washington is broke; it covets cash. Democrats, as well as some Republicans, would love nothing better than to get their hands on this vast pool of money. Unfortunately, because of the tax incentives that are in place to encourage Americans to save for retirement, the ultimate ownership of the funds is a matter of some debate.
In fact the idea of the government taking over 401(k) accounts is not new. In October of 2008, there was a proposal before Congress that would allow Americans to use their 401(k) funds to purchase government bonds. In turn, the government would use the funds to set up a “guaranteed retirement account.” At retirement, this guaranteed retirement account would pay an inflation adjusted annuity. You might call it the “government option” retirement plan. You’ll recall that at the time 401(k) accounts were losing massive amounts of value due to the plunging stock market. This proposal was seen as a way to secure workers retirement accounts from such losses.
However, history teaches us these accounts would never remain individual retirement accounts. As with Social Security, the government would take those funds to spend them as part of the general fund. Our spending mad government would soon exhaust this fresh supply of cash as well. That would make two bankrupt government “guaranteed” retirement plans instead of one. Good luck choosing.
These people never stop. Even after tea parties, town halls, polling and elections, they are still hammer down on Obamacare. After that, win or lose, this beast of a Federal government will still be inventing new and better ways to extract our liberty and property.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Gridlock is Good
by: Humphrey Stevenson
When Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) announced that he would not seek re-election he declared, “For some time, I've had a growing conviction that Congress is not operating as it should. There is much too much partisanship and not enough progress; too much narrow ideology and not enough practical problem-solving. Even at a time of enormous national challenge, the people's business is not getting done."
There have been some political pundits that have speculated the real reason was that he is eyeing a run for the Presidency although Bayh himself has flatly denied this. The theory is that if Bayh wants to run, he must first distance himself from the walking disaster that is the Obama administration.
But let’s take Senator Bayh at his word and assume that his concern with Congress is this partisan gridlock and he would like to see more bipartisanship. Touting something as bipartisan is a favorite ploy of the left, for example, Obama’s new bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. It looks to me to be nothing more than political cover for Obama’s tax increases but he sprinkled it with a few Republicans and called it bipartisan in order to ward off any criticism.
After newly-minted Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) voted for Harry Reid’s $15 billion “Jobs” bill he said, “I hope my vote today is a strong step toward restoring bipartisanship in Washington.” With all due respect to Senator Brown, Bipartisanship is highly overrated. It, more times than not, means Republicans abandon their principles and go along with a liberal proposal just to get something done. If they do not, the Republicans are portrayed as obstructionists. However, being an obstructionist is not necessarily negative; it all depends on what is being obstructed; Obamacare, cap and trade, runaway spending are all worthy of being obstructed.
The Democrats have labeled the Republicans as the party of “No.” Their meaning is that the Republicans are just opposed to everything this administration proposes without reason and offer no alternatives. This is simply not true. For example, the Republicans have offered many proposals regarding healthcare and placed them on a website. I don’t agree with all of their ideas but they have made the proposals.
Senator Bayh also makes the point that “the peoples business is not getting done.” This is a common reframe and usually means that some party agenda items are not being passed into law. But who’s to say what the peoples’ business is? Just because Congress is not busy passing bills does not mean that this is any problem for the people. Recently, Congress was not in session for several days due to massive snow storms in the DC area. I don’t recall any major problems that could not be handled with the laws currently on the books.
The American people are not in need of constant Congressional action. In most instances, the people are better off without it. Americans are an incredibly self-reliant people and usually government action is the cause of any dependence.
There is the idea that the people elected Barack Obama and they get what they wanted. It is quite possible that the people did not know who they were electing. It is also fair to say that the people were not given much of a choice; a liberal “D” or a liberal “R.” It is further possible they were caught up in the historic nature of the election, the dynamic speeches and the promise of “Hope and Change” without any substantive definition of those terms. Now that the people have had time to look at who they have elected, they hope for a way to hold the agenda in check until they can make a change.
We do not live in a pure democracy. We elect a President not a king and he does not get free reign to implement any agendas item he wants simply because he got more votes in an election. As John Adams put it, “We have a government of laws, and not of men.”
As a football fan, I understand the idea of playing for field position. Sometimes that’s the best you can do. Gridlock is good. Gridlock can preserve liberty. Gridlock can prevent a destructive, radical agenda from being implemented until the people can make a correction. Hopefully, we can keep Obama’s team bottled up inside their 5 yard line and force them to punt in November.
When Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) announced that he would not seek re-election he declared, “For some time, I've had a growing conviction that Congress is not operating as it should. There is much too much partisanship and not enough progress; too much narrow ideology and not enough practical problem-solving. Even at a time of enormous national challenge, the people's business is not getting done."
There have been some political pundits that have speculated the real reason was that he is eyeing a run for the Presidency although Bayh himself has flatly denied this. The theory is that if Bayh wants to run, he must first distance himself from the walking disaster that is the Obama administration.
But let’s take Senator Bayh at his word and assume that his concern with Congress is this partisan gridlock and he would like to see more bipartisanship. Touting something as bipartisan is a favorite ploy of the left, for example, Obama’s new bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. It looks to me to be nothing more than political cover for Obama’s tax increases but he sprinkled it with a few Republicans and called it bipartisan in order to ward off any criticism.
After newly-minted Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) voted for Harry Reid’s $15 billion “Jobs” bill he said, “I hope my vote today is a strong step toward restoring bipartisanship in Washington.” With all due respect to Senator Brown, Bipartisanship is highly overrated. It, more times than not, means Republicans abandon their principles and go along with a liberal proposal just to get something done. If they do not, the Republicans are portrayed as obstructionists. However, being an obstructionist is not necessarily negative; it all depends on what is being obstructed; Obamacare, cap and trade, runaway spending are all worthy of being obstructed.
The Democrats have labeled the Republicans as the party of “No.” Their meaning is that the Republicans are just opposed to everything this administration proposes without reason and offer no alternatives. This is simply not true. For example, the Republicans have offered many proposals regarding healthcare and placed them on a website. I don’t agree with all of their ideas but they have made the proposals.
Senator Bayh also makes the point that “the peoples business is not getting done.” This is a common reframe and usually means that some party agenda items are not being passed into law. But who’s to say what the peoples’ business is? Just because Congress is not busy passing bills does not mean that this is any problem for the people. Recently, Congress was not in session for several days due to massive snow storms in the DC area. I don’t recall any major problems that could not be handled with the laws currently on the books.
The American people are not in need of constant Congressional action. In most instances, the people are better off without it. Americans are an incredibly self-reliant people and usually government action is the cause of any dependence.
There is the idea that the people elected Barack Obama and they get what they wanted. It is quite possible that the people did not know who they were electing. It is also fair to say that the people were not given much of a choice; a liberal “D” or a liberal “R.” It is further possible they were caught up in the historic nature of the election, the dynamic speeches and the promise of “Hope and Change” without any substantive definition of those terms. Now that the people have had time to look at who they have elected, they hope for a way to hold the agenda in check until they can make a change.
We do not live in a pure democracy. We elect a President not a king and he does not get free reign to implement any agendas item he wants simply because he got more votes in an election. As John Adams put it, “We have a government of laws, and not of men.”
As a football fan, I understand the idea of playing for field position. Sometimes that’s the best you can do. Gridlock is good. Gridlock can preserve liberty. Gridlock can prevent a destructive, radical agenda from being implemented until the people can make a correction. Hopefully, we can keep Obama’s team bottled up inside their 5 yard line and force them to punt in November.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Green Energy Puts US in the Red
by: Humphrey Stevenson
Towering hulks of rusting scarp iron. Andrew Walden of American Thinker calls them “Spinning, post-industrial junk which generates nothing but bird kills.” That is all that is left of many of California’s vaunted wind farms. Thousands of these wind turbines left cannibalized and abandoned after the government mandates ended and subsidies ran out. They are now nothing more than corroding monuments to California’s failed experiment with wind power. And the millions of tax dollars that funded them? Ask Bob Dylan; they’re Blowin’ in the Wind energy.
Sunshine, on our solar panel, makes Biden happy. (My apologies to the late John Denver) The Detroit Free Press reports that Vice President Joe Biden visited a solar panel manufacturing plant in Saginaw, MI. The plant received almost $142 million in federal energy tax credits to produce the material for solar panels. "It's a wonderful day for solar energy," Biden said as he gazed at the rows and rows of solar panels. The panels produce 30 kilowatts of power (when the sun shines), enough to power the plant's administration building.
Sounds great, right? Ask yourself, “Would the plant produce the solar panels without the energy tax credits?” No; I don’t know what Biden would be gazing at but it wouldn’t be solar panels; perhaps something the company can make a profit on.
The Carrizo Plain in California was once home to the largest photovoltaic array (solar power plant) in the world. It was built in 1983 by ARCO and had 100,000 1’ x 4’ solar panels on 177 acres of land. The thought behind it was that crude oil would reach a price that would make the 5.2 peak megawatts produced profitable. That never happened and the site closed in 1994. The solar panels were sold and the concrete and steel pillars that held them were dug up.
Is this the future of ethanol? I once thought that the US fuel ethanol industry could be viable and I still, to some extent, think it could be. However, in order to do so the focus must be placed on making a profit selling ethanol not providing another market for corn.
Since ethanol is only about 70 – 75% as efficient as a motor fuel as gasoline, the ethanol industry relies on a 51 cents per gallon blenders’ credit in order to make it competitive with gasoline. What happens when we can no longer afford this subsidy? We are going to see the Midwest dotted with the rusted remains of the failed US ethanol industry.
The end of subsidies will spell the eventual end of Obama’s “green economy.” All of these green energy technologies have to be subsidized by the Federal Government until they are viable. But they will never be viable; if they were the private sector would be pursuing them now, without any push from the government. Once the subsidies are ended, the technology will be abandoned and the hardware will be left to rot. However, Obama is right about one thing. His green energy ideas don’t burn coal, oil or natural gas. Instead, they burn tax dollars.
To top all this off, we now know that impetus for Obama’s green economy was a complete hoax. UK Daily Mail reports that even Professor Phil Jones, who was once perhaps the leading global warming alarmist, has admitted that there has been no “statistically significant warning” in the past fifteen years. He also said he lost all that data that was supposed to prove this fraud. Billions upon billions of dollars have been spent and are going to be spent to save us from this nonsense and he lost the data! His excuse was that he wasn’t as organized as he should have been and his office wasn’t very tidy. I pointed out in an earlier article that Jones received $22.6 million in grants. Seems like with that kind of money he could buy a couple of filing cabinets and hire a secretary. As it turns out, the scientific consensus on global warming was only one third right. It was a scientific con.
I am not against new technology. I am against government subsidies on any technology. But don’t let me stop you. If you want to power your business with a windmill or put solar panels on your house, go right ahead. Just don’t ask the rest of us to pay for it. If a technology cannot stand on its own in the private sector, it should go the way of a Democrat Senator; bye Bayh.
Towering hulks of rusting scarp iron. Andrew Walden of American Thinker calls them “Spinning, post-industrial junk which generates nothing but bird kills.” That is all that is left of many of California’s vaunted wind farms. Thousands of these wind turbines left cannibalized and abandoned after the government mandates ended and subsidies ran out. They are now nothing more than corroding monuments to California’s failed experiment with wind power. And the millions of tax dollars that funded them? Ask Bob Dylan; they’re Blowin’ in the Wind energy.
Sunshine, on our solar panel, makes Biden happy. (My apologies to the late John Denver) The Detroit Free Press reports that Vice President Joe Biden visited a solar panel manufacturing plant in Saginaw, MI. The plant received almost $142 million in federal energy tax credits to produce the material for solar panels. "It's a wonderful day for solar energy," Biden said as he gazed at the rows and rows of solar panels. The panels produce 30 kilowatts of power (when the sun shines), enough to power the plant's administration building.
Sounds great, right? Ask yourself, “Would the plant produce the solar panels without the energy tax credits?” No; I don’t know what Biden would be gazing at but it wouldn’t be solar panels; perhaps something the company can make a profit on.
The Carrizo Plain in California was once home to the largest photovoltaic array (solar power plant) in the world. It was built in 1983 by ARCO and had 100,000 1’ x 4’ solar panels on 177 acres of land. The thought behind it was that crude oil would reach a price that would make the 5.2 peak megawatts produced profitable. That never happened and the site closed in 1994. The solar panels were sold and the concrete and steel pillars that held them were dug up.
Is this the future of ethanol? I once thought that the US fuel ethanol industry could be viable and I still, to some extent, think it could be. However, in order to do so the focus must be placed on making a profit selling ethanol not providing another market for corn.
Since ethanol is only about 70 – 75% as efficient as a motor fuel as gasoline, the ethanol industry relies on a 51 cents per gallon blenders’ credit in order to make it competitive with gasoline. What happens when we can no longer afford this subsidy? We are going to see the Midwest dotted with the rusted remains of the failed US ethanol industry.
The end of subsidies will spell the eventual end of Obama’s “green economy.” All of these green energy technologies have to be subsidized by the Federal Government until they are viable. But they will never be viable; if they were the private sector would be pursuing them now, without any push from the government. Once the subsidies are ended, the technology will be abandoned and the hardware will be left to rot. However, Obama is right about one thing. His green energy ideas don’t burn coal, oil or natural gas. Instead, they burn tax dollars.
To top all this off, we now know that impetus for Obama’s green economy was a complete hoax. UK Daily Mail reports that even Professor Phil Jones, who was once perhaps the leading global warming alarmist, has admitted that there has been no “statistically significant warning” in the past fifteen years. He also said he lost all that data that was supposed to prove this fraud. Billions upon billions of dollars have been spent and are going to be spent to save us from this nonsense and he lost the data! His excuse was that he wasn’t as organized as he should have been and his office wasn’t very tidy. I pointed out in an earlier article that Jones received $22.6 million in grants. Seems like with that kind of money he could buy a couple of filing cabinets and hire a secretary. As it turns out, the scientific consensus on global warming was only one third right. It was a scientific con.
I am not against new technology. I am against government subsidies on any technology. But don’t let me stop you. If you want to power your business with a windmill or put solar panels on your house, go right ahead. Just don’t ask the rest of us to pay for it. If a technology cannot stand on its own in the private sector, it should go the way of a Democrat Senator; bye Bayh.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
The Search for the Tea Party Leader
by: Humphrey Stevenson
The left is on the hunt and they will not be stopped until they find their quarry. In every bush, under every rock, the left is furiously searching for the leader of the Tea Party movement. It is akin to the search for the Loch Ness Monster. They want so badly to find someone, anyone that they can pronounce as the Tea Party leader.
After former Governor Sarah Palin spoke at a Tea Party convention on Saturday, Juan Williams flatly declared on Fox News Sunday that Sarah Palin is the leader of the Tea Party movement and she should accept that role.
I hate to burst Juan Williams bubble but while former Governor Palin is an important voice in conservative politics, she is not the leader of the Tea Party movement. Sarah Palin is a private citizen who accepted an invitation to speak before a group of other private citizens. Nevertheless, since the political leanings of this group are in opposition to that of the present administration, she and the group both must be castigated.
The fact is there is no one leader of the movement. But that fact has not nor will it stop the left from their quest. There two reasons for this endless search for the leader for the Tea Party movement.
First, a movement without an ultimate leader just does not fit the template that the left has cut out. You see this does not happen on the left. To have a movement, you first must have a recognizable, well financed leader; a community organizer in other words. Someone has to say, “You take this sign and stand over there; you wear this shirt and stand here and on cue, all of you yell this cute little rhyme I have written out.” The idea that a bunch of hick, hayseed rednecks (which is what the left thinks of us) could put together a movement without someone to tell everyone exactly what to do is inconceivable to them, if for no other reason than the fact that they cannot do it. In their world, the community cannot organize itself.
We already saw this last summer. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi dismissed the Tea Parties as Astroturf or fake grassroots. What she was saying was that there existed some mysterious puppet master pulling the strings behind the scenes. She could not fathom how hundreds of thousands of individuals and small groups could first communicate and then organize themselves into what became the Tea Parties without the guidance and financing of an ultimate leader.
The other reason the left wants to find a leader of the Tea Party movement is that they want to destroy the movement. It is very difficult to use their time-tested Saul Alinsky tactics of “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it” on such a large, diverse group. Try as they might through intimidation, name-calling, fear-mongering and so forth, the left just has not been able to make much headway against the Tea Party movement. However, if they could find a clearly defined leader or even create such a leader, the tactics would be much more successful. They could then exploit any flaws, weaknesses or missteps of the “leader” and tear him or her down. Once they have discredited the leader, the movement could then be discredited.
Something else the left would like is for the Tea Party movement to go third party. This should be avoided. A conservative third party would only serve to elect Democrats by splitting the right wing vote. Ross Perot’s Reform Party only served to secure Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 and 1996. There may be limited times where a Tea Party candidate could offer the voters a choice if the Republican candidate offers no real alternative to the Democrat. However, even in these cases we must carefully weigh what we might gain against what damage it could do.
In the Republican Primaries, however, it’s another story. There the fight is on. We should put our full support behind the most conservative Republican candidates there are. But when facing the Democrats, we must present a strong, unified force.
We should focus on becoming the dominate force in the Republican Party. We should endeavor to wrestle control of the party away from the liberal/progressive wing. Then bring the Republican Party back to its bedrock, conservative values that not only win elections but are the solutions for what ails the United States.
The left is on the hunt and they will not be stopped until they find their quarry. In every bush, under every rock, the left is furiously searching for the leader of the Tea Party movement. It is akin to the search for the Loch Ness Monster. They want so badly to find someone, anyone that they can pronounce as the Tea Party leader.
After former Governor Sarah Palin spoke at a Tea Party convention on Saturday, Juan Williams flatly declared on Fox News Sunday that Sarah Palin is the leader of the Tea Party movement and she should accept that role.
I hate to burst Juan Williams bubble but while former Governor Palin is an important voice in conservative politics, she is not the leader of the Tea Party movement. Sarah Palin is a private citizen who accepted an invitation to speak before a group of other private citizens. Nevertheless, since the political leanings of this group are in opposition to that of the present administration, she and the group both must be castigated.
The fact is there is no one leader of the movement. But that fact has not nor will it stop the left from their quest. There two reasons for this endless search for the leader for the Tea Party movement.
First, a movement without an ultimate leader just does not fit the template that the left has cut out. You see this does not happen on the left. To have a movement, you first must have a recognizable, well financed leader; a community organizer in other words. Someone has to say, “You take this sign and stand over there; you wear this shirt and stand here and on cue, all of you yell this cute little rhyme I have written out.” The idea that a bunch of hick, hayseed rednecks (which is what the left thinks of us) could put together a movement without someone to tell everyone exactly what to do is inconceivable to them, if for no other reason than the fact that they cannot do it. In their world, the community cannot organize itself.
We already saw this last summer. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi dismissed the Tea Parties as Astroturf or fake grassroots. What she was saying was that there existed some mysterious puppet master pulling the strings behind the scenes. She could not fathom how hundreds of thousands of individuals and small groups could first communicate and then organize themselves into what became the Tea Parties without the guidance and financing of an ultimate leader.
The other reason the left wants to find a leader of the Tea Party movement is that they want to destroy the movement. It is very difficult to use their time-tested Saul Alinsky tactics of “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it” on such a large, diverse group. Try as they might through intimidation, name-calling, fear-mongering and so forth, the left just has not been able to make much headway against the Tea Party movement. However, if they could find a clearly defined leader or even create such a leader, the tactics would be much more successful. They could then exploit any flaws, weaknesses or missteps of the “leader” and tear him or her down. Once they have discredited the leader, the movement could then be discredited.
Something else the left would like is for the Tea Party movement to go third party. This should be avoided. A conservative third party would only serve to elect Democrats by splitting the right wing vote. Ross Perot’s Reform Party only served to secure Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 and 1996. There may be limited times where a Tea Party candidate could offer the voters a choice if the Republican candidate offers no real alternative to the Democrat. However, even in these cases we must carefully weigh what we might gain against what damage it could do.
In the Republican Primaries, however, it’s another story. There the fight is on. We should put our full support behind the most conservative Republican candidates there are. But when facing the Democrats, we must present a strong, unified force.
We should focus on becoming the dominate force in the Republican Party. We should endeavor to wrestle control of the party away from the liberal/progressive wing. Then bring the Republican Party back to its bedrock, conservative values that not only win elections but are the solutions for what ails the United States.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
This is a Budget?
by: Humphrey Stevenson
On Monday, February 1, President Obama unveiled his proposed budget for FY 2011. The budget contains $ 3.8 trillion in spending and a record $ 1.56 trillion deficit. Let me get this right; you only have $ 2.24 trillion to spend but you are going to spend $ 3.8 trillion. First off, how can $ 2.24 trillion not be enough? That is $ 7,467 for every man, woman and child in the US. Second, a deficit of $ 1.56 trillion means you are 41% over budget! I guess I’ve been working in the business world too long. In this world you can’t be 5% or even 2% over budget. To do so will find you standing on the carpet of the boss’s office. 41% over will find you cleaning out your desk.
Let’s put this in numbers we can better understand. This would be like a family that brings in $ 50,000 per year, but proposes to spend $ 70,500 next year. Where are you going to get the other twenty large? I suppose you could talk to a couple of guys named Rocco and Vinny but their penalties for late payment are kind of on the stiff side. No, we all learn to live within our means. Even President Obama admitted that families cannot handle their budgets the way Washington does. We know our expenses can’t outstrip our income. If we have to keep a reign on our own spending; we should expect no less from Washington.
In his budget, Obama proposed a $ 5,000 tax credit for businesses to hire an employee. Far be it for me to disparage any sort of tax deduction but by proposing this Obama shows his lack of economic understanding. Businesses do not exist simply to provide jobs to people; they exist to provide a good or service and make a profit. Employees are hired to perform tasks; increasing productivity and reaping greater profits. If a business owner sees no increase in business he will not hire any employees no matter how many tax credits are offered to them.
Obama wants to let some Bush era tax cuts expire raising the top income tax rate from 36% to 39.6% for individuals making more than $ 200,000 and families making more than $ 250,000. Further he wants to raise the capital gains tax rate from 15% to 20% for this same group (AP). This is exactly what you don’t want to do if you want to create jobs. Most people in this group are small business owners who file their taxes as an individual. In addition, this idea of raising the capital gains tax would cut investments limiting the capital available for business expansion.
Obama wishes to limit the itemized tax deductions high earners can claim for charitable donations, mortgage interest and state and local taxes (AP). This idea has a twofold purpose. First, of course, raise money for the Federal Government but also to hurt charitable organizations. You may ask, “Why would he want to do that?” The answer is to make government the charity of first resort, furthering the dependence on the Federal Government and the government’s control of peoples’ lives.
Obama has proposed a spending freeze. He thinks this would save $ 250 billion over 10 years. This works out to about 0.66% of his FY 2011 budget. Even if you believe that the spending freeze is legitimate; it is nickel and dime stuff. We are nibbling around the edges when we need to be taking big bites.
His “freeze,” however, does not extend to entitlements. At some time, sooner, rather than later we must look at entitlements. This is where the majority of Federal spending goes and our present level of spending is unsustainable. We have no choice; the spending will end eventually, one way or the other. Either we start making serious cuts in our entitlement programs and look for ways to phase them out or they will collapse our economy. As Derek Thompson of The Atlantic said, “Our deficit crisis in an entitlement crisis, and the solution won't be pretty.”
In the end, this is less a budget and more a big government manifesto. I’ll leave you with the words of Representative Paul Ryan, the Ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, after reading Obama’s budget, “Make no mistake: This is a budget aimed to advance the administration’s philosophy and ideology. By increasing taxes and letting the country spiral into debt, this budget is a firm step toward transforming America into a collectivist society overseen by a social-welfare state.”
On Monday, February 1, President Obama unveiled his proposed budget for FY 2011. The budget contains $ 3.8 trillion in spending and a record $ 1.56 trillion deficit. Let me get this right; you only have $ 2.24 trillion to spend but you are going to spend $ 3.8 trillion. First off, how can $ 2.24 trillion not be enough? That is $ 7,467 for every man, woman and child in the US. Second, a deficit of $ 1.56 trillion means you are 41% over budget! I guess I’ve been working in the business world too long. In this world you can’t be 5% or even 2% over budget. To do so will find you standing on the carpet of the boss’s office. 41% over will find you cleaning out your desk.
Let’s put this in numbers we can better understand. This would be like a family that brings in $ 50,000 per year, but proposes to spend $ 70,500 next year. Where are you going to get the other twenty large? I suppose you could talk to a couple of guys named Rocco and Vinny but their penalties for late payment are kind of on the stiff side. No, we all learn to live within our means. Even President Obama admitted that families cannot handle their budgets the way Washington does. We know our expenses can’t outstrip our income. If we have to keep a reign on our own spending; we should expect no less from Washington.
In his budget, Obama proposed a $ 5,000 tax credit for businesses to hire an employee. Far be it for me to disparage any sort of tax deduction but by proposing this Obama shows his lack of economic understanding. Businesses do not exist simply to provide jobs to people; they exist to provide a good or service and make a profit. Employees are hired to perform tasks; increasing productivity and reaping greater profits. If a business owner sees no increase in business he will not hire any employees no matter how many tax credits are offered to them.
Obama wants to let some Bush era tax cuts expire raising the top income tax rate from 36% to 39.6% for individuals making more than $ 200,000 and families making more than $ 250,000. Further he wants to raise the capital gains tax rate from 15% to 20% for this same group (AP). This is exactly what you don’t want to do if you want to create jobs. Most people in this group are small business owners who file their taxes as an individual. In addition, this idea of raising the capital gains tax would cut investments limiting the capital available for business expansion.
Obama wishes to limit the itemized tax deductions high earners can claim for charitable donations, mortgage interest and state and local taxes (AP). This idea has a twofold purpose. First, of course, raise money for the Federal Government but also to hurt charitable organizations. You may ask, “Why would he want to do that?” The answer is to make government the charity of first resort, furthering the dependence on the Federal Government and the government’s control of peoples’ lives.
Obama has proposed a spending freeze. He thinks this would save $ 250 billion over 10 years. This works out to about 0.66% of his FY 2011 budget. Even if you believe that the spending freeze is legitimate; it is nickel and dime stuff. We are nibbling around the edges when we need to be taking big bites.
His “freeze,” however, does not extend to entitlements. At some time, sooner, rather than later we must look at entitlements. This is where the majority of Federal spending goes and our present level of spending is unsustainable. We have no choice; the spending will end eventually, one way or the other. Either we start making serious cuts in our entitlement programs and look for ways to phase them out or they will collapse our economy. As Derek Thompson of The Atlantic said, “Our deficit crisis in an entitlement crisis, and the solution won't be pretty.”
In the end, this is less a budget and more a big government manifesto. I’ll leave you with the words of Representative Paul Ryan, the Ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, after reading Obama’s budget, “Make no mistake: This is a budget aimed to advance the administration’s philosophy and ideology. By increasing taxes and letting the country spiral into debt, this budget is a firm step toward transforming America into a collectivist society overseen by a social-welfare state.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)