The U.S. Supreme Court last week upheld a challenge to the 2007 Arizona law providing for employer sanctions for employers who fail to properly check the eligibility of new employees by use of the federal e-Verify system. Georgia has also passed a similar law, which will likely be challenged as well, but probably will be upheld.
In Kansas, laws dealing with the presence and hiring of illegal aliens were pretty much killed in the Senate. Ostensibly, a State Senator made an insensitive comment which rendered the issue untouchable. More likely, lobbying efforts by business interests made the issue untouchable.
Illegal immigration has created an unholy alliance between the left-wing liberals of the Democrat party and the Republican's left-wing, the moderate business interests. Liberals hope to have the votes of the illegal aliens when amnesty gets pushed through, while business interests hope to take advantage of minimum (or below) wage they can pay workers who elect not to pay taxes and collect state and federal aid, and aren't here at all, as far as the government knows.
There are people who are collecting unemployment because they were doing jobs "Americans won't do". Or rather, they can't do them when the new employees don't have to play by the same rules. These people need and deserve legal employment.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Impact of the Debt Ceiling
This week there was an interesting piece by Irwin Kellner on Marketwatch.com. Mr. Kellner seems to be of the opinion that because Congress can pass a budget that calls for more spending than the debt ceiling, it is passing a budget which is technically illegal. As he also notes, the debt ceiling is a legislative issue, separate from the budget, which has to be considered by Congress. Of course, the debt ceiling and the budget impact each other, but neither invalidates the other because both are set by Congress. Nobody, as far as I can recall, and I could be wrong, has ever obtained any court judgment declaring the budget illegal because of the debt ceiling, or vice versa.
The issue which seems to upset Mr. Kellner the most is that the debt ceiling, while it doesn't invalidate the budget, does set a limit on government borrowing and implicitly on government spending. He is concerned that, because the politicians will have to negotiate any increase in the debt ceiling, there will be "a fight over whether to raise the ceiling and how much the party in power will have to give to the one that is on the outside of the White House looking in." He feels that, since the debt ceiling has been "raised nearly 100 times since 1917", everyone just needs to get with the program- essentially, just raise the ceiling, borrow the money, spend it and forget it.
Now, I want you to understand that Mr. Kellner is a professional economist, and I am not. He is no doubt a very fine economist. However, I just cannot agree with him, and I think the majority of Americans don't, either. There are a couple of reasons for that.
First, while there are no doubt some principles of economics which function differently at the government level than at the individual level, there is one which is undoubtedly the same. That is this: no individual, no business, no government, is too big to fail. You cannot find any nation which has the same form of government now that it did, say 2,000 years ago. History shows that all do fail, and it requires responsible governance to maximize the life of a nation.
Second, it is possible to go bankrupt if you consistently overspend your income. As I write this, www.usdebtclock.org shows that I, and each American taxpayer, owes $129,176. That is just toward the federal debt, not including state, county, or municipal. That doesn't include my share of the estimated $176 Trillion Dollars of unfunded liabilities in entitlement programs either. The federal government is already taking tax money to pay for current operations as well as interest on that $129,176, but they are not only not paying down the principle, they are increasing that debt.
I know quite a few American taxpayers who don't have $129,176 lying around to spare. For that matter, I suspect many do not have $129,176 in total assets. When you talk about raising the debt like this, you are talking about mortgaging not only their future, but that of their children's children as well. On an individual level, you know you won't get far at the bank if you apply for a loan and promise that your unborn grandchildren will be happy to pay it back.
Of course, it's easy to toss around big numbers like trillions of dollars, or millions of taxpayers. It is also easy to lose perspective when you do. Yes, millions of taxpayers makes a wide pool from which to pump tax money for the government, but remember: that pool of money may be wide, but it isn't very deep.
For many of us, the solution would look different than your solution. Rather than the cumbersome debt ceiling, I would suggest a balanced budget amendment. Such an amendment would require Congress to pass a budget each year, or operate from the budget of the previous year. It would also prohibit both unfunded mandates and borrowing, except for funding Congressionally recognized war, and would establish a period within which the borrowed funds must be repaid.
Of course, as I said, I'm not a professional economist. I'm sure they can tell you why the government can borrow unlimited funds without consequences, while no individual can. On the other hand, would a measure like this change the nature of the operations of the federal government? No doubt, and as such, it would never pass, or even be seriously proposed. Few people would be able to return to, or even understand, the type of government America was founded with and operated under, with the exception of the FDR era, through the Eisenhower era. Americans are now indoctrinated to the idea of the government trough.
However, if we can't actually fix the problem, we at least need to reduce spending and the deficit to something we can actually afford. So, in that sense, the debt ceiling negotiations may yet serve a useful purpose.
The issue which seems to upset Mr. Kellner the most is that the debt ceiling, while it doesn't invalidate the budget, does set a limit on government borrowing and implicitly on government spending. He is concerned that, because the politicians will have to negotiate any increase in the debt ceiling, there will be "a fight over whether to raise the ceiling and how much the party in power will have to give to the one that is on the outside of the White House looking in." He feels that, since the debt ceiling has been "raised nearly 100 times since 1917", everyone just needs to get with the program- essentially, just raise the ceiling, borrow the money, spend it and forget it.
Now, I want you to understand that Mr. Kellner is a professional economist, and I am not. He is no doubt a very fine economist. However, I just cannot agree with him, and I think the majority of Americans don't, either. There are a couple of reasons for that.
First, while there are no doubt some principles of economics which function differently at the government level than at the individual level, there is one which is undoubtedly the same. That is this: no individual, no business, no government, is too big to fail. You cannot find any nation which has the same form of government now that it did, say 2,000 years ago. History shows that all do fail, and it requires responsible governance to maximize the life of a nation.
Second, it is possible to go bankrupt if you consistently overspend your income. As I write this, www.usdebtclock.org shows that I, and each American taxpayer, owes $129,176. That is just toward the federal debt, not including state, county, or municipal. That doesn't include my share of the estimated $176 Trillion Dollars of unfunded liabilities in entitlement programs either. The federal government is already taking tax money to pay for current operations as well as interest on that $129,176, but they are not only not paying down the principle, they are increasing that debt.
I know quite a few American taxpayers who don't have $129,176 lying around to spare. For that matter, I suspect many do not have $129,176 in total assets. When you talk about raising the debt like this, you are talking about mortgaging not only their future, but that of their children's children as well. On an individual level, you know you won't get far at the bank if you apply for a loan and promise that your unborn grandchildren will be happy to pay it back.
Of course, it's easy to toss around big numbers like trillions of dollars, or millions of taxpayers. It is also easy to lose perspective when you do. Yes, millions of taxpayers makes a wide pool from which to pump tax money for the government, but remember: that pool of money may be wide, but it isn't very deep.
For many of us, the solution would look different than your solution. Rather than the cumbersome debt ceiling, I would suggest a balanced budget amendment. Such an amendment would require Congress to pass a budget each year, or operate from the budget of the previous year. It would also prohibit both unfunded mandates and borrowing, except for funding Congressionally recognized war, and would establish a period within which the borrowed funds must be repaid.
Of course, as I said, I'm not a professional economist. I'm sure they can tell you why the government can borrow unlimited funds without consequences, while no individual can. On the other hand, would a measure like this change the nature of the operations of the federal government? No doubt, and as such, it would never pass, or even be seriously proposed. Few people would be able to return to, or even understand, the type of government America was founded with and operated under, with the exception of the FDR era, through the Eisenhower era. Americans are now indoctrinated to the idea of the government trough.
However, if we can't actually fix the problem, we at least need to reduce spending and the deficit to something we can actually afford. So, in that sense, the debt ceiling negotiations may yet serve a useful purpose.
Friday, May 20, 2011
Pre-1967 borders for Israel- serious or clueless?
Mr. Obama has shown a pro-Muslim anti-semitic in his recent policy speech that seeks to force Israel to withdraw to its pre-1967 borders as a condition for peace in the Middle East. An analyst for the BBC is pleased to note that this brings the U.S. into correspondence with the position advanced by the Europeans. The common thread in the news is that we should all be pleased to make progress in the Middle East, because after all, isn't it obvious that we all want the same result- peace in the Middle East?
Historically, we don't.
First of all, we need to remember that Europe has historically been openly anti-semitic at times. There have been pogroms, purges, holocausts, and ethnic cleansing. That isn't to say that all Europeans are anti-semitic or that all Americans are not, but America has held to a much higher standard of support for Israel since 1948 than Europe has done.
Second, America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and beliefs, which many Americans still hold to. Those who hold to those beliefs believe the promises of the Biblical covenants, and hold that Jews have a right to the land of Israel. This is the group of Americans that reside in Quadrant I.
Third, while the Muslim world claims to want peace in the middle east, their definition of peace is different than anyone else's definition. Where most other people think of peace as meaning "peaceful co-existence", Islam defines peace as "Muslims live, infidels killed." This includes all non-believers, Christians, and Jews. And where Muslims promise land for peace, they mean there cannot be total peace until there are no infidels in the land.
It is interesting to watch liberal analysts and the liberal media try to comprehend the events in the middle east. Because these individuals reside in Quadrants III and IV, they are blind to the power of religious beliefs in the lives of individuals. When the Muslim fundamentalists shout, "Die infidels", or "Allahu akbar", and blow themselves up in the jihad, the liberal thinks they are merely seeking to improve their social, financial, or political position. For this reason, the liberal is incapable of dealing with the underlying problems America faces, and adopts absurd positions such as the one Obama has now proposed.
If we cause Israel to shrink its borders and establish a new state of Palestine, peace will not be achieved. Muslim fundamentalists will still exist and will still attack Israel because they believe there should be no Israel, and indeed no Jews. Not our problem, right? Wrong. Please remember that we Americans are also considered infidels, the "great satan", by these same Muslims, and they have already attacked us more than once.
We share similar national interests with the Israelis. In shrinking Israel's borders, we will cause Israel to become militarily indefensible. If Israel cannot defend itself, we may have to intervene militarily to help it. Do we really want to send American soldiers to another war? The alternative is to abandon Israel. Now, of course, from a Biblical point of view, it is much more likely that America would fall than Israel. Nonetheless, if Israel should fall, Obama and his confused liberal policies of concession would be directly responsible for having abandoned the entire Middle East to the Muslim fundamentalists.
Historically, we don't.
First of all, we need to remember that Europe has historically been openly anti-semitic at times. There have been pogroms, purges, holocausts, and ethnic cleansing. That isn't to say that all Europeans are anti-semitic or that all Americans are not, but America has held to a much higher standard of support for Israel since 1948 than Europe has done.
Second, America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and beliefs, which many Americans still hold to. Those who hold to those beliefs believe the promises of the Biblical covenants, and hold that Jews have a right to the land of Israel. This is the group of Americans that reside in Quadrant I.
Third, while the Muslim world claims to want peace in the middle east, their definition of peace is different than anyone else's definition. Where most other people think of peace as meaning "peaceful co-existence", Islam defines peace as "Muslims live, infidels killed." This includes all non-believers, Christians, and Jews. And where Muslims promise land for peace, they mean there cannot be total peace until there are no infidels in the land.
It is interesting to watch liberal analysts and the liberal media try to comprehend the events in the middle east. Because these individuals reside in Quadrants III and IV, they are blind to the power of religious beliefs in the lives of individuals. When the Muslim fundamentalists shout, "Die infidels", or "Allahu akbar", and blow themselves up in the jihad, the liberal thinks they are merely seeking to improve their social, financial, or political position. For this reason, the liberal is incapable of dealing with the underlying problems America faces, and adopts absurd positions such as the one Obama has now proposed.
If we cause Israel to shrink its borders and establish a new state of Palestine, peace will not be achieved. Muslim fundamentalists will still exist and will still attack Israel because they believe there should be no Israel, and indeed no Jews. Not our problem, right? Wrong. Please remember that we Americans are also considered infidels, the "great satan", by these same Muslims, and they have already attacked us more than once.
We share similar national interests with the Israelis. In shrinking Israel's borders, we will cause Israel to become militarily indefensible. If Israel cannot defend itself, we may have to intervene militarily to help it. Do we really want to send American soldiers to another war? The alternative is to abandon Israel. Now, of course, from a Biblical point of view, it is much more likely that America would fall than Israel. Nonetheless, if Israel should fall, Obama and his confused liberal policies of concession would be directly responsible for having abandoned the entire Middle East to the Muslim fundamentalists.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
End of the Fourth Amendment
The Indiana Supreme Court recently voted 3-2 that the Fourth Amendment does not exist.
The Fourth Amemdment to the U.S. Constitution, in the Bill of Rights, states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
In case you missed the ruling, the Indiana court held that police officers may enter a residence at any time and for any reason. Now, it seems to me that this rationale clearly violates the language of the Amendment, especially the part where it says: "shall not be violated", but the Court says this ruling will make people safer. If the police act illegally, the judges don't want anyone to get hurt resisting. In their opinion, when you are illegally arrested, you can make bail. After you make bail, you can plunk down a big retainer to get a lawyer and go after those officers. The officers will, of course, cheerfully admit they were acting illegally so that this can be cleared right up. Even judges should know that only the financially well-off will be able to actually do this; the rights of the poor will just go out the window.
These jurists actually seem to think this is consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court decisions on the Fourth Amendment. I like to think they are surely wrong, but with the search provisions of the U.S.A. Patriot Act in place, the Fourth Amendment protections have at best been weakened.
That really isn't the frightening part. The truly frightening part is that the modern day jurist has been trained in liberal law schools where the Constitution is considered a living document with no real meaning- it means only what the court says it means, interpreting it in light of modern society's requirements. The educator John Dewey convinced law schools to throw out Blackstone as the foundation of legal education. In its place they put the Socratic method, which teaches students that the law is not what legislators write, which we the people (the great unwashed) think of as "Laws". Instead, in the opinion of law school professors, "the law" is really whatever the courts decide. Legislated "Laws" seem to serve only as guidelines. That leads us into the liberal minefield of relative truth, and to court decisions such as this one, which frankly seem to border on seditious. Perhaps, if we want to get the courts back to some verisimilitude of what they were when America was founded, it's time to give up on Dewey's experiment and put Blackstone back in school.
The Fourth Amemdment to the U.S. Constitution, in the Bill of Rights, states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
In case you missed the ruling, the Indiana court held that police officers may enter a residence at any time and for any reason. Now, it seems to me that this rationale clearly violates the language of the Amendment, especially the part where it says: "shall not be violated", but the Court says this ruling will make people safer. If the police act illegally, the judges don't want anyone to get hurt resisting. In their opinion, when you are illegally arrested, you can make bail. After you make bail, you can plunk down a big retainer to get a lawyer and go after those officers. The officers will, of course, cheerfully admit they were acting illegally so that this can be cleared right up. Even judges should know that only the financially well-off will be able to actually do this; the rights of the poor will just go out the window.
These jurists actually seem to think this is consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court decisions on the Fourth Amendment. I like to think they are surely wrong, but with the search provisions of the U.S.A. Patriot Act in place, the Fourth Amendment protections have at best been weakened.
That really isn't the frightening part. The truly frightening part is that the modern day jurist has been trained in liberal law schools where the Constitution is considered a living document with no real meaning- it means only what the court says it means, interpreting it in light of modern society's requirements. The educator John Dewey convinced law schools to throw out Blackstone as the foundation of legal education. In its place they put the Socratic method, which teaches students that the law is not what legislators write, which we the people (the great unwashed) think of as "Laws". Instead, in the opinion of law school professors, "the law" is really whatever the courts decide. Legislated "Laws" seem to serve only as guidelines. That leads us into the liberal minefield of relative truth, and to court decisions such as this one, which frankly seem to border on seditious. Perhaps, if we want to get the courts back to some verisimilitude of what they were when America was founded, it's time to give up on Dewey's experiment and put Blackstone back in school.
Monday, May 16, 2011
TSA and Obamacare: Where's the Constitution?
Things are moving fast these days. Our government, especially at the federal level, is fleeing from Quadrant I, George Washington-style governance on virtually every front.
We have all seen little children being physically searched by the TSA, ostensibly to prevent Muslim Fundamentalists (sorry about the profiling) from hijacking. Texas is moving to pass a bill criminalizing the most intrusive pat-downs of the TSA. There is an interesting response on the TSA blog. As authority for the pat-downs and the federal right to control, the TSA blogger cites the supremacy clause, Art. VI., Clause 6. The Supremacy Clause, to save you time, states that "[t]his Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land...." His position is that the states can't regulate the federal government. This follows the standard practice of the current administration to miscast issues and then dismiss them.
It is important to dissect the issue more deeply than this. You see, no one questions that the Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land. It is a question of whether the Federal government or its agencies can lawfully and pursuant to the Constitution make laws granting unrestricted pat-downs. In short, to what extent can federal agents be granted the power to commit acts which would be unlawful, and who has the power to regulate that behavior. The Constitution provides that Congress can "regulate Commerce... among the several states...." Art.I, Sec. 8, Clause 2. But does groping (real or perceived) count as regulating commerce.?
This basically brings up the same issue as Obamacare: what does the commerce clause mean? Does it provide a means for control of all actions which might affect interstate commerce? If you are a believer in traditional American values, you should understand that the people gave the Constitution to provide a foundation for limited government. Where a power is not enumerated, the government does not have that power. In that case, you will hold to the minimalist view that the Federal power only grants the ability to resolve disputes over commerce actively occurring among the states.
If you have fallen into the lower Quadrants where thrives "progressive thought", aka socialism, you hold to a different view altogether. In this view, government is supreme and holds all power. "Rights" are granted to the people as exceptions carved out of government's absolute power at the pleasure of the government, and can be withdrawn at any time should the need arise. The right to regulate commerce, in this view, extends to all activity. No matter how minor the activity, the government may regulate it. In the event you would choose to buy something from an instate source or even choose not to act, you are causing something not to pass in interstate commerce, and that choice can be regulated because it affects the amount of interstate commerce.
The courts which will decide this issue are peopled by graduates of law schools designed by the ardent atheist humanist John Dewey, who could not be called anything but progressive. You can see the philosophical leanings of the different judges by looking at their decisions. While you watch the Obamacare decisions, you will observe that some judges (those appointed by the left) are simply puzzled by the idea that there is anything government cannot regulate, while others (those appointed by the right) hold that there are obvious boundaries to government power.
The legal issue will have to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, but it will ultimately be our decision. The people on the Courts reflect the views of those who appoint them. The liberal Democrats have been masters at getting adherents to their views appointed. If we the people want a different view, its up to us to hold our representatives accountable to appoint those with the right view.
We have all seen little children being physically searched by the TSA, ostensibly to prevent Muslim Fundamentalists (sorry about the profiling) from hijacking. Texas is moving to pass a bill criminalizing the most intrusive pat-downs of the TSA. There is an interesting response on the TSA blog. As authority for the pat-downs and the federal right to control, the TSA blogger cites the supremacy clause, Art. VI., Clause 6. The Supremacy Clause, to save you time, states that "[t]his Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land...." His position is that the states can't regulate the federal government. This follows the standard practice of the current administration to miscast issues and then dismiss them.
It is important to dissect the issue more deeply than this. You see, no one questions that the Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land. It is a question of whether the Federal government or its agencies can lawfully and pursuant to the Constitution make laws granting unrestricted pat-downs. In short, to what extent can federal agents be granted the power to commit acts which would be unlawful, and who has the power to regulate that behavior. The Constitution provides that Congress can "regulate Commerce... among the several states...." Art.I, Sec. 8, Clause 2. But does groping (real or perceived) count as regulating commerce.?
This basically brings up the same issue as Obamacare: what does the commerce clause mean? Does it provide a means for control of all actions which might affect interstate commerce? If you are a believer in traditional American values, you should understand that the people gave the Constitution to provide a foundation for limited government. Where a power is not enumerated, the government does not have that power. In that case, you will hold to the minimalist view that the Federal power only grants the ability to resolve disputes over commerce actively occurring among the states.
If you have fallen into the lower Quadrants where thrives "progressive thought", aka socialism, you hold to a different view altogether. In this view, government is supreme and holds all power. "Rights" are granted to the people as exceptions carved out of government's absolute power at the pleasure of the government, and can be withdrawn at any time should the need arise. The right to regulate commerce, in this view, extends to all activity. No matter how minor the activity, the government may regulate it. In the event you would choose to buy something from an instate source or even choose not to act, you are causing something not to pass in interstate commerce, and that choice can be regulated because it affects the amount of interstate commerce.
The courts which will decide this issue are peopled by graduates of law schools designed by the ardent atheist humanist John Dewey, who could not be called anything but progressive. You can see the philosophical leanings of the different judges by looking at their decisions. While you watch the Obamacare decisions, you will observe that some judges (those appointed by the left) are simply puzzled by the idea that there is anything government cannot regulate, while others (those appointed by the right) hold that there are obvious boundaries to government power.
The legal issue will have to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, but it will ultimately be our decision. The people on the Courts reflect the views of those who appoint them. The liberal Democrats have been masters at getting adherents to their views appointed. If we the people want a different view, its up to us to hold our representatives accountable to appoint those with the right view.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Obama's "Tax the Rich" Attack on America's workers
We have heard Mr. Obama and other leading liberal Democrats talk about eliminating the Bush tax cuts. They have told us that all we need to do is raise taxes a little, especially on the "rich" so they will pay their "fair share". If we do this, we are assured the Federal government can spend all it wants, and these small tax increases on the "rich" will make the deficit problem will go away.
Unfortunately, as with most things Obama, this just isn't true. That is no problem for the liberal, of course, because those who reside outside Quadrant I have a more relaxed attitude toward "truth". Typically, they hold that "truth" is relative; it's what you feel now or felt at the time or it changes from person to person or is situational. (Does anyone know what is "is", anyway?) For those of us who hold to the traditional American views found in Quadrant I, however, truth is what corresponds to reality, and untruth is an issue.
I found a couple of articles which highlight the issue the other day. One is a UN study on the distribution of wealth in the year 2000, which showed that 1% of the world population owned 40% of the wealth, with about a third of that being in the United States. If that's true, by the way, then how is it that our Federal, state, and local governments can do such a bad job of managing money as to leave us with so much debt?
The next point is that 1% of the residents of the U.S. have accumulated over a third of the wealth in our country. This is mentioned several places on the internet, with one article suggesting that the top 1% have actually closer to 40%, with real control over much more.
If 1% of the population in America holds that much of the wealth of the wealthiest nation, then obviously, the solution is to tax the income of these folks so they will pay their "fair share", right? It makes for good political hay, but the facts don't support that position. You need to look at who this tax hike is really going to hit.
As it currently stands, while the poor often don't pay taxes, we also have many millionaires who have no tax liability. These individuals are invested in income-producing financial mechanisms which are tax exempt, such as municipal bonds, and they don't pay taxes. Tax hikes do not apply to tax-exempt income.
"Raising taxes on the rich" is, it seems, nothing more than a political ploy by the Democrats. Obama and his Democrat machine know the general public thinks of this group of the wealthiest of the wealthy, who currently are able to avoid paying much tax, when he says tax the rich. The tax code as it currently exists, however, is geared toward taxing primarily wage earners, and it leaves plenty of loopholes for the wealthy. They are, after all, a group which Obama wants to tap to raise his billion dollar campaign fund. What he really means is raising taxes on the earned income of successful small business owners. It is in essence a means of punishing those who have through hard work and innovation succeeded in the capitalist environment so alien to, and despised by, the Obama elite. When Obama and his socialist-leaning liberal Democrat companions say they want to " fairly redistribute" wealth, they mean taking the earnings of those more likely to be Republican, while keeping untouched the unearned income of those likely to support socialist ideology.
Unfortunately, as with most things Obama, this just isn't true. That is no problem for the liberal, of course, because those who reside outside Quadrant I have a more relaxed attitude toward "truth". Typically, they hold that "truth" is relative; it's what you feel now or felt at the time or it changes from person to person or is situational. (Does anyone know what is "is", anyway?) For those of us who hold to the traditional American views found in Quadrant I, however, truth is what corresponds to reality, and untruth is an issue.
I found a couple of articles which highlight the issue the other day. One is a UN study on the distribution of wealth in the year 2000, which showed that 1% of the world population owned 40% of the wealth, with about a third of that being in the United States. If that's true, by the way, then how is it that our Federal, state, and local governments can do such a bad job of managing money as to leave us with so much debt?
The next point is that 1% of the residents of the U.S. have accumulated over a third of the wealth in our country. This is mentioned several places on the internet, with one article suggesting that the top 1% have actually closer to 40%, with real control over much more.
If 1% of the population in America holds that much of the wealth of the wealthiest nation, then obviously, the solution is to tax the income of these folks so they will pay their "fair share", right? It makes for good political hay, but the facts don't support that position. You need to look at who this tax hike is really going to hit.
As it currently stands, while the poor often don't pay taxes, we also have many millionaires who have no tax liability. These individuals are invested in income-producing financial mechanisms which are tax exempt, such as municipal bonds, and they don't pay taxes. Tax hikes do not apply to tax-exempt income.
"Raising taxes on the rich" is, it seems, nothing more than a political ploy by the Democrats. Obama and his Democrat machine know the general public thinks of this group of the wealthiest of the wealthy, who currently are able to avoid paying much tax, when he says tax the rich. The tax code as it currently exists, however, is geared toward taxing primarily wage earners, and it leaves plenty of loopholes for the wealthy. They are, after all, a group which Obama wants to tap to raise his billion dollar campaign fund. What he really means is raising taxes on the earned income of successful small business owners. It is in essence a means of punishing those who have through hard work and innovation succeeded in the capitalist environment so alien to, and despised by, the Obama elite. When Obama and his socialist-leaning liberal Democrat companions say they want to " fairly redistribute" wealth, they mean taking the earnings of those more likely to be Republican, while keeping untouched the unearned income of those likely to support socialist ideology.
Friday, May 13, 2011
Government eyes student's diet, where's the privacy?
There is a new project being implemented in San Antonio, Texas, which will allow the state to monitor what schoolchildren eat. Not what they are served, but what they actually eat. The system will have bar-coded lunchtrays for each student. Cameras placed in the lunchroom will capture images of which foods, and how much, are selected by the student, and also images of what is on the tray when the food is dicarded. Computer imaging software will then determine the types and quantity of food consumed by a student, so that a profile can be generated for each student.
At this point, the system is "opt-in", but then, it's only the pilot project. However, the potential ramifications of such a project should frighten any American who wants to live in a free society. For those who live in Quadrant I, diet, as with other activities, is a matter of personal responsibility, primarily to one's self rather than the government. Quadrant I is based on personal moral responsibility; society works because people have a desire to improve themselves, and the collective result of self improvement is a functional society. This is why there is such a different concept of privacy in Quadrant I. In a moral society, it can be presumed that you are acting for moral reasons. In essence, citizens police themselves and can be considered innocent until proven guilty.
For those whose political philosophies place them in the socialist areas of Quadrant III communism or Quadrant IV fascism, this is an ideal type of system. It is a basic tenet of such philosophies that the government knows what you need better than you do; the government has trained specialists, after all, who do nothing but think about your well-being all day long. Therefore, it isn't surprising to see NYC issuing rules on salt intake at restaurants, or to hear people like Bill Clinton or Michelle Obama talking about the need for government control of diet as a solution to the national rise in obesity. In any socialist society, personal morality is irrelevant. Your actions must be for the 'politically correct' reasons, which are both dictated and policed by the government. You must continually prove yourself; any attempt to conceal any action or any failure to explain an action is "hiding something" and presumptive evidence of guilt. You can still have a "presumption of innocence", but it degenerates to mean nothing more than a civilized facade of procedural due process.
Systems such as this train children to believe they cannot be responsible for even the littlest thing, not even feeding themselves. While these systems are the darlings of the socialist, they demolish any attempt at teaching the moral skill of self reliance needed to support a traditional American society.
At this point, the system is "opt-in", but then, it's only the pilot project. However, the potential ramifications of such a project should frighten any American who wants to live in a free society. For those who live in Quadrant I, diet, as with other activities, is a matter of personal responsibility, primarily to one's self rather than the government. Quadrant I is based on personal moral responsibility; society works because people have a desire to improve themselves, and the collective result of self improvement is a functional society. This is why there is such a different concept of privacy in Quadrant I. In a moral society, it can be presumed that you are acting for moral reasons. In essence, citizens police themselves and can be considered innocent until proven guilty.
For those whose political philosophies place them in the socialist areas of Quadrant III communism or Quadrant IV fascism, this is an ideal type of system. It is a basic tenet of such philosophies that the government knows what you need better than you do; the government has trained specialists, after all, who do nothing but think about your well-being all day long. Therefore, it isn't surprising to see NYC issuing rules on salt intake at restaurants, or to hear people like Bill Clinton or Michelle Obama talking about the need for government control of diet as a solution to the national rise in obesity. In any socialist society, personal morality is irrelevant. Your actions must be for the 'politically correct' reasons, which are both dictated and policed by the government. You must continually prove yourself; any attempt to conceal any action or any failure to explain an action is "hiding something" and presumptive evidence of guilt. You can still have a "presumption of innocence", but it degenerates to mean nothing more than a civilized facade of procedural due process.
Systems such as this train children to believe they cannot be responsible for even the littlest thing, not even feeding themselves. While these systems are the darlings of the socialist, they demolish any attempt at teaching the moral skill of self reliance needed to support a traditional American society.
Friday, May 6, 2011
Obama's Judicial Nominee, Contributions and Correctness
America, watch your back. While Obama is making sure that his killing of Osama is all over the news, there are other things going on that deserve some attention.
Obama's judicial nominations are moving in the Senate. One of his nominees is moving ahead under cover of media darkness. John McConnell, who might be described as an anti-business environmental practice lawyer, appears to be on track for appointment. This might not be a big deal if it were not for the fact that there have been questions about his campaign donation practices. A list of his tens of thousands of dollars in contributions to key Democrats can be found on LegalNewsline.com. As an editorial in the Washington Examiner points out, it appears to be a targeted donation campaign on Mr. McConnell's part. One has to wonder which qualifications the Democrat Senators find more compelling: Mr. McConnell's overwhelming legal experience or his overwhelming campaign donations. Perhaps that's too cynical, so I will assume that Mr. McConnell's liberal supporters would not be moved by vast amounts of money.
The other issue with Mr. McConnell is probably more serious anyway. After the confirmation hearings, Senator John Cornyn referred to Mr. McConnell as "a liar who manipulates ethical standards for his own financial gain." Apparently, Mr. McConnell gave a written statement and testimony under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee indicating that he had no knowledge of certain matters his firm had handled, and then gave testimony under oath (in a deposition for another lawsuit) that he was in fact the lead attorney on those matters and had handled them personally. Now, I don't know whether McConnell did handle those cases or not, and that isn't the issue. The issue, if these allegations by Senator Cornyn are true, is that McConnell doesn't appear to feel compelled to tell the truth under oath, but he believes he's qualified to be a Federal Judge.
This appears to be just the type of person we don't need on the bench. And what is even more frightening is that he is just the type of Quadrant III person that Obama wants; a judge who is not so impaired by the rule of law and ethics that he can't make the "correct" decisions. Americans, don't be so distracted by the news that you forget to watch your back.
Obama's judicial nominations are moving in the Senate. One of his nominees is moving ahead under cover of media darkness. John McConnell, who might be described as an anti-business environmental practice lawyer, appears to be on track for appointment. This might not be a big deal if it were not for the fact that there have been questions about his campaign donation practices. A list of his tens of thousands of dollars in contributions to key Democrats can be found on LegalNewsline.com. As an editorial in the Washington Examiner points out, it appears to be a targeted donation campaign on Mr. McConnell's part. One has to wonder which qualifications the Democrat Senators find more compelling: Mr. McConnell's overwhelming legal experience or his overwhelming campaign donations. Perhaps that's too cynical, so I will assume that Mr. McConnell's liberal supporters would not be moved by vast amounts of money.
The other issue with Mr. McConnell is probably more serious anyway. After the confirmation hearings, Senator John Cornyn referred to Mr. McConnell as "a liar who manipulates ethical standards for his own financial gain." Apparently, Mr. McConnell gave a written statement and testimony under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee indicating that he had no knowledge of certain matters his firm had handled, and then gave testimony under oath (in a deposition for another lawsuit) that he was in fact the lead attorney on those matters and had handled them personally. Now, I don't know whether McConnell did handle those cases or not, and that isn't the issue. The issue, if these allegations by Senator Cornyn are true, is that McConnell doesn't appear to feel compelled to tell the truth under oath, but he believes he's qualified to be a Federal Judge.
This appears to be just the type of person we don't need on the bench. And what is even more frightening is that he is just the type of Quadrant III person that Obama wants; a judge who is not so impaired by the rule of law and ethics that he can't make the "correct" decisions. Americans, don't be so distracted by the news that you forget to watch your back.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Democrats, Republicans, warmongers and wars
I recently read some comments on websites which talked about warmongering Republicans always dragging the country into wars. It seemed to me that attitude is probably a remnant of the protests against Bush's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Strange how those protests evaporated after Obama's election, even though Obama adopted Bush's strategy in toto, and even though casualties have gone up.
Research suggests that the Democrat and Republican parties, in their current form, go back to about the era of the Civil War. The Civil War does not really provide any useful information on this question, since you can blame Lincoln, the Republican, for violating state rights in driving the nation to war to end slavery, or you can blame the Democrats for starting the war to keep slavery. In either event, both parties were directly involved.
Starting after the American Civil War, we find the following wars and incursions:
Spanish-American War (1898), McKinley, Republican
World War I (1914-1918), Wilson, Democrat
World War II (1939-1945), Roosevelt, Democrat
Korean War (1950-1953), Truman, Democrat
Bay of Pigs (1961), Kennedy, Democrat
Vietnam War (1964-1975), Johnson, Democrat, and Nixon, Republican
Grenada (1983), Reagan, Republican
Panama (1989), Bush, Republican
Persian Gulf War (1990-1991), Bush, Republican
Bosnia (1995-1996), Clinton, Democrat
Afghanistan (2001-present), Bush (W), Republican, and Obama, Democrat
Iraq (2003-present), Bush II, Republican, and Obama, Democrat
Libya (2011), Obama, Democrat
One could also include Carter's (D) failed attempt to recover the hostages from Iran, Reagan's (R) bombing of Libyan military installations, or Obama's (D) incursion into Pakistan to attack Bin Laden, but these were primarily one-time military operations designed to achieve specific goals rather than ongoing wars or incursions.
Even a cursory examination of this list gives the lie to any statement that one party or the other is more guilty of warmongering, although, to be honest, if I were a liberal, I would be careful to avoid taking casualty totals into account
It seems like this information would be common knowledge for anyone who has studied a bit of history, but it also seems that some people (usually, I suspect, of the liberal bent) are anxious enough to avoid the impact of facts on their beliefs that they will "revise" history to avoid any examination of actual history. It is important to have the right view of history in regard to questions such as this.
Research suggests that the Democrat and Republican parties, in their current form, go back to about the era of the Civil War. The Civil War does not really provide any useful information on this question, since you can blame Lincoln, the Republican, for violating state rights in driving the nation to war to end slavery, or you can blame the Democrats for starting the war to keep slavery. In either event, both parties were directly involved.
Starting after the American Civil War, we find the following wars and incursions:
Spanish-American War (1898), McKinley, Republican
World War I (1914-1918), Wilson, Democrat
World War II (1939-1945), Roosevelt, Democrat
Korean War (1950-1953), Truman, Democrat
Bay of Pigs (1961), Kennedy, Democrat
Vietnam War (1964-1975), Johnson, Democrat, and Nixon, Republican
Grenada (1983), Reagan, Republican
Panama (1989), Bush, Republican
Persian Gulf War (1990-1991), Bush, Republican
Bosnia (1995-1996), Clinton, Democrat
Afghanistan (2001-present), Bush (W), Republican, and Obama, Democrat
Iraq (2003-present), Bush II, Republican, and Obama, Democrat
Libya (2011), Obama, Democrat
One could also include Carter's (D) failed attempt to recover the hostages from Iran, Reagan's (R) bombing of Libyan military installations, or Obama's (D) incursion into Pakistan to attack Bin Laden, but these were primarily one-time military operations designed to achieve specific goals rather than ongoing wars or incursions.
Even a cursory examination of this list gives the lie to any statement that one party or the other is more guilty of warmongering, although, to be honest, if I were a liberal, I would be careful to avoid taking casualty totals into account
It seems like this information would be common knowledge for anyone who has studied a bit of history, but it also seems that some people (usually, I suspect, of the liberal bent) are anxious enough to avoid the impact of facts on their beliefs that they will "revise" history to avoid any examination of actual history. It is important to have the right view of history in regard to questions such as this.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Osama Bin Laden; Justice, Martyrdom, and the War on Terror
Osama Bin Laden, who vilified himself as the leader of Al Qaeda and mastermind of the 9/11 attacks on America, is dead. Obama got him. At least, that's what the President says; there is hardly any mention of anyone else who might have helped the President. Osama got his due, justice was done, Al Qaeda is whipped and the war on terror is over.
However, we are already hearing that terror alerts are being issued and heightened, and that security is being tightened. We are being told to expect revenge attacks. The question is whether we will be seeing "revenge" attacks, or something else. It might be useful to try to see the death of Bin Laden through fundamentalist eyes, or more accurately, fundamentalist Muslim eyes. Fundamentalist is, after all, a relative term; it merely refers to one who firmly holds the core beliefs of his "ism". A moderate might have a warm feeling for those core beliefs, but won't commit to them.
Take the fact that Bin Laden apparently attempted to shield himself behind a woman. A conservative American will look at that act and see cowardice. A woman is regarded as an equal, and hiding behind the skirts of a woman is hardly honorable if Bin Laden claimed to be a fighting man at war with America. A Muslim fundamentalist, however, regards a woman as somewhat lower on the totem pole, pretty much as a possession. Would it be cowardice to take cover behind a sack of potatoes?
So what about Bin Laden's death? While we are viewing it as his just desserts for wanton murder, the Muslim world is much more likely to view it as martyrdom in a holy cause. Bin Laden had declared "holy war" (jihad) on America for the reason that America has refused to submit to Islam. That is a just war according to Islamic theology. In fact, Hamas is already referring to Bin Laden as a "holy warrior." If that's true, and it most likely is, then Bin Laden's death will no doubt inspire revenge attacks, but it may well inspire those in the world of fundamentalist Islam to greater efforts toward martyrdom themselves. We already know that the Taliban was ramping up its attacks in Afganistan, because April was the deadliest month for Americans there since the war started. Bin Laden's death may be a turning point in the war on terror, but it may be a turn in the wrong direction if we're not prepared.
However, we are already hearing that terror alerts are being issued and heightened, and that security is being tightened. We are being told to expect revenge attacks. The question is whether we will be seeing "revenge" attacks, or something else. It might be useful to try to see the death of Bin Laden through fundamentalist eyes, or more accurately, fundamentalist Muslim eyes. Fundamentalist is, after all, a relative term; it merely refers to one who firmly holds the core beliefs of his "ism". A moderate might have a warm feeling for those core beliefs, but won't commit to them.
Take the fact that Bin Laden apparently attempted to shield himself behind a woman. A conservative American will look at that act and see cowardice. A woman is regarded as an equal, and hiding behind the skirts of a woman is hardly honorable if Bin Laden claimed to be a fighting man at war with America. A Muslim fundamentalist, however, regards a woman as somewhat lower on the totem pole, pretty much as a possession. Would it be cowardice to take cover behind a sack of potatoes?
So what about Bin Laden's death? While we are viewing it as his just desserts for wanton murder, the Muslim world is much more likely to view it as martyrdom in a holy cause. Bin Laden had declared "holy war" (jihad) on America for the reason that America has refused to submit to Islam. That is a just war according to Islamic theology. In fact, Hamas is already referring to Bin Laden as a "holy warrior." If that's true, and it most likely is, then Bin Laden's death will no doubt inspire revenge attacks, but it may well inspire those in the world of fundamentalist Islam to greater efforts toward martyrdom themselves. We already know that the Taliban was ramping up its attacks in Afganistan, because April was the deadliest month for Americans there since the war started. Bin Laden's death may be a turning point in the war on terror, but it may be a turn in the wrong direction if we're not prepared.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)