Thursday, May 28, 2009
My advice to the Republican party!
No one is going to listen to my advice, being politicians are what they are, they will always do the wrong things. However, I'm going to offer it anyway. Obama has nominated an Hispanic woman to be the next Supreme Court justice. Now, many may not like her politics, her decisions, her antics, etc., but she did graduate law school, she was a district judge and she did serve as an appellate judge. Guess what guys, this means she's qualified. Maybe she was picked because she was a woman or because she is Hispanic or both, but does that really matter? Here's the thing. When judge Roberts went through his fight and when the gang of 15 had to be formed to get Bush's judicial nominees through the Senate, the fight was over how Democrats were not being constitutional in providing advice and consent but were instead filibustering judicial nominees, simply because they didn't like them. First, I agree that the Democrats significantly overstepped their bounds here. Never before had judicial nominees been filibustered and it should never happen again (hear this Republicans!). After all, constitutionally, the Senate's job is to provide advice and consent. You don't like somebody, vote no, but you can't just keep somebody's nomination hanging. That's unfair to the nominee, it is unfair to the President, it is unfair to "we the people" but most importantly, it is unconstitutional. Secondly, there were a lot of political games played by the Democrats over judicial nominees during the Bush years that are so abhorrent to me it isn't funny at all. Listing them would take several posts. However, the Republicans should not fall into the same trap. Obama thinks he has been wonderfully shrewd in picking an Hispanic and a woman to boot. While this makes for good politics, it actually isn't particularly shrewd at all. It would have been more shrewd to use this tactic in picking someone that might actually change the balance on the court. This judge, whether you like her or agree with her isn't going to do that. The court balance will remain the same. Additionally, you aren't going to win this one. With 59 votes in the Senate and probably 60, the Democrats don't need a single Republican to vote yes in order to confirm her. We should learn something from the Democrats of the Reagan era here. They confirmed Scalia (whom they despise) 98-0 most likely (for all the wrong reasons) because he was the first Italian American nominated to the court. The Republicans should follow suit here. Sure, ask tough questions and make sure America knows where she stands during the vetting process, but in the end, vote her in and do it unanimously. Anything less will alienate the female and Hispanic vote and that is something the Republicans can't afford. Can't bring yourself to vote for someone you are stringently opposed to ideologically? Fine, don't vote unless you have to or better yet, realize that this vote and this fight isn't the one to be fought and won. You can't win this one so choose your battles and fight the one that needs to be fought. This one isn't it!
Friday, May 22, 2009
U.S. Constitution, part 4
We have consistently heard both parties decry the power of the President in recent years. So, other than the fact that I'd argue that the blatant and willful ignorance of the constitution over the past 100 or so years means that both parties now have exactly what they wanted and exactly what they deserve, let's look at what the constitution actually says about the Executive Branch of the government. What powers does the President actually have?
Article II - The Executive Branch Note
Section 1 - The President
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
This is simple, it just tells us the President serves, along with the Vice President for four years.
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
So the state determines the method by which electors are chosen? Based on modern practice, you could have fooled me. It seems to me that the two parties control the entire process. In other words, I think the states have voluntarily allowed their power to establish electors to be supplanted by the political parties.
(The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two-thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice-President.) (This clause in parentheses was superseded by the 12th Amendment.)
This was of course superseded by the 12th Amendment because it was so fraught with problems that came to light so quickly that the founders themselves had to fix this one. I'll discuss the 12th Amendment later, but this section caused virtual chaos with a President and Vice President of different parties and with a tie vote that had to be decided by the House because of pure politics.
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
While the states set the method for choosing the electors, it is Congress that determines the time and day that those electors must come together and cast their votes.
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
There has been a lot of focus on this particular section of the constitution recently because of our current President. Many people are satisfied with the "evidence" of citizenship provided by the President and many others are equally convinced that he does not qualify as "natural born" because of his father's British citizenship. The Supreme Court weighed in on this and basically decided not to decide. In other words, they didn't want to overturn the election or even define the term "natural born" for us. I think this is probably the wisest course for the court but very unsatisfying. The fact remains that a person must be 35 years old, been living in the country for at least 14 years and that they must be "natural born". The exception to natural born no longer exists since all persons who would have qualified under the exception are now dead. Is Obama natural born? Decide for yourself, there are plenty of people arguing both ways. Even if he isn't, it is likely that he is not the first President who technically doesn't qualify under this requirement (see Chester A. Arthur).
(In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.) (This clause in parentheses has been modified by the 20th and 25th Amendments.)
The 20th and 25th Amendments were passed to clarify various inadequacies in this article. In fact, they were passed to deal with specific types of succession issues not addressed clearly above. This is how the process is supposed to work. You want to change the power or abilities in the constitution, you amend it. Period.
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
You can't raise the President's salary during the 4 year term of his election. No problems here, seems straight forward.
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The famous oath of office that got messed up in the past inaugural. Both men were nervous and doing it for the first time, so I guess that isn't really surprising.
Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Section 2 is the meat of Presidential power. He is Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, so he is the sole authority over them. Congress approves their funding, but the President commands them. It also includes the militias of the states if called into service. Technically, we also have an Air Force. So, we should have technically had a constitutional amendment to add the air force into this article. It just sort of got overlooked, I'm sure. Also, the President can grant reprieves and pardons except in cases of impeachment. Cool, convince a President you don't belong in jail and he can get you out. I may disagree with a President about who he pardons, but I've never questioned his authority to do so. Sure, this can be and has been abused, but it is still within his authority. Now, if he's caught giving a pardon in exchange for a bribe, well, then we come back to him being impeached for bribery.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President makes treaties, but must get a 2/3 vote from the Senate to approve it. This is the real reason why the states elected Senators in the past. States must change their laws to account for treaties signed into law and approved by the Senate. Therefore, in a federalist system, the only way states have of protecting their interests is to make sure they have Senators who will follow the instructions of the states. We don't have this anymore since the Senators are elected by the people now. Finally, the President appoints ambassadors and judges and cabinet members, etc. Interestingly, note that this is with the advice and consent of the Senate. That's why the Senate has to vote on all of these nominations. They can give advice through their votes, but they must also give their consent. Political appointments of the President are not blank checks. However, I don't think this is meant to prevent a qualified candidate from taking office. In addition, I don't think it was meant that we crucify candidates who are qualified for the job but we don't happen to like their politics. I think the Senate is supposed to determine if the person can do the job. If so, they should be approved, if not, they should not be confirmed. This is not to be based on beliefs or personal attributes, but can be based on whether a person has broken the law or if they are qualified and capable of doing the job. I'd say a treasury secretary who can't figure out how to pay his taxes should not have been approved since he obviously isn't qualified.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
This just means that the President can appoint someone to a position without Senate consent for a period of time that ends when the Senate's next session expires (assuming they don't confirm the candidate during that session). This basically means he can hire whomever he wants, but does eventually have to seek the Senate's consent or the person will have to leave office by the time the Senate session ends.
Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
The President must give a state of the Union address (this was simply written in the past but has now become the huge television event we have today) and can recommend measures to the Congress. He may call special sessions of Congress or even adjourn them as well. He can receive ambassadors and other public ministers. Notice that this is a sole power of the President, not one given to Congress, thus the issues I have with Congressmen and Senators making trips to foreign countries as official representatives. They don't have this constitutional authority, only the President does. He "takes care" that the laws are faithfully executed so he should be law abiding himself and finally, he commission all the officers of the United States.
Section 4 - Disqualification
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Treason, bribery or high Crimes and Misdemeanors. This pretty much means that a President or any member of the government can be impeached for breaking the law. Any law.
I want to point out that there is a glaring issue that does not appear in the constitution which we've allowed and overlooked for a long time now. Executive orders is not a stated power of the President. Therefore, they should not be allowed. They have grown over the years into a force that circumvents the legislature. Considering they aren't even in the constitution, that is astounding. We want the President to have this power? Okay, fine, pass an amendment! Otherwise, they must be done away with. Presidents have also expanded executive power in regards to war powers. Sure, the President commands the troops, but the constitution says Congress declares war. So, one could argue that troops should never been sent into harms way without a declaration of war. This one has been argued and Congress even tried to reign in Presidential abuses in this area with the war powers act, but we still see Presidents do pretty much whatever they want militarily around the world. Is this in the above stated powers of the President? I'm not sure it is. Nonetheless, there are entire books written on the expansion of Presidential power and you really should read some of those to truly understand this issue, but what is important to take away from this is that the President we have today has far more power to create and circumvent law than any President before him. I don't see how continuing to expand this power is anything close to "take care that the laws are faithfully executed", but instead that it is closer to do what you want as long as nobody has the will or the power to stop you.
Article II - The Executive Branch Note
Section 1 - The President
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
This is simple, it just tells us the President serves, along with the Vice President for four years.
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
So the state determines the method by which electors are chosen? Based on modern practice, you could have fooled me. It seems to me that the two parties control the entire process. In other words, I think the states have voluntarily allowed their power to establish electors to be supplanted by the political parties.
(The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two-thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice-President.) (This clause in parentheses was superseded by the 12th Amendment.)
This was of course superseded by the 12th Amendment because it was so fraught with problems that came to light so quickly that the founders themselves had to fix this one. I'll discuss the 12th Amendment later, but this section caused virtual chaos with a President and Vice President of different parties and with a tie vote that had to be decided by the House because of pure politics.
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
While the states set the method for choosing the electors, it is Congress that determines the time and day that those electors must come together and cast their votes.
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
There has been a lot of focus on this particular section of the constitution recently because of our current President. Many people are satisfied with the "evidence" of citizenship provided by the President and many others are equally convinced that he does not qualify as "natural born" because of his father's British citizenship. The Supreme Court weighed in on this and basically decided not to decide. In other words, they didn't want to overturn the election or even define the term "natural born" for us. I think this is probably the wisest course for the court but very unsatisfying. The fact remains that a person must be 35 years old, been living in the country for at least 14 years and that they must be "natural born". The exception to natural born no longer exists since all persons who would have qualified under the exception are now dead. Is Obama natural born? Decide for yourself, there are plenty of people arguing both ways. Even if he isn't, it is likely that he is not the first President who technically doesn't qualify under this requirement (see Chester A. Arthur).
(In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.) (This clause in parentheses has been modified by the 20th and 25th Amendments.)
The 20th and 25th Amendments were passed to clarify various inadequacies in this article. In fact, they were passed to deal with specific types of succession issues not addressed clearly above. This is how the process is supposed to work. You want to change the power or abilities in the constitution, you amend it. Period.
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
You can't raise the President's salary during the 4 year term of his election. No problems here, seems straight forward.
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The famous oath of office that got messed up in the past inaugural. Both men were nervous and doing it for the first time, so I guess that isn't really surprising.
Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Section 2 is the meat of Presidential power. He is Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, so he is the sole authority over them. Congress approves their funding, but the President commands them. It also includes the militias of the states if called into service. Technically, we also have an Air Force. So, we should have technically had a constitutional amendment to add the air force into this article. It just sort of got overlooked, I'm sure. Also, the President can grant reprieves and pardons except in cases of impeachment. Cool, convince a President you don't belong in jail and he can get you out. I may disagree with a President about who he pardons, but I've never questioned his authority to do so. Sure, this can be and has been abused, but it is still within his authority. Now, if he's caught giving a pardon in exchange for a bribe, well, then we come back to him being impeached for bribery.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President makes treaties, but must get a 2/3 vote from the Senate to approve it. This is the real reason why the states elected Senators in the past. States must change their laws to account for treaties signed into law and approved by the Senate. Therefore, in a federalist system, the only way states have of protecting their interests is to make sure they have Senators who will follow the instructions of the states. We don't have this anymore since the Senators are elected by the people now. Finally, the President appoints ambassadors and judges and cabinet members, etc. Interestingly, note that this is with the advice and consent of the Senate. That's why the Senate has to vote on all of these nominations. They can give advice through their votes, but they must also give their consent. Political appointments of the President are not blank checks. However, I don't think this is meant to prevent a qualified candidate from taking office. In addition, I don't think it was meant that we crucify candidates who are qualified for the job but we don't happen to like their politics. I think the Senate is supposed to determine if the person can do the job. If so, they should be approved, if not, they should not be confirmed. This is not to be based on beliefs or personal attributes, but can be based on whether a person has broken the law or if they are qualified and capable of doing the job. I'd say a treasury secretary who can't figure out how to pay his taxes should not have been approved since he obviously isn't qualified.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
This just means that the President can appoint someone to a position without Senate consent for a period of time that ends when the Senate's next session expires (assuming they don't confirm the candidate during that session). This basically means he can hire whomever he wants, but does eventually have to seek the Senate's consent or the person will have to leave office by the time the Senate session ends.
Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
The President must give a state of the Union address (this was simply written in the past but has now become the huge television event we have today) and can recommend measures to the Congress. He may call special sessions of Congress or even adjourn them as well. He can receive ambassadors and other public ministers. Notice that this is a sole power of the President, not one given to Congress, thus the issues I have with Congressmen and Senators making trips to foreign countries as official representatives. They don't have this constitutional authority, only the President does. He "takes care" that the laws are faithfully executed so he should be law abiding himself and finally, he commission all the officers of the United States.
Section 4 - Disqualification
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Treason, bribery or high Crimes and Misdemeanors. This pretty much means that a President or any member of the government can be impeached for breaking the law. Any law.
I want to point out that there is a glaring issue that does not appear in the constitution which we've allowed and overlooked for a long time now. Executive orders is not a stated power of the President. Therefore, they should not be allowed. They have grown over the years into a force that circumvents the legislature. Considering they aren't even in the constitution, that is astounding. We want the President to have this power? Okay, fine, pass an amendment! Otherwise, they must be done away with. Presidents have also expanded executive power in regards to war powers. Sure, the President commands the troops, but the constitution says Congress declares war. So, one could argue that troops should never been sent into harms way without a declaration of war. This one has been argued and Congress even tried to reign in Presidential abuses in this area with the war powers act, but we still see Presidents do pretty much whatever they want militarily around the world. Is this in the above stated powers of the President? I'm not sure it is. Nonetheless, there are entire books written on the expansion of Presidential power and you really should read some of those to truly understand this issue, but what is important to take away from this is that the President we have today has far more power to create and circumvent law than any President before him. I don't see how continuing to expand this power is anything close to "take care that the laws are faithfully executed", but instead that it is closer to do what you want as long as nobody has the will or the power to stop you.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
What Thomas Jefferson would have to say about our problems today!
I just thought I'd quote some of Thomas Jefferson since the Democrats love to quote him themselves. Conveniently for them, they don't quote everything he says, just those things they like, so... I'm going to do the same thing and give my own commentary to go with it.
"[With the decline of society] begins, indeed, the bellum omnium in omnia [war of all against all], which some philosophers observing to be so general in this world, have mistaken it for the natural, instead of the abusive state of man. And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.
So, public debt leads to taxation to pay it off which leads to wretchedness and oppression. I couldn't agree more!
"I sincerely believe... that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816.
So, if we spend money today and expect our children and our children's children to pay it off, then we are nothing more than thieves, that's what he's saying here. Again, I couldn't agree more. Think any Democrats would agree?
"Then I say, the earth belongs to each of these generations during its course, fully and in its own right. The second generation receives it clear of the debts and incumbrances of the first, the third of the second, and so on. For if the first could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not to the living generation. Then, no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789.
"The conclusion then, is, that neither the representatives of a nation, nor the whole nation itself assembled, can validly engage debts beyond what they may pay in their own time." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789.
These two go together and say all one can say, do they not? If you can't pay off a debt in your lifetime, it isn't a debt you can morally justify. Period. Seems pretty clear. Hmmm...if it is so clear then, how can we really justify the paygo system of social security which places a burden on our children to pay for the needs of the previous generations? I don't think we can. I wonder why do our political parties ignore Jefferson so much? They don't really, they just pick and choose and this one is inconvenient.
"We believe--or we act as if we believed--that although an individual father cannot alienate the labor of his son, the aggregate body of fathers may alienate the labor of all their sons, of their posterity, in the aggregate, and oblige them to pay for all the enterprises, just or unjust, profitable or ruinous, into which our vices, our passions or our personal interests may lead us. But I trust that this proposition needs only to be looked at by an American to be seen in its true point of view, and that we shall all consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and morally bound to pay them ourselves; and consequently within what may be deemed the period of a generation, or the life of the majority." --Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1813.
He is still speaking of the government here and is reiterating years later that it is morally unacceptable to saddle our children with debt.
"It is a wise rule and should be fundamental in a government disposed to cherish its credit and at the same time to restrain the use of it within the limits of its faculties, "never to borrow a dollar without laying a tax in the same instant for paying the interest annually and the principal within a given term; and to consider that tax as pledged to the creditors on the public faith." On such a pledge as this, sacredly observed, a government may always command, on a reasonable interest, all the lendable money of their citizens, while the necessity of an equivalent tax is a salutary warning to them and their constituents against oppressions, bankruptcy, and its inevitable consequence, revolution." --Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1813.
What is he saying here? Is he contradicting the earlier quotes? Absolutely not! He is saying that it is wise of a government to have good credit (a good credit score if you will) which up until recently the U.S. has always managed to have. He goes on to say that you should never borrow money without raising taxes or creating a tax to pay it off which is consistent with his not wanting to pass debt on to our children. However, he talks about public faith and goes on to say that the government should be warned. By requiring a tax to pay for things, the government is hindered by the public faith (the faith of the people) since unwise use of the monies raised by said tax would eventually lead to revolution. Ouch!
"I deem [this one of] the essential principles of our government and consequently [one] which ought to shape its administration:... The honest payment of our debts and sacred preservation of the public faith. " --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.
Only by being honest and paying our debts can we preserve the public faith. Anyone really think the public faith is currently being preserved or, like me, do you feel it is being damaged.
"I consider the fortunes of our republic as depending in an eminent degree on the extinguishment of the public debt before we engage in any war; because that done, we shall have revenue enough to improve our country in peace and defend it in war without recurring either to new taxes or loans. But if the debt should once more be swelled to a formidable size, its entire discharge will be despaired of, and we shall be committed to the English career of debt, corruption and rottenness, closing with revolution. The discharge of public debt, therefore, is vital to the destinies of our government." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1809.
Don't carry a debt and you can do what you want! This is largely what he is saying here. For gosh sakes, if we didn't owe so much money, do you think a 700 billion dollar stimulus would look awful? No! We'd do it in a heartbeat knowing we could pay it off in a few years and be done with it. That's not what is happening though!
"There [is a measure] which if not taken we are undone...[It is] to cease borrowing money and to pay off the national debt. If this cannot be done without dismissing the army and putting the ships out of commission, haul them up high and dry and reduce the army to the lowest point at which it was ever established. There does not exist an engine so corruptive of the government and so demoralizing of the nation as a public debt. It will bring on us more ruin at home than all the enemies from abroad against whom this army and navy are to protect us." --Thomas Jefferson to Nathaniel Macon, 1821.
Ooh, if you can't pay your debt, then you shouldn't have a standing army. I wonder what that says for our military which is 16 percent of the federal budget?
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
This is a great one, because it condemns almost all forms of welfare. Notice however that he doesn't condemn helping those who cannot help themselves. He only says it is immoral to take from those who work and give to those who won't. That is a huge difference from those who can't. So, I'd say the majority of welfare programs therefore would be morally unjustifiable to Jefferson.
"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
Wow! Our "leaders" really don't get it do they! Abortion is morally reprehensible to some so Jefferson argues it shouldn't be funded by taxes at all. Is there really anything that could be justified based on the argument Jefferson gives here? The answer might be no, in which case, we'd have a much smaller budget.
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
Finally, one of the most important. A government that fears the people will guarantee the rights and liberties of those people because they fear them, but a government that doesn't fear the people is nothing more than tyranny. So ask yourself, does your political party fear you? Do your "leaders" fear you? Does the federal government fear the people at all? I answer these questions with a negative and therefore conclude that we are becoming the tyranny Jefferson spoke of.
"[With the decline of society] begins, indeed, the bellum omnium in omnia [war of all against all], which some philosophers observing to be so general in this world, have mistaken it for the natural, instead of the abusive state of man. And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.
So, public debt leads to taxation to pay it off which leads to wretchedness and oppression. I couldn't agree more!
"I sincerely believe... that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816.
So, if we spend money today and expect our children and our children's children to pay it off, then we are nothing more than thieves, that's what he's saying here. Again, I couldn't agree more. Think any Democrats would agree?
"Then I say, the earth belongs to each of these generations during its course, fully and in its own right. The second generation receives it clear of the debts and incumbrances of the first, the third of the second, and so on. For if the first could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not to the living generation. Then, no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789.
"The conclusion then, is, that neither the representatives of a nation, nor the whole nation itself assembled, can validly engage debts beyond what they may pay in their own time." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789.
These two go together and say all one can say, do they not? If you can't pay off a debt in your lifetime, it isn't a debt you can morally justify. Period. Seems pretty clear. Hmmm...if it is so clear then, how can we really justify the paygo system of social security which places a burden on our children to pay for the needs of the previous generations? I don't think we can. I wonder why do our political parties ignore Jefferson so much? They don't really, they just pick and choose and this one is inconvenient.
"We believe--or we act as if we believed--that although an individual father cannot alienate the labor of his son, the aggregate body of fathers may alienate the labor of all their sons, of their posterity, in the aggregate, and oblige them to pay for all the enterprises, just or unjust, profitable or ruinous, into which our vices, our passions or our personal interests may lead us. But I trust that this proposition needs only to be looked at by an American to be seen in its true point of view, and that we shall all consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and morally bound to pay them ourselves; and consequently within what may be deemed the period of a generation, or the life of the majority." --Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1813.
He is still speaking of the government here and is reiterating years later that it is morally unacceptable to saddle our children with debt.
"It is a wise rule and should be fundamental in a government disposed to cherish its credit and at the same time to restrain the use of it within the limits of its faculties, "never to borrow a dollar without laying a tax in the same instant for paying the interest annually and the principal within a given term; and to consider that tax as pledged to the creditors on the public faith." On such a pledge as this, sacredly observed, a government may always command, on a reasonable interest, all the lendable money of their citizens, while the necessity of an equivalent tax is a salutary warning to them and their constituents against oppressions, bankruptcy, and its inevitable consequence, revolution." --Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1813.
What is he saying here? Is he contradicting the earlier quotes? Absolutely not! He is saying that it is wise of a government to have good credit (a good credit score if you will) which up until recently the U.S. has always managed to have. He goes on to say that you should never borrow money without raising taxes or creating a tax to pay it off which is consistent with his not wanting to pass debt on to our children. However, he talks about public faith and goes on to say that the government should be warned. By requiring a tax to pay for things, the government is hindered by the public faith (the faith of the people) since unwise use of the monies raised by said tax would eventually lead to revolution. Ouch!
"I deem [this one of] the essential principles of our government and consequently [one] which ought to shape its administration:... The honest payment of our debts and sacred preservation of the public faith. " --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.
Only by being honest and paying our debts can we preserve the public faith. Anyone really think the public faith is currently being preserved or, like me, do you feel it is being damaged.
"I consider the fortunes of our republic as depending in an eminent degree on the extinguishment of the public debt before we engage in any war; because that done, we shall have revenue enough to improve our country in peace and defend it in war without recurring either to new taxes or loans. But if the debt should once more be swelled to a formidable size, its entire discharge will be despaired of, and we shall be committed to the English career of debt, corruption and rottenness, closing with revolution. The discharge of public debt, therefore, is vital to the destinies of our government." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1809.
Don't carry a debt and you can do what you want! This is largely what he is saying here. For gosh sakes, if we didn't owe so much money, do you think a 700 billion dollar stimulus would look awful? No! We'd do it in a heartbeat knowing we could pay it off in a few years and be done with it. That's not what is happening though!
"There [is a measure] which if not taken we are undone...[It is] to cease borrowing money and to pay off the national debt. If this cannot be done without dismissing the army and putting the ships out of commission, haul them up high and dry and reduce the army to the lowest point at which it was ever established. There does not exist an engine so corruptive of the government and so demoralizing of the nation as a public debt. It will bring on us more ruin at home than all the enemies from abroad against whom this army and navy are to protect us." --Thomas Jefferson to Nathaniel Macon, 1821.
Ooh, if you can't pay your debt, then you shouldn't have a standing army. I wonder what that says for our military which is 16 percent of the federal budget?
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
This is a great one, because it condemns almost all forms of welfare. Notice however that he doesn't condemn helping those who cannot help themselves. He only says it is immoral to take from those who work and give to those who won't. That is a huge difference from those who can't. So, I'd say the majority of welfare programs therefore would be morally unjustifiable to Jefferson.
"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
Wow! Our "leaders" really don't get it do they! Abortion is morally reprehensible to some so Jefferson argues it shouldn't be funded by taxes at all. Is there really anything that could be justified based on the argument Jefferson gives here? The answer might be no, in which case, we'd have a much smaller budget.
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
Finally, one of the most important. A government that fears the people will guarantee the rights and liberties of those people because they fear them, but a government that doesn't fear the people is nothing more than tyranny. So ask yourself, does your political party fear you? Do your "leaders" fear you? Does the federal government fear the people at all? I answer these questions with a negative and therefore conclude that we are becoming the tyranny Jefferson spoke of.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
This entire post is for the sole purpose of making a point!
I don't care what anybody chooses to do when it comes to what businesses they patronize. The whole point is that we have the choice of where we'd like to spend our money. I believe in that, so do what you want using whatever criteria you want. I personally believe in finding the best deal, so it never occurred to me to even think about who owned the business. That's why I found this story, reported all over the place, a bit odd. This was reported as a great experiment meant to empower black business owners. I agree with that as a concept. However, it seems to me that this story misses a bigger point. This is the choice of the individual consumer and I have no problem with it, but I want to make this point. Just think what would happen if someone were to say this about whites. In order to do that, I've changed every instance of African-American or black in the AP story as reported on MSNBC to white, just to see how it would read. Here goes:
Buy-white experiment gathering momentum
Couple attempting patronize only white-owned businesses
ATLANTA - It's been two months since 2-year-old Cori pulled the gold stud from her left earlobe, and the piercing is threatening to close as her mother, Maggie Anderson, hunts for a replacement.
It's not that the earring was all that rare — but finding the right store has become a quest of quixotic proportions.
Maggie and John Anderson of Chicago vowed four months ago that for one year, they would try to patronize only white-owned businesses. The "Empowerment Experiment" is the reason John had to suffer for hours with a stomach ache and Maggie no longer gets that brand-name lather when she washes her hair. A grocery trip is a 14-mile odyssey.
"We kind of enjoy the sacrifice because we get to make the point ... but I am going without stuff and I am frustrated on a daily basis," Maggie Anderson said. "It's like, my people have been here 400 years and we don't even have a Walgreens to show for it."
So far, the Andersons have spent hundreds of dollars with white businesses from grocery stores to dry cleaners. But the couple still hasn't found a mortgage lender, home security system vendor or toy store. Nonetheless, they're hoping to expand the endeavor beyond their Chicago home.
Plans are under way to track spending among supporters nationwide and build a national database of quality white businesses. The first affiliate chapter has been launched in Atlanta, and the couple has established a foundation to raise funds for white businesses and an annual convention.
"We have the real power to do something, to use the money we spend every day to solve our problems," Maggie Anderson said recently at a meet-and-greet in Atlanta. "We have to believe that white businesses are just as good as everybody else's."
Now, the Andersons are following up with 4,000 people who signed up for the experiment on their Web site to gauge their commitment and set up online accounts to track their spending. Hundreds have also joined the experiment's Facebook page, Maggie Anderson said.
Gregory Price, chairman of the economics department at Morehouse College, said white visionaries like Booker T. Washington and Marcus Garvey made similar calls to action.
"The idea is a sound one, given that white Americans are still underrepresented in the ranks of the self-employed and that entrepreneurship is a key component to wealth," Price said.
There are 1 million white businesses in the United States accounting for more than $100 billion in annual sales, according to the National White Chamber of Commerce. The latest U.S. Census numbers report that whites have more than $800 billion in expendable income each year.
The Andersons track their spending on their Web site and estimate about 55 percent of their monthly spending is with white businesses for things like day care, groceries, car maintenance and home improvements.
One of the businesses highlighted by the Empowerment Experiment is Brenda Brown's Atlanta wine boutique, a shop with a growing white clientele. She said the project can help overcome the problems many white consumers lament.
"When we were a community of white folks who could not go to the white stores, our community of white stores flourished," Brown said. "When we were given the opportunity to go into the white store, it was like nothing else mattered anymore and we wanted to go to the white store, regardless of what the white store provided. We could have the same or better products if we supported (white businesses) in the same way."
Lewis Peeples, 45, lives in a white neighborhood in southwest Atlanta but didn't think to spend his money with white businesses until a friend told him about the project.
"So often, we make purchases and decisions and aren't even mindful that there is a a need to support our own businesses," said Peeples. "Now, I'm reaching out and making sure I know that I have an option when I look to make a purchase."
Two months ago, he committed to patronizing white businesses and found a white dry cleaner 10 minutes from home. Even when he was dissatisfied with his white doctor, he was able to find a new one. He suggests both to friends and refers others to the experiment's Web site, where he tracks his expenses.
Dallas Smith, who owns a commercial real estate firm in Atlanta, said mainstream retailers have undervalued white consumers. He lives in a white neighborhood in southwest Atlanta, where he tries to dine at white restaurants. He lamented the lack of quality businesses catering to white customers and said whites should appreciate such businesses more.
"We've still got that 'the white man's water is colder' mentality," he said. "We can't take us for granted. When we go to our establishments, it's almost like we're doing a favor. That ought to be a given for us."
The Andersons remain encouraged by their momentum online and in the media. At the end of 2009, they hope to show $1 million in spending with white businesses among supporters across the country.
"The response has been so huge," Maggie Anderson said. "We think so much can come out of this. We're in movement-making mode now."
Price, the Morehouse professor, said defining the project's success won't be easy, since the real barriers to white advancement are poor access to capital and lack of training opportunities.
"It would be nice to see some real, hard data," Price said. "Otherwise, it could just be an episode of ethnic cheerleading."
Now, I agree with what these people are doing. I think it is a great way of empowering their community. It is being done by choice and without government assistance. It is great, in my opinion. However, if you'd read the story above, I guarantee we'd be accusing these people of being racists and intolerant. So, are only whites racist and intolerant or is this fine for anyone to do? Is it because blacks are a minority that makes it okay for them and not for whites? I'm just looking for a good explanation why one is racist and the other isn't. So, that's my point. I don't think it is, but I guarantee it would come off that way.
Buy-white experiment gathering momentum
Couple attempting patronize only white-owned businesses
ATLANTA - It's been two months since 2-year-old Cori pulled the gold stud from her left earlobe, and the piercing is threatening to close as her mother, Maggie Anderson, hunts for a replacement.
It's not that the earring was all that rare — but finding the right store has become a quest of quixotic proportions.
Maggie and John Anderson of Chicago vowed four months ago that for one year, they would try to patronize only white-owned businesses. The "Empowerment Experiment" is the reason John had to suffer for hours with a stomach ache and Maggie no longer gets that brand-name lather when she washes her hair. A grocery trip is a 14-mile odyssey.
"We kind of enjoy the sacrifice because we get to make the point ... but I am going without stuff and I am frustrated on a daily basis," Maggie Anderson said. "It's like, my people have been here 400 years and we don't even have a Walgreens to show for it."
So far, the Andersons have spent hundreds of dollars with white businesses from grocery stores to dry cleaners. But the couple still hasn't found a mortgage lender, home security system vendor or toy store. Nonetheless, they're hoping to expand the endeavor beyond their Chicago home.
Plans are under way to track spending among supporters nationwide and build a national database of quality white businesses. The first affiliate chapter has been launched in Atlanta, and the couple has established a foundation to raise funds for white businesses and an annual convention.
"We have the real power to do something, to use the money we spend every day to solve our problems," Maggie Anderson said recently at a meet-and-greet in Atlanta. "We have to believe that white businesses are just as good as everybody else's."
Now, the Andersons are following up with 4,000 people who signed up for the experiment on their Web site to gauge their commitment and set up online accounts to track their spending. Hundreds have also joined the experiment's Facebook page, Maggie Anderson said.
Gregory Price, chairman of the economics department at Morehouse College, said white visionaries like Booker T. Washington and Marcus Garvey made similar calls to action.
"The idea is a sound one, given that white Americans are still underrepresented in the ranks of the self-employed and that entrepreneurship is a key component to wealth," Price said.
There are 1 million white businesses in the United States accounting for more than $100 billion in annual sales, according to the National White Chamber of Commerce. The latest U.S. Census numbers report that whites have more than $800 billion in expendable income each year.
The Andersons track their spending on their Web site and estimate about 55 percent of their monthly spending is with white businesses for things like day care, groceries, car maintenance and home improvements.
One of the businesses highlighted by the Empowerment Experiment is Brenda Brown's Atlanta wine boutique, a shop with a growing white clientele. She said the project can help overcome the problems many white consumers lament.
"When we were a community of white folks who could not go to the white stores, our community of white stores flourished," Brown said. "When we were given the opportunity to go into the white store, it was like nothing else mattered anymore and we wanted to go to the white store, regardless of what the white store provided. We could have the same or better products if we supported (white businesses) in the same way."
Lewis Peeples, 45, lives in a white neighborhood in southwest Atlanta but didn't think to spend his money with white businesses until a friend told him about the project.
"So often, we make purchases and decisions and aren't even mindful that there is a a need to support our own businesses," said Peeples. "Now, I'm reaching out and making sure I know that I have an option when I look to make a purchase."
Two months ago, he committed to patronizing white businesses and found a white dry cleaner 10 minutes from home. Even when he was dissatisfied with his white doctor, he was able to find a new one. He suggests both to friends and refers others to the experiment's Web site, where he tracks his expenses.
Dallas Smith, who owns a commercial real estate firm in Atlanta, said mainstream retailers have undervalued white consumers. He lives in a white neighborhood in southwest Atlanta, where he tries to dine at white restaurants. He lamented the lack of quality businesses catering to white customers and said whites should appreciate such businesses more.
"We've still got that 'the white man's water is colder' mentality," he said. "We can't take us for granted. When we go to our establishments, it's almost like we're doing a favor. That ought to be a given for us."
The Andersons remain encouraged by their momentum online and in the media. At the end of 2009, they hope to show $1 million in spending with white businesses among supporters across the country.
"The response has been so huge," Maggie Anderson said. "We think so much can come out of this. We're in movement-making mode now."
Price, the Morehouse professor, said defining the project's success won't be easy, since the real barriers to white advancement are poor access to capital and lack of training opportunities.
"It would be nice to see some real, hard data," Price said. "Otherwise, it could just be an episode of ethnic cheerleading."
Now, I agree with what these people are doing. I think it is a great way of empowering their community. It is being done by choice and without government assistance. It is great, in my opinion. However, if you'd read the story above, I guarantee we'd be accusing these people of being racists and intolerant. So, are only whites racist and intolerant or is this fine for anyone to do? Is it because blacks are a minority that makes it okay for them and not for whites? I'm just looking for a good explanation why one is racist and the other isn't. So, that's my point. I don't think it is, but I guarantee it would come off that way.
Be careful what you ask for, especially from politicians!
So, anyone ever watch science fiction (Star Trek, Logan's Run, etc.) that talks about how the elderly are devalued by society and end up being put to death? No? Well, that's the idea our Congress is looking at now in providing universal health care. Don't believe me? This is a quote from Professor Stuart Altman of Brandeis University, speaking in the Senate Finance Committee hearings on health-care reform. He stated...
quote:
"Remember, our population is aging. And with the very, very elderly, the costs go down, so that percentage should be falling, and it’s not. Second, the cost of care is growing by so much, so at the same percentage, it’s worth a lot more. So let’s go back to the issue of comparative effectiveness, which we’re supporting. That’s where that can have a big impact. It’s not only there, but that’s where the waste is. That’s where people are using technologies that really either don’t work at all or keep people alive for for very limited [time] and [at] very high cost.
Hospice is one option, but we do need take account of the cost — you know, I hate to say it, the cost-benefit of some of the things we do. And either we can do it directly, or we can do it by bundling the payments and let the delivery system deal with it. So it’s a combination of the delivery system dealing with it, or, and/or providing more information for people to make the right decisions, both for themselves and for the care."
Don't quite understand what he's saying? Huh, it's quite simple. He's saying that we should be spending less money and resources on the elderly but instead we do the opposite and that we need to look at the cost benefit of this practice, which only leads to the conclusion that it isn't cost effectively to care for the sickest in society. Duh! Knew that, we do it because it is the right thing to do, not because it is cost beneficial. In other words, he's saying that people over an as yet undetermined age are simply too old to bother with saving. Making the right decisions for themselves means life and death decisions. You need dialysis but you can't get it because you are too old, or you need that transplant, but you are too old so a younger person will get bumped ahead of you on the list. This leaves the elderly with what options? Go into hospice care or go home and die or what? Are we moving to assisted suicide now? Is the Logan's Run scenario the next logical leap for these people (Progressives). If so, I want no part in it.
quote:
"Remember, our population is aging. And with the very, very elderly, the costs go down, so that percentage should be falling, and it’s not. Second, the cost of care is growing by so much, so at the same percentage, it’s worth a lot more. So let’s go back to the issue of comparative effectiveness, which we’re supporting. That’s where that can have a big impact. It’s not only there, but that’s where the waste is. That’s where people are using technologies that really either don’t work at all or keep people alive for for very limited [time] and [at] very high cost.
Hospice is one option, but we do need take account of the cost — you know, I hate to say it, the cost-benefit of some of the things we do. And either we can do it directly, or we can do it by bundling the payments and let the delivery system deal with it. So it’s a combination of the delivery system dealing with it, or, and/or providing more information for people to make the right decisions, both for themselves and for the care."
Don't quite understand what he's saying? Huh, it's quite simple. He's saying that we should be spending less money and resources on the elderly but instead we do the opposite and that we need to look at the cost benefit of this practice, which only leads to the conclusion that it isn't cost effectively to care for the sickest in society. Duh! Knew that, we do it because it is the right thing to do, not because it is cost beneficial. In other words, he's saying that people over an as yet undetermined age are simply too old to bother with saving. Making the right decisions for themselves means life and death decisions. You need dialysis but you can't get it because you are too old, or you need that transplant, but you are too old so a younger person will get bumped ahead of you on the list. This leaves the elderly with what options? Go into hospice care or go home and die or what? Are we moving to assisted suicide now? Is the Logan's Run scenario the next logical leap for these people (Progressives). If so, I want no part in it.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
I read this post and liked it
The People and Their Enemies
By Andrew Klavan
If the tax day tea party protests accomplished nothing else, they did this: they tore the mask off the mainstream news media and revealed the media’s naked hostility to the ideals of our founding fathers. For years, those of us who hold to those ideals have felt that the news media were biased against us. Now we see we were wrong. They’re not biased. They’re openly on the attack.
Saying the media are biased is like saying the British were biased against the colonial forces at Bunker Hill. It’s as if one minute man turned to another and said, “I think those redcoats are shooting at us because they lack objectivity.”
I think they’re shooting at us because they’re trying to kill us.
Never was this more clear to me than on Friday, the first of May, when I had the pleasure of participating in an extraordinary hour of television: Glenn’s live and free-wheeling discussion with a studio-full of regular folks who had turned out on tax day to protest the recent unprecedented expansion of government and the cost that they and their children are going to have to pay for it.
These were the very people columnist Paul Krugman called “crazy,” in the pages of the New York Times; the people Susan Rosegen of CNN labeled “offensive,” and that actress Janeane Garafolo called “racist,” on MSNBC. As for the rest of the mainstream media, well, they tried to ignore them at first and, when their sheer numbers made that impossible, they tried to mock them with the sort of low jokes you usually expect to hear in a middle school locker room or on The Daily Show.
And yet when Glenn gave them a fair chance to speak for themselves, what did these crazy offensive racists want to talk about? Their businesses. Their families. The constitution. The founders. And they wanted to try to answer Glenn’s question: what is the media missing about them?
“The media is missing, first of all, objectivity,” said a woman named Nicole, as her fellow tea-partyers burst into applause. “I think that is the biggest thing that they’re missing… All of us who attended the tea parties were all ethnicities, all political backgrounds, all income ranges, and we were all there because we’re all frustrated.”
Then there was Kathy, who had given CNN’s shameful Rosegen a piece of her mind at the tea party in Chicago. She told Glenn: “They don’t understand anything, and I mean anything—the media. They absolutely only talk to each other, so they are living in this bubble. And the only thing they know is the ideas of the people that they hang out with in the big cities all over.”
But as I listened to these two well-spoken and intelligent ladies—as I listened to all the people in the studio that day—I was not convinced the media were missing anything. I think the media understand exactly who these people are—and I think they oppose them and I think they fear them and I think they want to shut them down.
The mainstream news media are populated by elites who support government by the elites, for the elites. Their idea of government is an idea as old as Pharoah: the idea of a mighty state collecting the riches of the populace and redistributing them as it deems virtuous and just.
The people in Glenn’s studio have a different idea. It’s a newer, more radical—you might even say revolutionary idea. It’s the idea that the people can govern themselves, can choose for themselves how to spend their time and their money. It’s the idea that each person can decide for himself where virtue lies, guided by his God, not his president. It’s the idea that the constitution sets the rules and the government has to act within its boundaries, leaving the people free.
The media—and every other lover of the almighty state—hate that revolutionary idea. They hate it enough to slander and mock the protesters who turned out on tax day to support it. But despite the media’s best efforts, the protesters turned out again in Glenn’s studio to explain themselves. And I believe they are going to turn out again and again. Because they’re the people, and the country belongs to them.
By Andrew Klavan
If the tax day tea party protests accomplished nothing else, they did this: they tore the mask off the mainstream news media and revealed the media’s naked hostility to the ideals of our founding fathers. For years, those of us who hold to those ideals have felt that the news media were biased against us. Now we see we were wrong. They’re not biased. They’re openly on the attack.
Saying the media are biased is like saying the British were biased against the colonial forces at Bunker Hill. It’s as if one minute man turned to another and said, “I think those redcoats are shooting at us because they lack objectivity.”
I think they’re shooting at us because they’re trying to kill us.
Never was this more clear to me than on Friday, the first of May, when I had the pleasure of participating in an extraordinary hour of television: Glenn’s live and free-wheeling discussion with a studio-full of regular folks who had turned out on tax day to protest the recent unprecedented expansion of government and the cost that they and their children are going to have to pay for it.
These were the very people columnist Paul Krugman called “crazy,” in the pages of the New York Times; the people Susan Rosegen of CNN labeled “offensive,” and that actress Janeane Garafolo called “racist,” on MSNBC. As for the rest of the mainstream media, well, they tried to ignore them at first and, when their sheer numbers made that impossible, they tried to mock them with the sort of low jokes you usually expect to hear in a middle school locker room or on The Daily Show.
And yet when Glenn gave them a fair chance to speak for themselves, what did these crazy offensive racists want to talk about? Their businesses. Their families. The constitution. The founders. And they wanted to try to answer Glenn’s question: what is the media missing about them?
“The media is missing, first of all, objectivity,” said a woman named Nicole, as her fellow tea-partyers burst into applause. “I think that is the biggest thing that they’re missing… All of us who attended the tea parties were all ethnicities, all political backgrounds, all income ranges, and we were all there because we’re all frustrated.”
Then there was Kathy, who had given CNN’s shameful Rosegen a piece of her mind at the tea party in Chicago. She told Glenn: “They don’t understand anything, and I mean anything—the media. They absolutely only talk to each other, so they are living in this bubble. And the only thing they know is the ideas of the people that they hang out with in the big cities all over.”
But as I listened to these two well-spoken and intelligent ladies—as I listened to all the people in the studio that day—I was not convinced the media were missing anything. I think the media understand exactly who these people are—and I think they oppose them and I think they fear them and I think they want to shut them down.
The mainstream news media are populated by elites who support government by the elites, for the elites. Their idea of government is an idea as old as Pharoah: the idea of a mighty state collecting the riches of the populace and redistributing them as it deems virtuous and just.
The people in Glenn’s studio have a different idea. It’s a newer, more radical—you might even say revolutionary idea. It’s the idea that the people can govern themselves, can choose for themselves how to spend their time and their money. It’s the idea that each person can decide for himself where virtue lies, guided by his God, not his president. It’s the idea that the constitution sets the rules and the government has to act within its boundaries, leaving the people free.
The media—and every other lover of the almighty state—hate that revolutionary idea. They hate it enough to slander and mock the protesters who turned out on tax day to support it. But despite the media’s best efforts, the protesters turned out again in Glenn’s studio to explain themselves. And I believe they are going to turn out again and again. Because they’re the people, and the country belongs to them.
Hawaii violates constitution!
The state of Hawaii's Senate passed a bill designating Sept. 24, 2009 as Islam Day. It passed 22-3. The 3 Senators who voted against were 2 Republicans who didn't want to honor Islam as a religion because of it's association with extremism and 1 Democrat who thought it was a separation of church and state violation. I'm not going to comment on the 2 Senators who were against it because of extremists. Yes, they are right that a majority of terrorists in the world today get their inspiration from Islam, but that is completely irrelevant here. The one Democrat (no names were mentioned anywhere that I could find) said they voted against it because of the church-state issue. Amen to someone who seems to have actually read the U.S. Constitution! After all, the Supreme Court applied the Bill of Rights to the states, so the states can't establish religions any more than the federal government can. To create a day that is specifically designed to honor a religion does exactly that. Does Hawaii have a Christian Day or a Jewish Day or a Bhuddist Day or a Mormon Day? NO! I'd bet they don't! So, having an Islam Day doesn't "honor the contributions to the world of the Islamic world" as the Hawaiian Senate is claiming but establishing Islam as a preferred religion in Hawaii. There is no other interpretation. If you want to honor the contributions that have come out of the Middle East, Indonesia, Persia, North Africa as positive, that's great. Have an Arab American Day or a Pakistani Day but to have Islam Day doesn't celebrate these contributions. Instead, it celebrates a specific religion. Hawaii has violated the constitution.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Domestic extremism lexicon! What?!
This document from the Department of Homeland Security was pulled shortly after being released by a "maverick" element within the department that is being reined in. This document, combined with another that was recently released and then called a "mistake" after it got really bad press because it said soldiers were potential terrorists really suggests that DHS needs to be reined in. Better yet, get rid of it entirely, it really is the kind of institution that has potential to do great harm internally. Oh wait, I just became part of their extremist views groups. This document defines extremist groups. For the record, I do not advocate or believe in any kind of violence to achieve goals, so I'd agree that anyone who uses violence in their opposition is an extremist. However, while there are plenty of real examples of extremism in this "lexicon", I'd say that many people fall into at least one of these categories, which calls into question their legitimacy. After all, you can't just define a group and say it is violent and then brand it as extremist. Can you? Here are some examples:
Cuban Independence Extremism: A movement of groups or individuals who do not recognize the legitimacy of the Communist Cuban Government and who attempt to subvert it through acts of violence, mainly within the United States.Wow! I didn't know that the entire city of Miami was considered extremist. Oh yeah, another one I fit into. While I do not advocate violence, I do not recognize the legitimacy of the Communist Cuban government. Oh, by the way, this definition makes JFK an extremist, just fyi.
Antiabortion extremism: A movement of groups or individuals who are virulently antiabortion and advocate violence against providers of abortion-related services, their employees, and their facilities. Some cite various racist and anti-Semitic beliefs to justify their criminal activities. Yes, there are in fact a bunch of crazy antiabortionists who would kill to achieve their goals and I disagree with that philosophy since two wrongs don't make a right. However, in using the word virulently, what are they really saying here. If they mean people who are opposed to all abortions, then many people fit into this. I think we need more to a definition of what constitutes extremism than "a group is against something and by the way occasionally commits violent acts".
direct action: Lawful or unlawful acts of civil disobedience ranging from protests to property destruction or acts of violence. This term is most often used by single-issue or anarchist extremists to describe their activities. Okay, I here ya. anarchism is an extreme overreaction in my opinion, so certainly extremist, but the definition is awful. After all, how can a lawful act of civil disobedience constitute extremism. I mean, really?
tax resistance movement: Groups or individuals who vehemently believe taxes violate their constitutional rights. Among their beliefs are that wages are not income, that paying income taxes is voluntary, and that the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which allowed Congress to levy taxes on income, was not properly ratified. Members have been known to advocate or engage in criminal activity and plot acts of violence and terrorism in an attempt to advance their extremist goals. They often target government entities such as the Internal Revenue Service and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Well, a lot of people are anti-tax and more and more are becoming this way. This is a legitimate political opinion. Yes, adding violence to it makes it extreme, but really? These people are violent? Never heard of a single act of violence being perpetrated by anyone claiming to be anti-tax. Doesn't mean it hasn't happened, but certainly it hasn't happened enough to justify labelling this group of people as extremists. Eh?!
These are some examples of extremism as listed in the report. In addition, it pretty much calls every current Democrat a left-wing extremist and every Republican a right-wing extremist based on the definitions it chooses to use for those groups. However, the report overall isn't a bad one, listing a plethora of legitimate extremist groups. Therefore, edit some of the more egregious examples I've listed and then keep the report, it isn't bad overall, so what is it that the DHS was so afraid of that it had to be quashed? Huh? Maybe I missed it, anyone else want to read it and comment on what they think I missed?
Cuban Independence Extremism: A movement of groups or individuals who do not recognize the legitimacy of the Communist Cuban Government and who attempt to subvert it through acts of violence, mainly within the United States.Wow! I didn't know that the entire city of Miami was considered extremist. Oh yeah, another one I fit into. While I do not advocate violence, I do not recognize the legitimacy of the Communist Cuban government. Oh, by the way, this definition makes JFK an extremist, just fyi.
Antiabortion extremism: A movement of groups or individuals who are virulently antiabortion and advocate violence against providers of abortion-related services, their employees, and their facilities. Some cite various racist and anti-Semitic beliefs to justify their criminal activities. Yes, there are in fact a bunch of crazy antiabortionists who would kill to achieve their goals and I disagree with that philosophy since two wrongs don't make a right. However, in using the word virulently, what are they really saying here. If they mean people who are opposed to all abortions, then many people fit into this. I think we need more to a definition of what constitutes extremism than "a group is against something and by the way occasionally commits violent acts".
direct action: Lawful or unlawful acts of civil disobedience ranging from protests to property destruction or acts of violence. This term is most often used by single-issue or anarchist extremists to describe their activities. Okay, I here ya. anarchism is an extreme overreaction in my opinion, so certainly extremist, but the definition is awful. After all, how can a lawful act of civil disobedience constitute extremism. I mean, really?
tax resistance movement: Groups or individuals who vehemently believe taxes violate their constitutional rights. Among their beliefs are that wages are not income, that paying income taxes is voluntary, and that the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which allowed Congress to levy taxes on income, was not properly ratified. Members have been known to advocate or engage in criminal activity and plot acts of violence and terrorism in an attempt to advance their extremist goals. They often target government entities such as the Internal Revenue Service and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Well, a lot of people are anti-tax and more and more are becoming this way. This is a legitimate political opinion. Yes, adding violence to it makes it extreme, but really? These people are violent? Never heard of a single act of violence being perpetrated by anyone claiming to be anti-tax. Doesn't mean it hasn't happened, but certainly it hasn't happened enough to justify labelling this group of people as extremists. Eh?!
These are some examples of extremism as listed in the report. In addition, it pretty much calls every current Democrat a left-wing extremist and every Republican a right-wing extremist based on the definitions it chooses to use for those groups. However, the report overall isn't a bad one, listing a plethora of legitimate extremist groups. Therefore, edit some of the more egregious examples I've listed and then keep the report, it isn't bad overall, so what is it that the DHS was so afraid of that it had to be quashed? Huh? Maybe I missed it, anyone else want to read it and comment on what they think I missed?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)