Totally powerful. Totally unvarnished. Totally honest, and totally correct.
Retired Lieutenant Colonel Allen West sounds the call to arms!
Best quote: "Everyone who has served in the US military took an oath to support and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic; and bear true faith and allegiance to the same. There is no statute of limitations on that oath."
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Thursday, September 17, 2009
A Moral Obligation: Health Care Reform
I have heard all too often recently that “we have a moral responsibility” to enact health care reform this year.
This thought bounced around in my head for some time. How could it be that a secular government would find anything to be a “moral imperative” or an action “moral”. Is this right?
I went to my (online) dictionary, and found that the definition of “moral” (#3) is: founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moral]
Then I pondered: How ironic that liberals who have spent my lifetime taking moral standards, moral norms, and moral judgements out of play using legalities, enactments and by contravening customs, is now claiming that something THEY want to foster on us all, has a moral obligation attached to its attainment.
How can those who have battled so long and hard against moral stands and moral customs now claim any legitimacy with morality? How can they make this argument with a straight face?
And why do we let them get away with it?
This thought bounced around in my head for some time. How could it be that a secular government would find anything to be a “moral imperative” or an action “moral”. Is this right?
I went to my (online) dictionary, and found that the definition of “moral” (#3) is: founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moral]
Then I pondered: How ironic that liberals who have spent my lifetime taking moral standards, moral norms, and moral judgements out of play using legalities, enactments and by contravening customs, is now claiming that something THEY want to foster on us all, has a moral obligation attached to its attainment.
How can those who have battled so long and hard against moral stands and moral customs now claim any legitimacy with morality? How can they make this argument with a straight face?
And why do we let them get away with it?
Monday, September 14, 2009
Feel Good Policy
The new left asserts the noble claim that healthcare is a right. A right by definition requires nothing of anyone else except that they do nothing to infringe upon that right. To claim healthcare as a right requires more than that others step out of the way; it requires that others provide it.
Joseph C. Phillips : Feel Good Policy - Townhall.com
Shared via AddThis
Joseph C. Phillips : Feel Good Policy - Townhall.com
Shared via AddThis
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Saturday, September 5, 2009
NO BANDS IN VIETNAM -- NO HEROES AT WOODSTOCK
AS HIPPIES PARTIED
By RICHARD K. KOLB
August 17, 2009
http://www.nypost.com/seven/08...umnists/as_hippies_partied_184895.htm
NEWSWEEK described them as "a youthful, long-haired army, almost as
large as the US force in Vietnam." One promoter saw what happened near
Bethel (nearly 40 miles from Woodstock), NY, as an opportunity to
"showcase" the drug culture as a "beautiful phenomenon."
The newsmagazine wrote of "wounded hippies" sent to impromptu hospital
tents. Some 400,000 of the "nation's affluent white young" attended
the "electric pot dream." One sympathetic chronicler recently
described them as "a veritable army of hippies and freaks."
Time gushed with admiration for the tribal gathering, declaring: "It
may well rank as one of the significant political and sociological
events of the age." It deplored the three deaths there -- "one from an
overdose of drugs [heroin] and hundreds of youths freaked out on bad
trips caused by low-grade LSD." Yet attendees exhibited a "mystical
feeling for themselves as a special group," according to the
magazine's glowing essay.
The same tribute mentioned the "meaningless war in the jungles of
Southeast Asia" and quoted a commentator who said the young needed
"more opportunities for authentic service."
Meanwhile, 8,429 miles around the other side of the world, 514,000
mostly young Americans were authentically serving the country that had
raised them to place society over self. The casualties they sustained
over those four days were genuine, yet none of the elite media outlets
were praising their selflessness.
So, 40 years later, let's finally look at those 109 Americans who
sacrificed their lives in Vietnam on Aug. 15, 16, 17 and 18, 1969.
They mirrored the population of the time. A full 92 percent were white
(seven of whom had Spanish surnames), and 8 percent black. Some 67
percent were Protestants, 28 percent Catholic. A disproportionate
number -- more than one-third -- hailed from the South. More than
two-thirds were single, nearly one-third married. Not surprising, the
vast majority (91 percent) were under the age of 30, with 78 percent
between the ages of 18 and 22.
Overwhelmingly (87 percent), they were in the Army. Marines and airmen
accounted for 8 percent and 4 percent of the deaths, respectively,
with sailors sustaining 1 percent. Again, not unexpectedly, two-
thirds were infantrymen. That same proportion was lower-ranking
enlisted men. Enemy action claimed 84 percent of their lives,
nonhostile causes
16 percent. The preponderance (56 percent) had volunteered, while 43
percent had been drafted. One was in the National Guard.
Of the four days, Aug. 18 (the last day of "peace and love" in the
Catskills when the 50,000 diehards departed after the final act) was
the worst for the men in Vietnam. Thirty-five of them died on that one
miserable day.
Many perished in the Battle of Hiep Duc, fighting with the hard-luck
Americal Division in the Que Son Mountains. In fact, 37 percent of all
GIs lost in this period came from this one unit.
So when you hear talk of the glories of Woodstock -- the so-called
"defining event of a generation" -- keep in mind those 109 GIs who
served nobly yet are never lauded by the illustrious spokesmen for the
"Sixties Generation."
NO BANDS IN VIETNAM -- NO HEROES AT WOODSTOCK
By RICHARD K. KOLB
August 17, 2009
http://www.nypost.com/seven/08...umnists/as_hippies_partied_184895.htm
NEWSWEEK described them as "a youthful, long-haired army, almost as
large as the US force in Vietnam." One promoter saw what happened near
Bethel (nearly 40 miles from Woodstock), NY, as an opportunity to
"showcase" the drug culture as a "beautiful phenomenon."
The newsmagazine wrote of "wounded hippies" sent to impromptu hospital
tents. Some 400,000 of the "nation's affluent white young" attended
the "electric pot dream." One sympathetic chronicler recently
described them as "a veritable army of hippies and freaks."
Time gushed with admiration for the tribal gathering, declaring: "It
may well rank as one of the significant political and sociological
events of the age." It deplored the three deaths there -- "one from an
overdose of drugs [heroin] and hundreds of youths freaked out on bad
trips caused by low-grade LSD." Yet attendees exhibited a "mystical
feeling for themselves as a special group," according to the
magazine's glowing essay.
The same tribute mentioned the "meaningless war in the jungles of
Southeast Asia" and quoted a commentator who said the young needed
"more opportunities for authentic service."
Meanwhile, 8,429 miles around the other side of the world, 514,000
mostly young Americans were authentically serving the country that had
raised them to place society over self. The casualties they sustained
over those four days were genuine, yet none of the elite media outlets
were praising their selflessness.
So, 40 years later, let's finally look at those 109 Americans who
sacrificed their lives in Vietnam on Aug. 15, 16, 17 and 18, 1969.
They mirrored the population of the time. A full 92 percent were white
(seven of whom had Spanish surnames), and 8 percent black. Some 67
percent were Protestants, 28 percent Catholic. A disproportionate
number -- more than one-third -- hailed from the South. More than
two-thirds were single, nearly one-third married. Not surprising, the
vast majority (91 percent) were under the age of 30, with 78 percent
between the ages of 18 and 22.
Overwhelmingly (87 percent), they were in the Army. Marines and airmen
accounted for 8 percent and 4 percent of the deaths, respectively,
with sailors sustaining 1 percent. Again, not unexpectedly, two-
thirds were infantrymen. That same proportion was lower-ranking
enlisted men. Enemy action claimed 84 percent of their lives,
nonhostile causes
16 percent. The preponderance (56 percent) had volunteered, while 43
percent had been drafted. One was in the National Guard.
Of the four days, Aug. 18 (the last day of "peace and love" in the
Catskills when the 50,000 diehards departed after the final act) was
the worst for the men in Vietnam. Thirty-five of them died on that one
miserable day.
Many perished in the Battle of Hiep Duc, fighting with the hard-luck
Americal Division in the Que Son Mountains. In fact, 37 percent of all
GIs lost in this period came from this one unit.
So when you hear talk of the glories of Woodstock -- the so-called
"defining event of a generation" -- keep in mind those 109 GIs who
served nobly yet are never lauded by the illustrious spokesmen for the
"Sixties Generation."
NO BANDS IN VIETNAM -- NO HEROES AT WOODSTOCK
Friday, September 4, 2009
Friday, August 21, 2009
Hubris...
As quoted on CNN, our President said:
My guess is, that throughout history, whenever we have sought to change this country for the worse, there have also been those who wanted to preserve the status quo. Only history gets to say if something is better or worse... and if it is worse, then we are already stuck with it by the time history gets around to making it's call.
Of course, we can take a lesson from history to guide us in decisions we make now. In that regard, the overwhelming evidence points to this being a plan to make things worse, not better. No amount of hope will change that, I fear.
Right now, the contest is between those who hope that what has been tried and failed everywhere will succeed, and that the government who has an iron clad history of being inefficient and unreliable will be both efficient and reliable with the most important thing in our lives: our lives. On the other hand, there are those who fear that our government has stopped listening to the will of the people, and wants to control more of our lives than it already does; and they fear that our health care decisions will be made by the same government who has demonstrated ineptitude with the US Postal System, Amtrak, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, VA care, $4000 toilet seats, IRS tax code and most other government programs.
This should be a no-brainer. Yet, there remain those that are adament for reform. Adament for "Single Payer (single provider)" health insurance. Why? What is in it for them? I doubt it is altruistic concern for people's health.
Obama, who took no questions, said the opposition was no surprise. "Throughout history, whenever we have sought to change this country for the better, there have always been those who wanted to preserve the status quo," he said. "These always boil down to a contest between hope and fear."
My guess is, that throughout history, whenever we have sought to change this country for the worse, there have also been those who wanted to preserve the status quo. Only history gets to say if something is better or worse... and if it is worse, then we are already stuck with it by the time history gets around to making it's call.
Of course, we can take a lesson from history to guide us in decisions we make now. In that regard, the overwhelming evidence points to this being a plan to make things worse, not better. No amount of hope will change that, I fear.
Right now, the contest is between those who hope that what has been tried and failed everywhere will succeed, and that the government who has an iron clad history of being inefficient and unreliable will be both efficient and reliable with the most important thing in our lives: our lives. On the other hand, there are those who fear that our government has stopped listening to the will of the people, and wants to control more of our lives than it already does; and they fear that our health care decisions will be made by the same government who has demonstrated ineptitude with the US Postal System, Amtrak, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, VA care, $4000 toilet seats, IRS tax code and most other government programs.
This should be a no-brainer. Yet, there remain those that are adament for reform. Adament for "Single Payer (single provider)" health insurance. Why? What is in it for them? I doubt it is altruistic concern for people's health.
A Few Quick Thoughts...
... on the ongoing debate about the Health Care proposals by President Obama.
1. Presumably, any "Government Option" for insurance, would be available nationwide. Now, if that is good for a "government option", then why are the insurance companies not allowed to do the same? Each has to tailor its products for specific states, and somebody in, say, Ohio can't purchase insurance that is available in, say Idaho.
President Obama claims that a "Government Option" would compete with, not override, the private insurance options. But this question alone tells me it would be a very, very unfair competition at best, heavily weighted toward the "government option".
2. Currently, the arbitor when insured and insurer disagree is the government. A "government option" would mean the government becomes both the insurer and the arbitor. That is not a recipe for consumer protection, methinks.
3. So, President Obama has reached out to clergy, asking them to promote his Health Care initiatives from the pulpit. Can anyone imagine the uproar if President Bush had done this? Heck, I well remember the uproar from the liberal media and others that he was a man of religion, and used his faith to help make decisions!! Where are these bastions of defense of the "firewall" between church and state now? Buehler? Buehler?
4. I don't wish cancer or brain tumors or any serious illness on anyone. However, I find it ironic that if we all had to live under the mandate of Obamacare, then Senator Kennedy would not have been able to seek out the best medical options for his ailment... rather he would have had to submit to the decisions of a bureacrat. That is, if all of us are equal and the ruling class isn't given special dispensation.
I'm a Concerned Patriot. Very, very concerned.
1. Presumably, any "Government Option" for insurance, would be available nationwide. Now, if that is good for a "government option", then why are the insurance companies not allowed to do the same? Each has to tailor its products for specific states, and somebody in, say, Ohio can't purchase insurance that is available in, say Idaho.
President Obama claims that a "Government Option" would compete with, not override, the private insurance options. But this question alone tells me it would be a very, very unfair competition at best, heavily weighted toward the "government option".
2. Currently, the arbitor when insured and insurer disagree is the government. A "government option" would mean the government becomes both the insurer and the arbitor. That is not a recipe for consumer protection, methinks.
3. So, President Obama has reached out to clergy, asking them to promote his Health Care initiatives from the pulpit. Can anyone imagine the uproar if President Bush had done this? Heck, I well remember the uproar from the liberal media and others that he was a man of religion, and used his faith to help make decisions!! Where are these bastions of defense of the "firewall" between church and state now? Buehler? Buehler?
4. I don't wish cancer or brain tumors or any serious illness on anyone. However, I find it ironic that if we all had to live under the mandate of Obamacare, then Senator Kennedy would not have been able to seek out the best medical options for his ailment... rather he would have had to submit to the decisions of a bureacrat. That is, if all of us are equal and the ruling class isn't given special dispensation.
I'm a Concerned Patriot. Very, very concerned.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Black Man Pleads Guilty to Posing as Obama-Hating White Supremacist on Facebook
Why is this not a hate crime?
Black Man Pleads Guilty to Posing as Obama-Hating White Supremacist on Facebook
Ann Coulter recently challenged Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, et al, to come up with one "Hate Crime" that wasn't a hoax. This sort of thing just proves her point.
Posted using ShareThis
Black Man Pleads Guilty to Posing as Obama-Hating White Supremacist on Facebook
Ann Coulter recently challenged Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, et al, to come up with one "Hate Crime" that wasn't a hoax. This sort of thing just proves her point.
Posted using ShareThis
Monday, August 10, 2009
Republican Discrace: SC Governor Sanford
Those we elect to represent us in Government... be that government at the local, state or national level... serve US.
Their jobs are not a right, they are a priveledge that WE provide to them for limited periods of employment.
What Gov. Sanford (Republican, SC) has done may or may not be illegal, and the penalties may be non-specific. But he has tarnished his position, and the public perception is that he has serious ethical, and moral, problems.
If he is still in office at the next election, the electorate will get a chance to say if they want to continue to employe him. But that is too late. The right thing for him to do is resign. Now.
We the people, the employers, need to demand that all elected officials follow a Code of Conduct that we promulgate. That Code of Conduct must include immediate resignation for the good of the republic, state or municipality at any time the incumbent's conduct brings the perception of scandal to the office. Zero tolerance.
If we had employees who showed such poor judgement, repeatedly, in our family business, that employee would be fired. Short of impeachment, there is no way to "fire" elected officials before the next election. But, that doesn't mean that he shouldn't be pressed to do the right thing and resign. It'ds what a true leader does when he screws up
AP: Sanford Used State Planes for Personal Trips - Political News - FOXNews.com
Posted using ShareThis
Their jobs are not a right, they are a priveledge that WE provide to them for limited periods of employment.
What Gov. Sanford (Republican, SC) has done may or may not be illegal, and the penalties may be non-specific. But he has tarnished his position, and the public perception is that he has serious ethical, and moral, problems.
If he is still in office at the next election, the electorate will get a chance to say if they want to continue to employe him. But that is too late. The right thing for him to do is resign. Now.
We the people, the employers, need to demand that all elected officials follow a Code of Conduct that we promulgate. That Code of Conduct must include immediate resignation for the good of the republic, state or municipality at any time the incumbent's conduct brings the perception of scandal to the office. Zero tolerance.
If we had employees who showed such poor judgement, repeatedly, in our family business, that employee would be fired. Short of impeachment, there is no way to "fire" elected officials before the next election. But, that doesn't mean that he shouldn't be pressed to do the right thing and resign. It'ds what a true leader does when he screws up
AP: Sanford Used State Planes for Personal Trips - Political News - FOXNews.com
Posted using ShareThis
Friday, August 7, 2009
On Socialism
"SOCIALISM is a philosophy of FAILURE, the creed of IGNORANCE, and the gospel of ENVY, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of Misery."
--- Winston Churchill
--- Winston Churchill
Friday, July 31, 2009
Congress Wants Say on Wall Street Pay
Yet more proof that our employees in Washington think they know better how to do everything than we do. And now, they want to have a say over how much people earn in certain jobs.
Congress Wants Say on Wall Street Pay - Political News - FOXNews.com
Can any one show me in the Constitution where it says congress has the right to do this?
Corporations have owners. These owners decide who gets paid how much. Large, publicly traded financial corporations are no different... the owners are called stockholders, and many Americans are part owners of these corporations.
If the government can set limits on pay for financial traders... what is next? I'd sure love to hear the screams from Hollywood if the liberal elite out there started getting salaries comennsurate with what they are worth, and dictated by Washington. And how about our athletes, who get horrendously large salaries for playing childrens' games?
But I digress.
Just as we Americans largely don't want Washington deciding who lives and dies, and what care we can get in a "health care system", we should also raise up in a loud and vigorous voice and tell them to stay out of business decisions that belong to the owners of business, not to government.
Posted using ShareThis
Congress Wants Say on Wall Street Pay - Political News - FOXNews.com
Can any one show me in the Constitution where it says congress has the right to do this?
Corporations have owners. These owners decide who gets paid how much. Large, publicly traded financial corporations are no different... the owners are called stockholders, and many Americans are part owners of these corporations.
If the government can set limits on pay for financial traders... what is next? I'd sure love to hear the screams from Hollywood if the liberal elite out there started getting salaries comennsurate with what they are worth, and dictated by Washington. And how about our athletes, who get horrendously large salaries for playing childrens' games?
But I digress.
Just as we Americans largely don't want Washington deciding who lives and dies, and what care we can get in a "health care system", we should also raise up in a loud and vigorous voice and tell them to stay out of business decisions that belong to the owners of business, not to government.
Posted using ShareThis
Monday, July 27, 2009
Thomas Payne Rants about our Current Predicament
Has the 2nd American Revolution begun? Are we ready to turn off our Gameboys, Xbox 360's and iPods, and actually do something about the mess we've been hypnotized to accept?
I sure agree, that if we don't take back our country soon, we will all need a gun to defend ourselves.
CP
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Freedom Contracts
"As government expands, freedom contracts."
-- President Ronald Reagan in his farewell address.
-- President Ronald Reagan in his farewell address.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Declaration of Independence
On this 4th of July weekend, I provide for your reading pleasure, the document that started it all.
One would hope that all Americans have read this document, and indeed have referred to it often. After all, it is a document that not only laid the foundation for our nation, and its constitution --- but also is the genesis for an experiment that has inspired people around the world for for over two centuries, and continues to do so today.
For those that are too lazy to read the document at the link, they are also probably too lazy to really understand the gift that the document and the signers gave us. Or to bother with defending the nation it gave birth to. But, I have also provided a link to an excellent recording of a reading of this document by Scott Ott here.
Happy Birthday, America and American Independence. Long may you remain the shining example of freedom and liberty for all the world.
CP
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Friday, March 27, 2009
Dead White Man Quote
"Of those men who have overturned the liberty of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people, commencing demagogues and ending tyrants." - Alexander Hamilton
Thursday, March 26, 2009
The Ship of State, or the Barge of Broken Dreams?
Here's an interesting video from our cousins across the sea.
Replace "pounds" with "dollars", and "Prime Minister" with "President". (And insert a teleprompter), and it could certainly be about the US of A.
Video
That is, if our elected officials were able or willing to put the truth out there like Parliment does.
Remember folks, no matter what your favorite politician may tell you, there is no way to pick up a turd by the clean end.
CP
Replace "pounds" with "dollars", and "Prime Minister" with "President". (And insert a teleprompter), and it could certainly be about the US of A.
Video
That is, if our elected officials were able or willing to put the truth out there like Parliment does.
Remember folks, no matter what your favorite politician may tell you, there is no way to pick up a turd by the clean end.
CP
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
We interupt the dismantling of capitalism to bring you this important message...
Change.
It's what we want.
Our materialism has been impacted by a "recession".
Everyone is running scared. After all, we've been told to run scared by the media for the past two years.
And, we've listened. We believe.
We've elected a president and congress that has promised to save us. They will change everything.
We can go back to our gameboys, our American Idol, our Dancing With The Stars, our NFL, NASCAR and MBA. All will again be right with our worlds.
Don't worry your little heads over it.
Yes, it might cost us some freedom. It might change our way of life completely.
But don't worry about it. We'll take more money from the evil "rich". They will pay their "fair share".
Business is bad. Its "greedy". But not our elected officials. They have no greed. They are virtuous. Honest. Clean. Almost Godly. But, we really shouldn't use that word.
Here is a blast from the past, when Phil's hair was longer, and not pure white. And when Milton Friedman still walked amongst us.
It's what we want.
Our materialism has been impacted by a "recession".
Everyone is running scared. After all, we've been told to run scared by the media for the past two years.
And, we've listened. We believe.
We've elected a president and congress that has promised to save us. They will change everything.
We can go back to our gameboys, our American Idol, our Dancing With The Stars, our NFL, NASCAR and MBA. All will again be right with our worlds.
Don't worry your little heads over it.
Yes, it might cost us some freedom. It might change our way of life completely.
But don't worry about it. We'll take more money from the evil "rich". They will pay their "fair share".
Business is bad. Its "greedy". But not our elected officials. They have no greed. They are virtuous. Honest. Clean. Almost Godly. But, we really shouldn't use that word.
Here is a blast from the past, when Phil's hair was longer, and not pure white. And when Milton Friedman still walked amongst us.
When we forget the past, we are condemned to repeat it. It's what some are counting on.
CP
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Chaos Manor
1983 ~ 2009
Some things have changed.
Saddly, others have not.
"Tyrants seldom come openly, their hands dripping with blood, their eyes blazing with hate. More often they come as friends of the people, tireless workers for the public good, heroes who will save the nation; who will cut the Gordian knot of parliamentary babble; who will carry out the people’s will."
Saturday, March 21, 2009
The Scandal Hidden by the Scandal
As I write this, many citizens are writhing in angst against the AIG bonus payments being paid by a company that sought, and received, $170 BILLION in taxpayer money to be "bailed out".
And, almost as if it were planned*, congressional "leaders" are crafting legislation to "tax away" the bonuses.
There has been back and forth accusations, SEN Chris Dodd (D-Conn) first denied, then admitted to inserting an amendment into the Stimulus package protecting bonuses agreed to before the bill was signed. (When other than elected officials do this, it is normally called "Lying".) But, he says he did so at the urging of the Treasury Department. Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner claims he didn't learn of the bonuses until 10 March. But then again, he didn' t know about having to pay taxes until sometime after 4 November 2008, either.
Reportedly, some of the bonus recipients are feeling threatened by the public outrage... and I don't doubt it.
But all this is a smoke screen. All of this is really distracting from the true scandal.
Actually, two scandals.
The first scandal is that our congress is pushing to "tax away the bonus". This, of course, appeals to many who find these bonuses stupid and downright wrong. Its a mob-mentality thing. But, the people to whom this "punishment" appeals are missing the bigger point.
As wrong as the bonuses are. As dumb-headed as they are from a PR perspective. As utterly unethical and immoral... they were not illegal to be made. They were not limited by anything as of the date they were agreed to. To now go back and punish the company, and the employees for something that when done was not "wrong" in the legal sense, is itself wrong.
There is, of course, a Latin term for this: ex post facto. In legal terms, if you make something illegal retroactively, it is ex post facto. Congress is attempting to do just this.
In criminal law, ex post facto is supposed to be prohibited in a nation that adheres to the "rule of law". At least to the extent that someone can be convicted for something that wasn't illegal when he did it. The reverse is allowed, where a crime is repealed or punishment reduced after the crime was committed, or punishment decided.
But this is very scary ground being broken by our congress in its rush to do something. Today, maybe it is silly bonuses by some executive big-wigs. Maybe tomorrow, that investment you made expecting it to be tax-free, will be taxed retroactively to when you made it. Maybe that thing you did which was perfectly legal when you did it will be made illegal retroactively, and you will be in jail.
When our lawmakers can retroactively change rules, clauses, and laws... nobody is safe. And, nobody can count on anything. The bedrock of not only our economic system but even our very lives is removed. Who would enter into contracts in a place where they can be disregarded because of mob rule? Who would invest money if they can't even be sure their money is legally safe? This is not a good thing.
The other scandal is just as bad, but hardly a precedent.
Our legislative branch was purposely made by our founding fathers to be deliberative in nature. To take its time to grapple with the big questions. To pursue changes only after much thought, debate, deliberation and discussion.
Every time congress rushes to "fix" something, it almost always ends up making things worse. This is a prime example, but sadly not the first nor likely the last.
Remember, the "Stimulus" package that spent $789 BILLION of your and mine tax dollars was 1200 pages. It was not read in total by any single member of congress or the President before it was passed and signed into law. Much less we the people being able to read and comment to our elected officials. The single most expensive spending by our government in history was rushed... horribly rushed... and this is what you get for it. This, and the pork.
The scandal is that we send people to Washington to be our proxies. They are there to work for us, to do our bidding in the legislature (and the executive) so that we can go about our lives trying to make a living and raise families. Yet, despite their salaries and staffs. Despite the perks of office. Despite their responsibility --- they cannot even bother to read the legislation before voting on it.
This total lack of responsibility is the second scandal being covered by all the smoke and mirrors.
I believe the time is coming soon when the American people will no longer tolerate such sloppiness from our employees in Washington. I believe congress knows it too, and are desperate to keep the majority of us from learning it, or thinking too much about it. I believe they know what will happen when we do.
CP
And, almost as if it were planned*, congressional "leaders" are crafting legislation to "tax away" the bonuses.
There has been back and forth accusations, SEN Chris Dodd (D-Conn) first denied, then admitted to inserting an amendment into the Stimulus package protecting bonuses agreed to before the bill was signed. (When other than elected officials do this, it is normally called "Lying".) But, he says he did so at the urging of the Treasury Department. Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner claims he didn't learn of the bonuses until 10 March. But then again, he didn' t know about having to pay taxes until sometime after 4 November 2008, either.
Reportedly, some of the bonus recipients are feeling threatened by the public outrage... and I don't doubt it.
But all this is a smoke screen. All of this is really distracting from the true scandal.
Actually, two scandals.
The first scandal is that our congress is pushing to "tax away the bonus". This, of course, appeals to many who find these bonuses stupid and downright wrong. Its a mob-mentality thing. But, the people to whom this "punishment" appeals are missing the bigger point.
As wrong as the bonuses are. As dumb-headed as they are from a PR perspective. As utterly unethical and immoral... they were not illegal to be made. They were not limited by anything as of the date they were agreed to. To now go back and punish the company, and the employees for something that when done was not "wrong" in the legal sense, is itself wrong.
There is, of course, a Latin term for this: ex post facto. In legal terms, if you make something illegal retroactively, it is ex post facto. Congress is attempting to do just this.
In criminal law, ex post facto is supposed to be prohibited in a nation that adheres to the "rule of law". At least to the extent that someone can be convicted for something that wasn't illegal when he did it. The reverse is allowed, where a crime is repealed or punishment reduced after the crime was committed, or punishment decided.
But this is very scary ground being broken by our congress in its rush to do something. Today, maybe it is silly bonuses by some executive big-wigs. Maybe tomorrow, that investment you made expecting it to be tax-free, will be taxed retroactively to when you made it. Maybe that thing you did which was perfectly legal when you did it will be made illegal retroactively, and you will be in jail.
When our lawmakers can retroactively change rules, clauses, and laws... nobody is safe. And, nobody can count on anything. The bedrock of not only our economic system but even our very lives is removed. Who would enter into contracts in a place where they can be disregarded because of mob rule? Who would invest money if they can't even be sure their money is legally safe? This is not a good thing.
The other scandal is just as bad, but hardly a precedent.
Our legislative branch was purposely made by our founding fathers to be deliberative in nature. To take its time to grapple with the big questions. To pursue changes only after much thought, debate, deliberation and discussion.
Every time congress rushes to "fix" something, it almost always ends up making things worse. This is a prime example, but sadly not the first nor likely the last.
Remember, the "Stimulus" package that spent $789 BILLION of your and mine tax dollars was 1200 pages. It was not read in total by any single member of congress or the President before it was passed and signed into law. Much less we the people being able to read and comment to our elected officials. The single most expensive spending by our government in history was rushed... horribly rushed... and this is what you get for it. This, and the pork.
The scandal is that we send people to Washington to be our proxies. They are there to work for us, to do our bidding in the legislature (and the executive) so that we can go about our lives trying to make a living and raise families. Yet, despite their salaries and staffs. Despite the perks of office. Despite their responsibility --- they cannot even bother to read the legislation before voting on it.
This total lack of responsibility is the second scandal being covered by all the smoke and mirrors.
I believe the time is coming soon when the American people will no longer tolerate such sloppiness from our employees in Washington. I believe congress knows it too, and are desperate to keep the majority of us from learning it, or thinking too much about it. I believe they know what will happen when we do.
CP
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
To Muliply Wealth by Dividing it?
"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
~~~~~ The late Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931 - 2005 ~~~~~
(three-time past president of the Southern Baptist Convention)
If you just don't understand the above passage after reading it, go back and read it again. And again. Until you get it.
CP
~~~~~ The late Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931 - 2005 ~~~~~
(three-time past president of the Southern Baptist Convention)
If you just don't understand the above passage after reading it, go back and read it again. And again. Until you get it.
CP
Monday, January 19, 2009
MLK Day, 2009
I dare say this day has taken on much more meaning, much greater consequence this year than all the others.
With the first black president set to be sworn in to office tomorrow, it is hailed as --- and certainly is --- the fulfillment of Dr. King's dream.
Surely, that President-Elect Obama was able to be elected by a sizable majority of the electorate, disproves the myth that America is (still) a racist nation. Certainly, there are racist individuals yet among our citizens. But the country is not racist itself, if it ever was.
As George Will points out, Obama received a higher percentage of the white vote than did either Al Gore or John Kerry in the previous two elections. And Mississippi has more black elected officials than any other state. Clearly, white America can be color-blind in its selection of whom to vote for.
Surely, we can now end the divisive and unconstitutional treatment known as "Affirmative Action". What possible reason could there still be to not judge everyone on merit alone? Isn't this, after all, what Dr. King really marched for? Equal treatment under the law, not preferences and quotas?
Yet, more black Americans voted for Obama (by percentage and by volume) than had voted for the Democratic ticket in recent elections. All too many, it seems, did so for one reason: to elect "one of their own". Elect a man with scant experience to arguably the most important office on earth, based solely on that man's race. A racist vote... just not one in the terms of the word we normally associate it with.
So, maybe Dr. King's dream isn't yet fully realized*. There are still sizable segments of our society that are blatantly racist, that will vote for someone based solely on the color of their skin. But it isn't the segment of society that Dr. King once railed against.
CP
* Many who today praise the work of Dr. King in the Civil Rights struggles of the 1950's and 1960's, likely have not heard or read the full "I have a dream" speech he made on 28 August 1963, and are thus speaking from ignorance. As a public service to those who have not, here is the link. Please note, throughout the speech he talks about equality, not preferences and quotas.
With the first black president set to be sworn in to office tomorrow, it is hailed as --- and certainly is --- the fulfillment of Dr. King's dream.
Surely, that President-Elect Obama was able to be elected by a sizable majority of the electorate, disproves the myth that America is (still) a racist nation. Certainly, there are racist individuals yet among our citizens. But the country is not racist itself, if it ever was.
As George Will points out, Obama received a higher percentage of the white vote than did either Al Gore or John Kerry in the previous two elections. And Mississippi has more black elected officials than any other state. Clearly, white America can be color-blind in its selection of whom to vote for.
Surely, we can now end the divisive and unconstitutional treatment known as "Affirmative Action". What possible reason could there still be to not judge everyone on merit alone? Isn't this, after all, what Dr. King really marched for? Equal treatment under the law, not preferences and quotas?
Yet, more black Americans voted for Obama (by percentage and by volume) than had voted for the Democratic ticket in recent elections. All too many, it seems, did so for one reason: to elect "one of their own". Elect a man with scant experience to arguably the most important office on earth, based solely on that man's race. A racist vote... just not one in the terms of the word we normally associate it with.
So, maybe Dr. King's dream isn't yet fully realized*. There are still sizable segments of our society that are blatantly racist, that will vote for someone based solely on the color of their skin. But it isn't the segment of society that Dr. King once railed against.
CP
* Many who today praise the work of Dr. King in the Civil Rights struggles of the 1950's and 1960's, likely have not heard or read the full "I have a dream" speech he made on 28 August 1963, and are thus speaking from ignorance. As a public service to those who have not, here is the link. Please note, throughout the speech he talks about equality, not preferences and quotas.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Happy New Year
It is hard to believe a year has gone by already. But, I think most adults say that this time of year.
My New Year's wishes for our world are simple:
1. I wish for our President Elect to govern with the skill, intelligence, character, integrity and humility of the greatest of our Presidents. He has many challenges he is facing right off the bat.
2. Increasing numbers of scientists are openly questioning the supposedly "settled" theory of Global Warming... so much so that the promoters of the notion now call it "Climate Change". Well, yeah... the climate is constantly in change. I wish for our people, and our government, to awaken to the reality of this hoax, and not try to fix things that are not truly broken.
3. I wish for our government to stop spending our money to prop up failing business models. Let the bankruptcy courts do their jobs. It is called "destructive creation". Yes, it will hurt many people a lot... but one cause of this was government meddling (the home-finance market meltdown was caused by the government forcing sub-prime lending to people who should never have gotten loans), so why would anyone believe that government will make it better? Yes, we need regulations, but they should be few and fair. America works best when the government gets out of the way (and gets its hands out of our pockets).
4. I wish for our media to stop being a propaganda arm, and get back to its charter of unbiased, objective reporting. Bias is not only found in what is said, but in what is not said, and how often something is reported or ignored. The machinery of democracy works best with copious lubrication from journalism. If it is only oiling some of the gears and not others, the machine will seize and fail.
5. I wish for accountability. I long for the time when the people who cause problems, vote for things that later turn our poorly, and say things that are blatantly not true (we call them lies) are held accountable for their actions and words. Especially our elected officials. When one who has sworn an oath to follow our Constitution votes for legislation that goes against that constitution, I want them to be held accountable by all concerned, but mostly by those that next vote for that person.
6. For my friends, family, associates and colleagues; I wish a full and healthy year of the things that matter most to each of you. May your days be warm, and your nights restful. Have faith in yourselves, in your co-workers, in your God, and in your tasks.
Now, buckle up and hold on tight.... this is going to be a rough ride.
CP
My New Year's wishes for our world are simple:
1. I wish for our President Elect to govern with the skill, intelligence, character, integrity and humility of the greatest of our Presidents. He has many challenges he is facing right off the bat.
2. Increasing numbers of scientists are openly questioning the supposedly "settled" theory of Global Warming... so much so that the promoters of the notion now call it "Climate Change". Well, yeah... the climate is constantly in change. I wish for our people, and our government, to awaken to the reality of this hoax, and not try to fix things that are not truly broken.
3. I wish for our government to stop spending our money to prop up failing business models. Let the bankruptcy courts do their jobs. It is called "destructive creation". Yes, it will hurt many people a lot... but one cause of this was government meddling (the home-finance market meltdown was caused by the government forcing sub-prime lending to people who should never have gotten loans), so why would anyone believe that government will make it better? Yes, we need regulations, but they should be few and fair. America works best when the government gets out of the way (and gets its hands out of our pockets).
4. I wish for our media to stop being a propaganda arm, and get back to its charter of unbiased, objective reporting. Bias is not only found in what is said, but in what is not said, and how often something is reported or ignored. The machinery of democracy works best with copious lubrication from journalism. If it is only oiling some of the gears and not others, the machine will seize and fail.
5. I wish for accountability. I long for the time when the people who cause problems, vote for things that later turn our poorly, and say things that are blatantly not true (we call them lies) are held accountable for their actions and words. Especially our elected officials. When one who has sworn an oath to follow our Constitution votes for legislation that goes against that constitution, I want them to be held accountable by all concerned, but mostly by those that next vote for that person.
6. For my friends, family, associates and colleagues; I wish a full and healthy year of the things that matter most to each of you. May your days be warm, and your nights restful. Have faith in yourselves, in your co-workers, in your God, and in your tasks.
Now, buckle up and hold on tight.... this is going to be a rough ride.
CP
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
