In the editorial, Clinton in the Congo, the author, Kelly Dewitt, talks about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s recent trip to the Congo. At one point DeWitt makes the statement that “I was never a Hillary fan. But, her appointment to U.S. Secretary of State has pulled me off the fence and a little closer to the Hillary side.” Well, like DeWitt, I was never a fan of Hillary Clinton’s either… and I am still not! Wasn’t she tasked with “fixing” healthcare when her husband was President of the United States?
How soon we forget.
As for her encouraging university students in the Congo to protest against the violence of their country’s rebel forces as well as their country’s own military for crimes committed against their own people could cause repercussions that could make Tiananmen Square look like a school yard spat. I hope she does not have to wish that she had not said the things she did. But like most politicians, it is my opinion that she has the ability to let guilt for anything she might have done roll off her back like water off a duck.
Yes, the violence against innocent people in the Congo is tragic. Yes it would be nice if the United States could solve all of the world’s problems, but we cannot. We are currently involved in a fight with Islamist extremist that was forced upon us. As a result our economy is suffering and as a consequence of our economy suffering so goes the economies of most of the rest of the world.
How soon we forget.
Secretary of State Clinton’s statement that the situation in the Congo is “truly one of mankind’s greatest atrocities.”???
How soon we forget!
It is sad that even our learned Senator, Candidate for President of the United States, and Secretary of State did not learn her history. How dare she compare the plight of the people of the Congo to the Holocaust victims of World War II, or the victims of Japanese brutality inflicted upon the people of China, Korea, The Philippine Islands, and her countrymen who fought to defend the way of life she now enjoys.
If more of our country’s leaders, and voters, were students of history maybe we would not be in the mess we are now in. I challenge anyone reading this to try and find out what commodity was the source for the disagreements between nations that lead to World War II!
How soon we forget!!!
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Monday, August 10, 2009
Chase's Chasm
The two party system does not represent the American people. The majority of the people must make compromises in their beliefs to find a party with which to align themselves. Any potential candidate must compromise his or her own beliefs to gain the nomination of one party or the other for without the support of either the Democratic or Republican Party any candidate, with few exceptions, is condemned to obscurity.
Our nation’s founding fathers put little faith in political parties. George Washington refused allegiance to any political party during his Presidency. Benjamin Franklin believed that parties provoke confusion. And Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay warned against the evils to the general public that a “spirit of faction” would cause. But despite these warnings, by as early as the end of the 1700’s two opposing factions emerged representing different opinions about the role of the federal government. The Federalist wanted a strong central government that would dominate the states, thus ensuring national unity. The Republicans held that the individual states should have more power. While the members of these two opposing parties disagreed over the distribution of power, they agreed on most moral, economic, social, and foreign policy issues such as slavery, domestic trade, the family, and isolationism.
During the 1800’s the chasm between the parties widened, especially over the issue of slavery. The Federalist became the Republicans and opposed slavery and the secession of the South, and the Republicans became the Democratic-Republicans, or the Democratic Party and declared support for slavery and secession.
I think it can be safely said that the two party system of the mid to late 1800’s literally divided our nation. The question that needs to be answered now is, are we going to allow history to repeat itself? We need to learn to be Americans first and to place the importance of “towing the party line” a far distant second. We need to learn to form our opinion on each individual negotiable matter through a careful review of all the relevant facts. We need to find moral common ground on the issues at hand.
How long will we put up with dishonest and corrupt two party system? We need to let it be known that we will no longer tolerate candidates lacking integrity and whose records show the corruption that pervades so deeply the representation we have come to accept and sadly expect. Every American needs to ask him or herself if they trust our government. If the answer is “no”, then we have been duped and it is time we take our government back from the interlopers who now occupy the offices of those who are suppose to do our bidding.
Our nation’s founding fathers put little faith in political parties. George Washington refused allegiance to any political party during his Presidency. Benjamin Franklin believed that parties provoke confusion. And Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay warned against the evils to the general public that a “spirit of faction” would cause. But despite these warnings, by as early as the end of the 1700’s two opposing factions emerged representing different opinions about the role of the federal government. The Federalist wanted a strong central government that would dominate the states, thus ensuring national unity. The Republicans held that the individual states should have more power. While the members of these two opposing parties disagreed over the distribution of power, they agreed on most moral, economic, social, and foreign policy issues such as slavery, domestic trade, the family, and isolationism.
During the 1800’s the chasm between the parties widened, especially over the issue of slavery. The Federalist became the Republicans and opposed slavery and the secession of the South, and the Republicans became the Democratic-Republicans, or the Democratic Party and declared support for slavery and secession.
I think it can be safely said that the two party system of the mid to late 1800’s literally divided our nation. The question that needs to be answered now is, are we going to allow history to repeat itself? We need to learn to be Americans first and to place the importance of “towing the party line” a far distant second. We need to learn to form our opinion on each individual negotiable matter through a careful review of all the relevant facts. We need to find moral common ground on the issues at hand.
How long will we put up with dishonest and corrupt two party system? We need to let it be known that we will no longer tolerate candidates lacking integrity and whose records show the corruption that pervades so deeply the representation we have come to accept and sadly expect. Every American needs to ask him or herself if they trust our government. If the answer is “no”, then we have been duped and it is time we take our government back from the interlopers who now occupy the offices of those who are suppose to do our bidding.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
LOADED WORDS - A BETTER DEFINITION
In Jamison Lebreton’s editorial Loaded Words, posted to his Blog Independent Opinion on July 31, 2009, he defends the word “socialism”. He postulates that “When deciding if something should be socialized you first ask if it is something that everyone should have access to. If it is something that should be denied to no one, such as schools, then the government should socialize the structure letting everyone pay for it out of taxes and then provide access to everyone at no additional costs.” As I have said before, are not shelter and sustenance things “everyone should have” and that should be “denied to no one”. Then, by applying Mr. Lebreton’s logic, should these necessities not also be provided to everyone at no cost!
I would like to point out that socialism is not interchangeable with communism and we agree that socialism is not necessarily a threat to democracy, at least not initially. There are governments that acknowledge the role that democratic socialism plays in their governments. You are correct, Socialism is a threat to capitalism, and then, after capitalism has been displaced it becomes a threat to the democratic process.
True communism is not a threat to anything and has never really existed except possibly on the plains of Africa or among other groups of nomadic hunter-gatherers where all are equal and all in the group share equally in the spoils of their daily travails. There are no “rulers”. I suppose it would be kind of like direct electronic democracy with no elected government… MOB RULE!
Today people use the word communism to refer to a form of government in which the state operates under a one-party system and declares allegiance to the ideology of Marxism-Leninism. In accordance with Marxism-Leninism, the constitutions of these countries claim that all power belongs to the working class, that a democratic dictatorship of the proletariat has been implemented within their borders, and that they are building socialism, with the goal of one day achieving communism. But one just has to look back at the incident that took place on June 4th, 1989, referred to in the United States as the Tiananmen Square massacre and in China as the June Fourth Incident, to see that the power does not belong to the working class but instead remains within the iron grip of the ruling class.
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics self destructed and now those former soviet republics are embracing capitalism and a more democratic form of government which include property rights. Our highways and bridges have been the subject of much discussion in mainstream media and with our country’s lawmakers because they are in such bad shape. Our public education system is in the news daily from local reporting to national news with the general consensus being that the U.S. is falling behind the rest of the world. In a piece posted to the cbsnews.com site on September 13th, 2005, tells us that among adults age 25 to 34, the U.S. is ninth among industrialized nations in the share of its population that has at least a high school degree. In the same age group, the United States ranks seventh, with Belgium, in the share of people who hold a college degree. By both measures, the United States was first in the world as recently as 20 years ago.
Lastly, I take issue with his statement “...the U.S. armed services have been successful, socialist societies for over 200 years.” I would argue that the U.S. Military is the property of the United States Government and is under the control of our duly elected President and the Commander in Chief, and is a necessary tool of our democratic and capitalist way of life. I would also submit that those patriotic and brave enough to serve their country in this manner have sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies both foreign and domestic. In other words, the brave and patriotic men and women of the U.S. Military will give their lives to protect your first amendment right to freedom of speech!
I would like to point out that socialism is not interchangeable with communism and we agree that socialism is not necessarily a threat to democracy, at least not initially. There are governments that acknowledge the role that democratic socialism plays in their governments. You are correct, Socialism is a threat to capitalism, and then, after capitalism has been displaced it becomes a threat to the democratic process.
True communism is not a threat to anything and has never really existed except possibly on the plains of Africa or among other groups of nomadic hunter-gatherers where all are equal and all in the group share equally in the spoils of their daily travails. There are no “rulers”. I suppose it would be kind of like direct electronic democracy with no elected government… MOB RULE!
Today people use the word communism to refer to a form of government in which the state operates under a one-party system and declares allegiance to the ideology of Marxism-Leninism. In accordance with Marxism-Leninism, the constitutions of these countries claim that all power belongs to the working class, that a democratic dictatorship of the proletariat has been implemented within their borders, and that they are building socialism, with the goal of one day achieving communism. But one just has to look back at the incident that took place on June 4th, 1989, referred to in the United States as the Tiananmen Square massacre and in China as the June Fourth Incident, to see that the power does not belong to the working class but instead remains within the iron grip of the ruling class.
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics self destructed and now those former soviet republics are embracing capitalism and a more democratic form of government which include property rights. Our highways and bridges have been the subject of much discussion in mainstream media and with our country’s lawmakers because they are in such bad shape. Our public education system is in the news daily from local reporting to national news with the general consensus being that the U.S. is falling behind the rest of the world. In a piece posted to the cbsnews.com site on September 13th, 2005, tells us that among adults age 25 to 34, the U.S. is ninth among industrialized nations in the share of its population that has at least a high school degree. In the same age group, the United States ranks seventh, with Belgium, in the share of people who hold a college degree. By both measures, the United States was first in the world as recently as 20 years ago.
Lastly, I take issue with his statement “...the U.S. armed services have been successful, socialist societies for over 200 years.” I would argue that the U.S. Military is the property of the United States Government and is under the control of our duly elected President and the Commander in Chief, and is a necessary tool of our democratic and capitalist way of life. I would also submit that those patriotic and brave enough to serve their country in this manner have sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies both foreign and domestic. In other words, the brave and patriotic men and women of the U.S. Military will give their lives to protect your first amendment right to freedom of speech!
Thursday, July 30, 2009
There is Nothing to Fear But Fear Itself!
Guglielmo Ferrero, Italian historian and author, pointed out, in his book The Principles of Power, that the basic human trait underlying all illegitimate governments is that of fear. But more than that, he showed us that this fear is obsessive, holding ruled and ruler alike in its clutches, playing no favorites. The one sure and certain characteristic is that of the ruler’s fear of the people and the people’s fear of the ruler.
In his book State of Fear, Michael Crichton points out how fear is used by governments to control their citizens. While a work of fiction, it contains a poignant message to those willing to listen. For those whom have read his book I would like to ask, what happened to “Global Warming”?
No manufactured psychosis of continual crisis, like “Global Warming”, or Oz like image of dynamic leadership, based primarily on power and government spending, even when served up with demagogic platitudes, can substitute for a diet of truth – for honest news. Nothing like this can cure the dangerous internal wounds, nor fill the spiritual void and restore domestic tranquility.
On the contrary, even when people are denied the facts of national life, the truths essential to their very survival, they intuitively sense that there is something wrong, and since confidence in one another must be mutual a lack of confidence leads to confusion, from confusion to suspicion, from suspicion to distrust and finally from distrust to national disunity. Reaching the point at which the confidence between the governed and the governing is destroyed by mutual fear. This is not a cause, but a natural and inevitable result of illegitimate government.
By defalcation of Congress, and Judicial usurpation, all with the connivance and willing support of the Executive Branch, the Federal Government has been corrupted into an instrument of vast and unrestrained power over the lives, property and affairs of the American People.
This state of distrust cannot be cured by shallow deprecation of “hate”, the vilification of patriots, or the extorting of peace while appeasing evil. These are dishonest resorts which serve only to exacerbate instead of healing the malady. Such fear cannot be overcome with propaganda. Trust can only be restored by principle; principle based on moral character. Trust must be earned.
On the other hand government devoid of fear, whatever the form, from a hereditary monarchy to a constitutional republic, is firmly embedded in the principle of legitimacy. When this prevails, confidence and unity, outward calm and inner peace, are reflected in the lives involved, whether subjects or citizens. It naturally follows that any country, lacking respect and consent on the part of the people, and restraint and concern for all on the part of those in power, is sick and in serious trouble.
For several generations the United States has been a victim of fear and is now ruled by an illegitimate government. A friend of my father’s once asked him what the difference was between “freedom” and “liberty”. After a moment of consideration my father replied that, “rather than define freedom and liberty let’s look at the lack of freedom and the lack of liberty… the lack of freedom implies confinement, while the lack of liberty implies oppression.” When was the last time you heard a politician use the word “liberty”?
In his book State of Fear, Michael Crichton points out how fear is used by governments to control their citizens. While a work of fiction, it contains a poignant message to those willing to listen. For those whom have read his book I would like to ask, what happened to “Global Warming”?
No manufactured psychosis of continual crisis, like “Global Warming”, or Oz like image of dynamic leadership, based primarily on power and government spending, even when served up with demagogic platitudes, can substitute for a diet of truth – for honest news. Nothing like this can cure the dangerous internal wounds, nor fill the spiritual void and restore domestic tranquility.
On the contrary, even when people are denied the facts of national life, the truths essential to their very survival, they intuitively sense that there is something wrong, and since confidence in one another must be mutual a lack of confidence leads to confusion, from confusion to suspicion, from suspicion to distrust and finally from distrust to national disunity. Reaching the point at which the confidence between the governed and the governing is destroyed by mutual fear. This is not a cause, but a natural and inevitable result of illegitimate government.
By defalcation of Congress, and Judicial usurpation, all with the connivance and willing support of the Executive Branch, the Federal Government has been corrupted into an instrument of vast and unrestrained power over the lives, property and affairs of the American People.
This state of distrust cannot be cured by shallow deprecation of “hate”, the vilification of patriots, or the extorting of peace while appeasing evil. These are dishonest resorts which serve only to exacerbate instead of healing the malady. Such fear cannot be overcome with propaganda. Trust can only be restored by principle; principle based on moral character. Trust must be earned.
On the other hand government devoid of fear, whatever the form, from a hereditary monarchy to a constitutional republic, is firmly embedded in the principle of legitimacy. When this prevails, confidence and unity, outward calm and inner peace, are reflected in the lives involved, whether subjects or citizens. It naturally follows that any country, lacking respect and consent on the part of the people, and restraint and concern for all on the part of those in power, is sick and in serious trouble.
For several generations the United States has been a victim of fear and is now ruled by an illegitimate government. A friend of my father’s once asked him what the difference was between “freedom” and “liberty”. After a moment of consideration my father replied that, “rather than define freedom and liberty let’s look at the lack of freedom and the lack of liberty… the lack of freedom implies confinement, while the lack of liberty implies oppression.” When was the last time you heard a politician use the word “liberty”?
Monday, July 27, 2009
Common Sense, The Cure for Health Care Reform
Ann Coulter comes out and says what we are all thinking or at least what we should be thinking, in her editorial TAKE TWO ASPIRIN AND CALL ME WHEN YOUR CANCER IS STAGE 4. She is trying to send the message that health care should be left to the free market and people need to realize that health care must be paid for by those who use it. Bad drivers pay higher premiums for their auto insurance so why should healthy people, who do not abuse their health insurance by going to the ER, to avoid the co-pay, for a stomach ache, pay for the insurance and health care of the people who do abuse it? It is a message everyone needs to hear. The opinions she expresses should be heard by every U.S. citizen who does not want to live in a socialist state.
While Ms. Coulter presents no evidence she is stating what should be universal truths. Are there really people out there who believe that a government bureaucracy is the most efficient means of getting anything done? Remember the new Passport requirements of not so many years ago? And should Congress pass and the President sign into law a bill that you know is going to have so much pork in it that the first thing the health reform bill will have to pay for is a prescription for Lipitor for everyone in the country?
Ms. Coulter is a frequent guest on many TV shows, including The Today Show, Good Morning America, The Early Show, The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, Hannity, The O'Reilly Factor, The Glen Beck Show, HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher, and has been profiled in numerous publications, including TV Guide, the Guardian (UK), the New York Observer, National Journal, Harper's Bazaar, and Elle magazine. She was the April 25, 2005 cover story of Time magazine. In 2001, she was named one of the top 100 Public Intellectuals by federal judge Richard Posner. A Connecticut native, she graduated with honors from Cornell University School of Arts & Sciences, and received her J.D. from University of Michigan Law School, where she was an editor of The Michigan Law Review. She clerked for the Honorable Pasco Bowman II of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and was an attorney in the Department of Justice Honors Program for outstanding law school graduates. After practicing law in private practice in New York City, Ms. Coulter worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee, where she handled crime and immigration issues for Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan. From there, she became a litigator with the Center For Individual Rights in Washington, DC, a public interest law firm dedicated to the defense of individual rights with particular emphasis on freedom of speech, civil rights, and the free exercise of religion. As to her credibility… depends on which side of the aisle you’re on!
While Ms. Coulter presents no evidence she is stating what should be universal truths. Are there really people out there who believe that a government bureaucracy is the most efficient means of getting anything done? Remember the new Passport requirements of not so many years ago? And should Congress pass and the President sign into law a bill that you know is going to have so much pork in it that the first thing the health reform bill will have to pay for is a prescription for Lipitor for everyone in the country?
Ms. Coulter is a frequent guest on many TV shows, including The Today Show, Good Morning America, The Early Show, The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, Hannity, The O'Reilly Factor, The Glen Beck Show, HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher, and has been profiled in numerous publications, including TV Guide, the Guardian (UK), the New York Observer, National Journal, Harper's Bazaar, and Elle magazine. She was the April 25, 2005 cover story of Time magazine. In 2001, she was named one of the top 100 Public Intellectuals by federal judge Richard Posner. A Connecticut native, she graduated with honors from Cornell University School of Arts & Sciences, and received her J.D. from University of Michigan Law School, where she was an editor of The Michigan Law Review. She clerked for the Honorable Pasco Bowman II of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and was an attorney in the Department of Justice Honors Program for outstanding law school graduates. After practicing law in private practice in New York City, Ms. Coulter worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee, where she handled crime and immigration issues for Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan. From there, she became a litigator with the Center For Individual Rights in Washington, DC, a public interest law firm dedicated to the defense of individual rights with particular emphasis on freedom of speech, civil rights, and the free exercise of religion. As to her credibility… depends on which side of the aisle you’re on!
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
It's the Economy, Stupid!
The Washington Post recently published an editorial titled The Debt Tsunami. The author (unknown) describes the “tough” job of the Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, as that of providing a ”reality check” to the country’s lawmakers. The image I believe the author is trying to evoke in his audience, who should be every U.S. citizen that is afraid of increased taxes, a weak U.S. dollar and a falling standard of living, is that of the little boy with his finger in the dike trying to stem the ever increasing flow with no one coming to help.
I agree that the congressional Democrats and President Obama don’t want to hear that the fiscal policy of the country is unsustainable if this growth of our nation’s debt goes unchecked. They know the only way to stop the inevitable is through tax increases, spending cuts or both. Approval of President Obama’s handling of health care has slid from 57% to 49% since April, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll, yet the President is pushing his health care reform harder than ever. I believe that the majority of the people are coming to realize that sometimes, even the government must say “We can’t afford it”! In March, only 32% of Americans thought President Obama was an old-style, tax-and-spend liberal. Now 43% do!
The author sights the CBO’s long-term forecast which predicts that the publicly held debt of the U.S. government will roughly double from approximately 41% of GDP in 2008 to 82% of GDP by 2019. I agree that his statement that this amount of debt would stifle economic growth and reduce the standard of living in our country. The CBO says the principal cause of our long-term fiscal distress is primarily due to the ageing of the U.S. population, coupled with rising health-care costs which will drive spending on Medicare and Medicaid from almost 5% of GDP today to almost 10% of GDP by 2035.
The author summarizes that President Obama, like his predecessors, is aware of this issue, and like them has promised a plan to deal with it but has of yet come up with a credible solution. Like Mr. Obama said during his campaign for your vote, “It is time for that to change”.
I agree that the congressional Democrats and President Obama don’t want to hear that the fiscal policy of the country is unsustainable if this growth of our nation’s debt goes unchecked. They know the only way to stop the inevitable is through tax increases, spending cuts or both. Approval of President Obama’s handling of health care has slid from 57% to 49% since April, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll, yet the President is pushing his health care reform harder than ever. I believe that the majority of the people are coming to realize that sometimes, even the government must say “We can’t afford it”! In March, only 32% of Americans thought President Obama was an old-style, tax-and-spend liberal. Now 43% do!
The author sights the CBO’s long-term forecast which predicts that the publicly held debt of the U.S. government will roughly double from approximately 41% of GDP in 2008 to 82% of GDP by 2019. I agree that his statement that this amount of debt would stifle economic growth and reduce the standard of living in our country. The CBO says the principal cause of our long-term fiscal distress is primarily due to the ageing of the U.S. population, coupled with rising health-care costs which will drive spending on Medicare and Medicaid from almost 5% of GDP today to almost 10% of GDP by 2035.
The author summarizes that President Obama, like his predecessors, is aware of this issue, and like them has promised a plan to deal with it but has of yet come up with a credible solution. Like Mr. Obama said during his campaign for your vote, “It is time for that to change”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
