There’s an old saying in politics- Democrats fall in love and Republicans fall in line. This is really instructive given what’s going on now in Israel.
At the time of this writing, Israel is engaged in a full assault on Gaza. They are bombing enemy targets and planning a ground invasion of 10,000 troops in the coming days. Thousands of soldiers are being called-up for the campaign. It’s the worst fighting since 1948, when Israel first became a nation.
International leaders are calling for a return to the cease fire that had been in place over the last six months. Of course, Hamas has not been honoring that agreement. They have launched thousands of rockets into Israel throughout 2008, and have been increasing their attacks since mid-December. Now they have declared a third Intifada. It seems, only when Israel responds in self-defense do we see the world call for a truce! Should this new counter-offensive come as a surprise? Not if you’ve been paying attention.
Republicans rallied around their candidate this year begrudgingly. McCain was not the idealistic candidate for Conservative principles, but then again, Conservatives are not overly idealistic. They go into elections with both eyes open and vote pragmatically for the lesser of two evils.
Democrats, on the other hand, “fall in love.” Unfortunately, love is often blind. There’s nothing wrong with imagining a better future, but “hope” and “change” without specifics doesn’t make for good, practical policy in an evil world.
Jesse Jackson said the most important “change” we would see from Obama is in the Middle East. Obama’s church embraced the Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, made “diplomatic trips” to Qaddafi’s Libya and printed Hamas propaganda in their church bulletins! Leaders in Iran praised and endorsed Obama while Israel clearly preferred McCain in all of their polls. But, if you’re in love with your candidate and you have a fawning media,
it’s easy to get confused.
Samantha Power has been an advisor to Obama since 2005. She left the campaign last March after calling Hillary a “monster.” Despite that credential in her favor, she represents a “change” in the wrong direction for America’s foreign policy. A couple of weeks ago she was brought back to join Obama’s transition team. She will be advising Obama on appointments and strategic policy. Power’s views, if implemented, would mark the first time America has turned its back on Israel. This is something very serious for those who believe in the biblical admonition regarding the treatment of God’s “chosen” nation. There have been numerous times over the years where America’s vote in the UN was the only thing preventing the world from ganging-up on Israel.
Power, unbelievably, has expressed doubts about Iran’s nuclear threat. In addition, she conveniently ignores Iran’s stated policy of genocide towards
Israel. “Wiping Israel off the map” and declaring Israel a “rotting corpse” are not serious threats in Power’s view. She believes the U.S. should send forces to the Middle East, not to protect Israel, but to impose a settlement favorable to the Palestinians currently governed by Hamas terrorists. She also supports giving billions in aid to bolster the Palestinian military. Her advocacy, known as the Walt-Mearsheimer view, discounts Israel’s own security assessments.
Power has referred to the “long-standing structural and conceptual problems in U.S. foreign policy” as being too unilateral and too dependent upon the Israel lobby. Similar to the opinions of George Soros and Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, Power believes Israel is guilty of war crimes. Sound familiar? It should. The same language has been used by the Left to condemn the war in Iraq. Power believes that it was the Israel lobby that provoked us into that war. Thus, all geopolitical sins reduce to a simplistic, anti-Semitic foundation for Power and company.
The Bush administration issued a statement declaring Hamas the villain in this latest round of violence. The policy wonks soon to take office with Obama, however, take a contradictory view!
Could this have been predicted? Yes. Israel is naturally acting in her best interest of self-preservation. It is clear, the geopolitical landscape will be shifting with Obama and Israel is taking precautions now to prepare for the worst. Those who view the world with a rational expectation of human frailties understand it. Those who naively believe in fairy tales of utopian fantasies, never will. Too bad we have to live now with the consequences of the latter. (Send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)
Monday, December 29, 2008
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Twas The Night Before Christmas in Iraq
Back in 1882, Clement Clarke Moore, wrote the famous poem, The Night Before Christmas. Throughout the years, it has become a tradition in many families to read the poem every Christmas season along with watching Christmas Vacation and It’s a Wonderful Life.
Last year, I received another poem from a dear friend, referred to as a Different Christmas Poem whose author is unknown. This poem described a dream that a gentleman had regarding a soldier standing guard outside his home on a snowy night on Christmas Eve.
The poems had me contemplating about our brave men and women in uniform in Iraq and wondering what they will be doing on Christmas Eve. What will their spouses and children be doing that night while their loved ones are so far away?
How does it feel to be 5,000 miles from home sacrificing everything for a country whose Congressional leaders do not support your mission and call you invaders and murderers?
With boots on the ground in Iraq, liberal leaders, like Sen. Harry Reid, Democrat-Nevada, have provided propaganda to Al-Qaeda by saying, “The war is lost.” Rep. John Murtha, Democrat-Pennsylvania, emboldened our enemies by saying, “U.S. Marines killed innocent civilians in cold blood.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat-California, demoralized our troops by calling the war, “A grotesque mistake.” Senator and President-elect Obama said our troops are “air raiding villages and killing civilians.”
Thanks for the support and, by the way, have you heard? The surge worked. London’s Sunday Times called it ‘the culmination of one of the most spectacular victories of the war on terror.’
Our country has never invaded another country to rule it, only to free it. On Normandy Beach in 2002, President Bush noted that since the U.S. Civil War in the 1860's, "our nation's battles have all been far from home. In all those victories, American soldiers came to liberate, not to conquer. The only land we claim as our own are the resting places of our men and women."
So, this year, while I was putting my ACLU and global warming ornaments on my “holiday” tree, I came up with another poem regarding our soldiers who are truly the best of the best. It consolidates parts of both poems to make them pertinent to the present-day crisis our armed forces, which are in harm’s way, face everyday and I named it, Twas The Night Before Christmas in Iraq:
Twas the night before Christmas, when all through my home, not a sound could I hear, not even the phone.
The stockings were hung by the chimney with care,
I flipped on the TV and saw a soldier standing there.
It was a young man, perhaps a Marine, with a desert in the background, it was a lonely scene.
And I thought, ‘He’s so far from home and should be on leave, He should be here with his family on Christmas Eve.’
Then the soldier said, “It’s really all right,
I’m over here by choice; I’m here every night.
It’s my duty to stand, at the front of the line,
That separates all of you, from the darkest of times.
No one had to ask, or beg or implore me,
I’m proud to stand here, like my fathers before me.
Grandpa died at Pearl Harbor one December, then he said, “That’s a Christmas, Grandma always remembers.”
“My dad stood his watch, in the jungles of Nam,
And now it’s my turn, and so here I am.
I’ve not seen my own son, in more than a while,
My wife sends me pictures; he’s sure got her smile.”
Then he bent and carefully, pulled from his bag,
The red, white and blue, an American flag,
He said, “I can live through the heat, and being alone,
Away from my family, my house and my home.
I can stand firm at the front, against any and all,
To ensure for all time, that this flag will not fall.”
I wondered how I could repay him, for all he’s done, for being away from his wife, his home and his son?
Then I saw in his eye, a tear that held no regret,
“Just pray for us every day, and never forget.”
For when we come home, it will be payment enough,
To know we mattered to you, as you mattered to us.”
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you,
Jesus Christ and the American Soldier. One died for your soul; the other for your freedom.
Dennis Powers
Send your comments to DennisHPowers@Comcast.net or mail them to POB 179, Jacksboro, TN 37757.
All I Want for Christmas is a Senate Seat
There is one for sale in Illinois - if the price is right. From Gov. Rod Blagojevich to Tony Resko to Rev. Jeremiah Wright to Father Michael Pflegor to William Ayers, the Chicago cesspool of politics is very deep.
One peculiar thing is that Chicagoan President-Elect Obama knows little about them, what they have been saying or what they have been doing. He, who is said to be one of the most intelligent politicians ever, is completely oblivious to what has been happening in Chicago, or his church for that matter, for the past 20 years. Or, is he?
Chicago is the place where the dead are still allowed to vote and where Al Capone coined the phrase, “vote early and vote often.” Chicago is also the place where politics are so corrupt that Blagojevich said he wasn’t going to quit and doesn’t think he has done anything wrong!
I remember one belligerent Democrat Congressman, Dan Rostenkowski, who ran Chicago’s political machine and was brought down in 1994 for paying “ghost” employees, who at this time of the season, could have been named the Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Future.
The scandal involving the ghost employees, along with trading postage stamps at the Capitol Hill post office for cash (which is like someone working at the bank stealing ink pens), put him in jail for 15 months before he was pardoned by Clinton.
And it’s not just the Democrats in Illinois. The previous Republican governor, George Ryan, who had just been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for issuing a moratorium on executions, was convicted on corruption charges in 2006.
Apparently, Gov. Ryan had failed to issue a moratorium on selling drivers licenses to unqualified truck drivers and tried to make a few bucks on the side.
I don’t even think an author on Oprah’s Book Club, with a new fiction novel, could chronicle the events that have transpired in the political landscape of Illinois this year. It would be too far-fetched, even for the fiction section.
Incidents like these tend to give politicians a bad reputation when, actually, there are many we can trust. What often happens is that someone runs for office with good intentions and ideas, but gets caught up in the corruption of the political machines.
Others go into office with the intention of using the office for their own personal gain. Gov. Blagojevich is one of these. His $1M price tag on a Senate seat which pays $164,000 per year, is his way of saying to the taxpayers, ‘The only reason politicians run for office is to pillage and plunder the government coffers and assist their friends and family.”
I think all politicians have constituents requesting jobs for themselves and their family members or they want some government handout program, but most politicians can distinguish between right and wrong.
Obama recently said, “We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK. That's not leadership. That's not going to happen."
Apparently, the guys from Chicago just don’t get it. It looks like we are moving from Chicago-style politics to a one-world government with no stop in-between. I’ve got news for the new president - I’m going to drive an SUV if I want, eat as much as my doctor will allow, keep my thermostat on 72 and I could care less what other countries think.
All Conservatives want from those who govern is for them to vote and legislate according to the Constitution and the best interests of the people for whom they represent. We don’t want a job, a pardon or a bailout and we sure don’t want a bunch of politicians in office who think it is acceptable to use our tax dollars for their benefit.
In many campaigns, the character of the candidate often comes into question, and after seeing the corruption in politics, it should be apparent that we need to elect men and women of faith and integrity.
As Ben Franklin said, “I have lived sir, a long time; and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?” Character matters.
Send your comments to DennisHPowers@Comcast.net or mail them to POB 179, Jacksboro, TN 37757.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Red State Rural Regulators
Early in the 18th century a group of farmers in North Carolina established a political identity for themselves that has become the ideology of today’s Red State voters. They were the Regulators of Orange County. They would be known today as values voters espousing the political orthodoxy of the rural and suburban middle class. They fought the corrupt elite as well as the ruffians who were not being properly restrained by the government. In other words, they were conservative populists who favored “law and order” and opposed political graft and over taxation. Later, they would found the first, Independent, self-government on the Continent at Watuaga. Colin Powell would probably consider them a threat to the electoral process! Why? In a CNN interview to air this weekend, Powell takes on modern day Regulator Sarah Palin as too traditional and too conservative for the future of the Republican Party.
Who is he kidding? What makes this Obama-supporter an authority on Republican politics? When it was rumored that he might run for president a few years ago, he willingly described himself as a “Rockefeller Republican.” Nelson Rockefeller represented everything that was elitist, corrupt, and WRONG with the Northeast, Liberal Republican establishment. As Gov. Palin might say, they were not on the side of the People. It took Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan to transform the party away from this country club mindset. Why on earth would anyone want to go back to those days? It’s interesting to note, Powell testified as a character witness for the corrupt and disgraced Senator of Alaska, Ted Stevens. Stevens was part of that corrupt establishment that Palin courageously confronted and defeated.
America has always exemplified the idealism of rural life. It breeds a tough self-reliance and love for freedom that tyrants find difficult to tame. There’s a populist ring to this middle class perspective. It extols a pastoral life that captures all of the best attributes of America’s rugged Individualism. From the original Pilgrims, who were Religious separatists, to the pilgrims in the John Wayne movies, American culture has been uniquely defined by the iconic, fierce Independence honed in the legendary Backcountry. From Daniel Boone to Sarah Palin, this common-folk, social structure has preserved our liberty. This is the reason Americans always root for the underdog…not the Rockefellers!
Colin Powell is a prophet from a different perspective. He warns the Republicans that they should take a “hard look” at themselves. He doesn’t like Gov. Palin’s rhetoric about “small towns.” Powell was offended by the implication that his New York upbringing was somehow not good enough. He points out that America is trending towards a more metropolitan, multicultural majority and has no future opportunities for those who wish to continue “shouting” about small town values! I would remind Mr. Powell that not all African Americans, Hispanics and Asians live in big cities! You don’t have to be white to appreciate rural life.
Colin Powell is free to choose his style of Liberal politics dominated by Big City machines like Gov. Blogojevich, but true Conservatives prefer something different.
Since the beginning of time, the wilderness and the countryside have proven to be powerful symbols for innocence, virtue and strength. By contrast, cities have been the places most associated with corruption, deception and the vanity of groupthink that leads to tyrannical power.
Gov. Palin has nothing to apologize for! Her statements regarding small towns echo the proud sentiments of an ideal, pastoral aesthetic. It seems rather rude and presumptuous of Powell to challenge her on this issue, but then again, there are a lot of people out there who have trouble with Gov. Palin’s convictions. Just last week someone tried to burn down her church in Wasilla. Over a million dollars in damage resulted from this hate crime. Pastor Larry Kroon answered the attack with a simple, rural, small town admonition: “choose faith, live with hope and keep caring about people.” To that I say Amen, and which way do I go to get out of town? (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757.)
Who is he kidding? What makes this Obama-supporter an authority on Republican politics? When it was rumored that he might run for president a few years ago, he willingly described himself as a “Rockefeller Republican.” Nelson Rockefeller represented everything that was elitist, corrupt, and WRONG with the Northeast, Liberal Republican establishment. As Gov. Palin might say, they were not on the side of the People. It took Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan to transform the party away from this country club mindset. Why on earth would anyone want to go back to those days? It’s interesting to note, Powell testified as a character witness for the corrupt and disgraced Senator of Alaska, Ted Stevens. Stevens was part of that corrupt establishment that Palin courageously confronted and defeated.
America has always exemplified the idealism of rural life. It breeds a tough self-reliance and love for freedom that tyrants find difficult to tame. There’s a populist ring to this middle class perspective. It extols a pastoral life that captures all of the best attributes of America’s rugged Individualism. From the original Pilgrims, who were Religious separatists, to the pilgrims in the John Wayne movies, American culture has been uniquely defined by the iconic, fierce Independence honed in the legendary Backcountry. From Daniel Boone to Sarah Palin, this common-folk, social structure has preserved our liberty. This is the reason Americans always root for the underdog…not the Rockefellers!
Colin Powell is a prophet from a different perspective. He warns the Republicans that they should take a “hard look” at themselves. He doesn’t like Gov. Palin’s rhetoric about “small towns.” Powell was offended by the implication that his New York upbringing was somehow not good enough. He points out that America is trending towards a more metropolitan, multicultural majority and has no future opportunities for those who wish to continue “shouting” about small town values! I would remind Mr. Powell that not all African Americans, Hispanics and Asians live in big cities! You don’t have to be white to appreciate rural life.
Colin Powell is free to choose his style of Liberal politics dominated by Big City machines like Gov. Blogojevich, but true Conservatives prefer something different.
Since the beginning of time, the wilderness and the countryside have proven to be powerful symbols for innocence, virtue and strength. By contrast, cities have been the places most associated with corruption, deception and the vanity of groupthink that leads to tyrannical power.
Gov. Palin has nothing to apologize for! Her statements regarding small towns echo the proud sentiments of an ideal, pastoral aesthetic. It seems rather rude and presumptuous of Powell to challenge her on this issue, but then again, there are a lot of people out there who have trouble with Gov. Palin’s convictions. Just last week someone tried to burn down her church in Wasilla. Over a million dollars in damage resulted from this hate crime. Pastor Larry Kroon answered the attack with a simple, rural, small town admonition: “choose faith, live with hope and keep caring about people.” To that I say Amen, and which way do I go to get out of town? (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757.)
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Look For the Union Label!
Is it not lawful for an employer to do what he wishes with what is his own?
This question comes from a parable found in Matthew 20 concerning the Kingdom of God as Jesus compares it to a vineyard. The lesson involves a landowner who hires workers at different times during the day and winds up paying them all the same. Those who had worked longer complained, saying it wasn’t fair that they should be paid the same amount of someone who worked less. Jesus explained that these workers had, after all, “agreed” to work for the price they were paid, and that it wasn’t any of their business what the landowner was doing with his money regarding the other workers!
Jesus used this example, underscoring the importance of property rights and individual sovereignty, to teach about God’s prerogative regarding the inclusion of the Gentiles in His plan for humanity. Freedom to act relates directly to ownership. Ultimately, “to act freely” is an inherent function of “ownership.” They are two sides of the same coin and can’t be separated without devaluing the currency of both.
The United Auto Workers union, (UAW), has failed to understand this principle, and as a result, the Big Three auto companies now stand on the precipice of bankruptcy. A sacrifice of over three million jobs and $400 billion in annual output is at risk. Executives from Ford, Chrysler and GM are now lobbying Congress for a $50 billion bailout. They may get it from the union-friendly Democrats who have long been deep in the pockets of the UAW. The question to ask is: will it be worth it?
Unions are organized, ostensibly, to empower labor to make better agreements with management. There was a time when the “checks and balances” of Big Labor were useful in helping to offset the corrupt, monopolistic practices of managers who regularly breached the terms and responsibilities of their agreements. Today, however, we see the balance has shifted too far the other way. A third party in this equation, the Free Consumer, is now exercising his power to nullify these outdated agreements by choosing to buy elsewhere. Neither management nor labor wins when the produce spoils from consumer neglect.
Management, in a free, capitalist market, exists to satisfy customers. In the car industry, the Big Three are failing to meet this standard because competitors are producing better products at cheaper prices. Ford, Chrysler and GM must add $2,300 to the cost of each car just to pay for the Union concessions of health care, pensions and other benefits. There is more expense for health care in each car than there is for steel. When added together, the average wage for the Big Three assembly line worker is $73.21 per hour compared to just $44.20 per hour for Toyota, Honda and Nissan. The Big Three are losing, on average, $1,000 per car sold, whereas Honda, Nissan and Toyota average a pre-tax profit of $1,300. The bottom line difference is the UAW. They have overstepped their bounds of ownership and have frustrated the right of management to operate freely and successfully in the competitive marketplace. Perhaps the worst example of the abuses of the UAW is the Jobs Bank. This is a program where Management is compelled to pay workers not to work. As incredible as it sounds, this policy is meant to compensate those who have lost their jobs due to technological progress or plant restructuring. In some cases, these non-workers enjoy gold-plated health plans with no deductibles!
The UAW doesn’t stop there. They consistently lobby against Free Trade agreements that would open foreign markets to the cars, one would assume, they want to sell. UAW President Ron Gettlefinger seems committed to this suicide by working to preserve the bloated benefits of nearly one million retired UAW workers.
The Democrats will likely find a way to bailout this mismanaged affair while excusing all of the abuses of Labor. They will reward this failure at taxpayer and consumer expense. They will extend more favors to the unions with the Employee Free Choice Act, or the “Card-check” bill as it is known. This legislation will prohibit secret balloting for union initiatives, thus allowing voter intimidation to manipulate employees into supporting unions.
Going against the lawful dictates of free choice is never worth the final expense. No amount of bailout or government intervention can abolish the truth that spans human history. Throwing good money after bad is never a wise choice, whether your business is a vineyard or a Volkswagen. (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)
This question comes from a parable found in Matthew 20 concerning the Kingdom of God as Jesus compares it to a vineyard. The lesson involves a landowner who hires workers at different times during the day and winds up paying them all the same. Those who had worked longer complained, saying it wasn’t fair that they should be paid the same amount of someone who worked less. Jesus explained that these workers had, after all, “agreed” to work for the price they were paid, and that it wasn’t any of their business what the landowner was doing with his money regarding the other workers!
Jesus used this example, underscoring the importance of property rights and individual sovereignty, to teach about God’s prerogative regarding the inclusion of the Gentiles in His plan for humanity. Freedom to act relates directly to ownership. Ultimately, “to act freely” is an inherent function of “ownership.” They are two sides of the same coin and can’t be separated without devaluing the currency of both.
The United Auto Workers union, (UAW), has failed to understand this principle, and as a result, the Big Three auto companies now stand on the precipice of bankruptcy. A sacrifice of over three million jobs and $400 billion in annual output is at risk. Executives from Ford, Chrysler and GM are now lobbying Congress for a $50 billion bailout. They may get it from the union-friendly Democrats who have long been deep in the pockets of the UAW. The question to ask is: will it be worth it?
Unions are organized, ostensibly, to empower labor to make better agreements with management. There was a time when the “checks and balances” of Big Labor were useful in helping to offset the corrupt, monopolistic practices of managers who regularly breached the terms and responsibilities of their agreements. Today, however, we see the balance has shifted too far the other way. A third party in this equation, the Free Consumer, is now exercising his power to nullify these outdated agreements by choosing to buy elsewhere. Neither management nor labor wins when the produce spoils from consumer neglect.
Management, in a free, capitalist market, exists to satisfy customers. In the car industry, the Big Three are failing to meet this standard because competitors are producing better products at cheaper prices. Ford, Chrysler and GM must add $2,300 to the cost of each car just to pay for the Union concessions of health care, pensions and other benefits. There is more expense for health care in each car than there is for steel. When added together, the average wage for the Big Three assembly line worker is $73.21 per hour compared to just $44.20 per hour for Toyota, Honda and Nissan. The Big Three are losing, on average, $1,000 per car sold, whereas Honda, Nissan and Toyota average a pre-tax profit of $1,300. The bottom line difference is the UAW. They have overstepped their bounds of ownership and have frustrated the right of management to operate freely and successfully in the competitive marketplace. Perhaps the worst example of the abuses of the UAW is the Jobs Bank. This is a program where Management is compelled to pay workers not to work. As incredible as it sounds, this policy is meant to compensate those who have lost their jobs due to technological progress or plant restructuring. In some cases, these non-workers enjoy gold-plated health plans with no deductibles!
The UAW doesn’t stop there. They consistently lobby against Free Trade agreements that would open foreign markets to the cars, one would assume, they want to sell. UAW President Ron Gettlefinger seems committed to this suicide by working to preserve the bloated benefits of nearly one million retired UAW workers.
The Democrats will likely find a way to bailout this mismanaged affair while excusing all of the abuses of Labor. They will reward this failure at taxpayer and consumer expense. They will extend more favors to the unions with the Employee Free Choice Act, or the “Card-check” bill as it is known. This legislation will prohibit secret balloting for union initiatives, thus allowing voter intimidation to manipulate employees into supporting unions.
Going against the lawful dictates of free choice is never worth the final expense. No amount of bailout or government intervention can abolish the truth that spans human history. Throwing good money after bad is never a wise choice, whether your business is a vineyard or a Volkswagen. (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Get Ready America for Obama’s New Deal
During the campaign Sen. Obama made it clear what he wants to do. America, in his estimation, is at a crossroads and must be radically changed and transformed for the purpose of creating a new “Post American World.” That’s the title, by the way, of a book Obama was seen reading on the campaign trail.
On the 221st anniversary of our Constitution’s birthday, Sept. 17, Obama took note of another anniversary for the opportunity to address a crowd in New York. Paying tribute to the New Deal campaign of 1933, Obama repeated the rhetoric from Roosevelt’s speech seventy-five years ago given at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco.
The “hope” and “change” of Obama was therefore equated to the designs of FDR’s societal transformation. There would be a “re-appraisal of values” where “our right to live must include the right to live comfortably.” There’s no mention of who will be compelled to deliver said comfort and whether those individuals have any rights of their own to refuse such obligation, but why quibble over the details?
Obama continued to quote FDR saying “[we] must work together to achieve the common end.” The vision, explained Obama, “would require change…a renewed spirit of obligation and cooperation between business and workers.” “Faith in America, faith in our tradition of personal responsibility, faith in our institutions, and faith in ourselves demands that we all recognize the new terms of the old social contract.”
One must remember that FDR’s statements came BEFORE the establishment of such federal entitlement programs as: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. These obligations amount to a $50 trillion debt for future taxpayers already over-burdened with the costs of government!
Apparently, president-elect Obama is reliving the past and is ready to re-launch the type of activist government we experienced in the 1930s.This was the golden age of what was called “creeping socialism” that created the failures addressed by the Reagan Revolution in the ‘80s. Looking at it from that historical perspective one can then understand why the Obama movement has such antipathy towards Reagan and the smaller government reforms he initiated. The political movement behind Reagan should not be so easily dismissed. It even reached President Clinton if you recall. In his 1996 State of the Union address, Clinton remarked, “the era of big government is over!”
Obama’s “re-appraisal of our values as a nation” is the real change he’s offering. The “higher principles” of centralized, government “guidance” is the reason why, in Obama’s view, our markets have worked at all. This is dangerous thinking. It puts individuals, freedom and the market as secondary considerations to the primary motives and “sublime” directives of an “all-knowing,” “all-seeing” and “all-powerful” government.
The evil that Obama sees is not so much al Qaeda, but the “great income inequalities” that prompted his now famous comment to Joe the Plumber regarding “spreading the wealth.” It’s that type of “government knows best” thinking that led him to make the following remark about the Coal Industry: “So, if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”
“We are going to have to adapt our institutions to a new world,” Obama contends, “to realign the interests of all Americans in a solemn obligation to modernize America’s safety net in a project of American renewal.” The “great hope” of Obama’s presidency, quite simply, is the attempt to install another New Deal where “we must shoulder our common load.”
Returning to that other anniversary for just a minute- the Constitution of the United States remains so vital today because it serves to protect our freedom from the greatest threat known to freedom— government. Thomas Jefferson said it best, “In matters of power let no more be heard of the confidence in man but bind them down from mischief by the chains of the constitution.” He also said, “that government governs best, that governs least.” The American system of government is one of limited government, not because the Founders were heartless and cruel towards the poor, but because they understood that governments tend to oppress their people as they amass power unto themselves…regardless of the motives!
In our Republic, the Constitution rules in authority over public opinion, but it only truly matters if we’re still a Nation of Laws and not a corrupted Nation of usurping Rulers who govern by capricious and arbitrary judgments. (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to: POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)
On the 221st anniversary of our Constitution’s birthday, Sept. 17, Obama took note of another anniversary for the opportunity to address a crowd in New York. Paying tribute to the New Deal campaign of 1933, Obama repeated the rhetoric from Roosevelt’s speech seventy-five years ago given at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco.
The “hope” and “change” of Obama was therefore equated to the designs of FDR’s societal transformation. There would be a “re-appraisal of values” where “our right to live must include the right to live comfortably.” There’s no mention of who will be compelled to deliver said comfort and whether those individuals have any rights of their own to refuse such obligation, but why quibble over the details?
Obama continued to quote FDR saying “[we] must work together to achieve the common end.” The vision, explained Obama, “would require change…a renewed spirit of obligation and cooperation between business and workers.” “Faith in America, faith in our tradition of personal responsibility, faith in our institutions, and faith in ourselves demands that we all recognize the new terms of the old social contract.”
One must remember that FDR’s statements came BEFORE the establishment of such federal entitlement programs as: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. These obligations amount to a $50 trillion debt for future taxpayers already over-burdened with the costs of government!
Apparently, president-elect Obama is reliving the past and is ready to re-launch the type of activist government we experienced in the 1930s.This was the golden age of what was called “creeping socialism” that created the failures addressed by the Reagan Revolution in the ‘80s. Looking at it from that historical perspective one can then understand why the Obama movement has such antipathy towards Reagan and the smaller government reforms he initiated. The political movement behind Reagan should not be so easily dismissed. It even reached President Clinton if you recall. In his 1996 State of the Union address, Clinton remarked, “the era of big government is over!”
Obama’s “re-appraisal of our values as a nation” is the real change he’s offering. The “higher principles” of centralized, government “guidance” is the reason why, in Obama’s view, our markets have worked at all. This is dangerous thinking. It puts individuals, freedom and the market as secondary considerations to the primary motives and “sublime” directives of an “all-knowing,” “all-seeing” and “all-powerful” government.
The evil that Obama sees is not so much al Qaeda, but the “great income inequalities” that prompted his now famous comment to Joe the Plumber regarding “spreading the wealth.” It’s that type of “government knows best” thinking that led him to make the following remark about the Coal Industry: “So, if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”
“We are going to have to adapt our institutions to a new world,” Obama contends, “to realign the interests of all Americans in a solemn obligation to modernize America’s safety net in a project of American renewal.” The “great hope” of Obama’s presidency, quite simply, is the attempt to install another New Deal where “we must shoulder our common load.”
Returning to that other anniversary for just a minute- the Constitution of the United States remains so vital today because it serves to protect our freedom from the greatest threat known to freedom— government. Thomas Jefferson said it best, “In matters of power let no more be heard of the confidence in man but bind them down from mischief by the chains of the constitution.” He also said, “that government governs best, that governs least.” The American system of government is one of limited government, not because the Founders were heartless and cruel towards the poor, but because they understood that governments tend to oppress their people as they amass power unto themselves…regardless of the motives!
In our Republic, the Constitution rules in authority over public opinion, but it only truly matters if we’re still a Nation of Laws and not a corrupted Nation of usurping Rulers who govern by capricious and arbitrary judgments. (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to: POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Joe the Plumber Throws Monkey Wrench into the Election
About a week ago Barack Obama was campaigning door to door in a suburb of Toledo, Ohio. Little did he know that he would soon meet a common plumber who would possibly turn the entire presidential race around.
Meet “Joe the Plumber.” Joe is Joe Wurzelbacher, a 34 year old, plumbing contractor. He was outside playing football with his son in his Holland neighborhood of Toledo when Obama made an unexpected appearance. Joe took the opportunity to ask Obama a few questions. He asked Obama how his tax policy would affect him if he bought the $250-270,000 plumbing business he was planning to acquire. Obama responded by saying his taxes would go up, but that it was fair since he would be helping to “spread the wealth” around to others! This disturbing comment began to circulate in the media, and a few days later, it became a fixture in the presidential debate when Obama and McCain mentioned him 23 times!
Joe has definitely struck a nerve. It’s funny how these things seem to pop up from nowhere every voting cycle. There was “Willy Horton,” “Read My Lips,” “Swift Boaters” and now this! Millions of dollars are spent every presidential election on intricate political platforms and slick marketing profiles, but invariably, it comes down to some unplanned, symbolic thing like this, that always sways the election.
Joe wasn’t too happy with Obama’s answer. In a host of interviews following this event, Joe explained why. It seems Joe is tired of people running down our country and proposing what he sees as Socialist policies. McCain echoed Joe’s concern during the debate, and now on the stump, by repeating Joe’s view of the American Dream. In Joe and McCain’s world, Americans are allowed to succeed to the extent that their God-given talent and hard work allows. They shouldn’t have to be punished for higher achievement by getting hit with higher taxes. In true Marxist fashion, Obama sees economic success as an opportunity to confiscate and redistribute more wealth: “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
Joe the Plumber doesn’t want “another set of parents” in the government that has the power to force him to surrender some of his hard-earned profits. In that sentiment, he harkens back to the old, pioneer spirit of Rugged Individualism that built this country. It’s hard not to root for Joe. Progressive Taxation smacks of an un-American principle of punishing achievement. One’s Property Rights shouldn’t automatically decrease just because more property is earned! Who does the wealth belong to anyway: the person who earned it, or the government? And, who can spend that wealth more wisely: Obama and his “spread” machine, or Joe the Plumber. My money’s on Joe!
In an interview posted on the internet, Joe explained how he’s tired of folks “apologizing for America.” He said, “I’m not sorry for being an American. I’m not sorry for the things I have. I have worked hard for them.” He added, “We are the greatest country in the world. People downing America upsets me.” It’s clear his opinions lean to the Right, and it took no time for the Mainstream Media to figure this out. Within hours, several news agencies began critical investigations into Joe’s past examining his- plumbing license, tax returns, outstanding traffic tickets and voter registration, among other things! It’s really shameful that the Media can find so many resources to investigate this innocent by-stander, yet offer no scrutiny at all regarding Barack Obama.
When asked if he had a main issue, Joe related his frustration with the reporting on the Iraq War. He said, “I’m not sorry that we’re in Iraq. We’ve done an incredible thing there, liberating a country and giving them freedom. My friends who’ve served there tell me how much the Iraqi people appreciate us and thank us, but it doesn’t get enough play here. I’m proud of what we’ve done there, and it’s kept us safe!”
Joe the Plumber may end-up being like the character Kevin Costner played in the recent movie “Swing Vote.” Bud Johnson had a failed vote cast by his conniving daughter as result of the power going off before completing the process. The presidential election was a tie, and Johnson had the power in a special run-off election to pick the President. Of course, it was an absurd notion—about as absurd as this year’s Joe the Plumber!
(send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757. see this and other columns at: ontherighttrack.blogspot.com)
Meet “Joe the Plumber.” Joe is Joe Wurzelbacher, a 34 year old, plumbing contractor. He was outside playing football with his son in his Holland neighborhood of Toledo when Obama made an unexpected appearance. Joe took the opportunity to ask Obama a few questions. He asked Obama how his tax policy would affect him if he bought the $250-270,000 plumbing business he was planning to acquire. Obama responded by saying his taxes would go up, but that it was fair since he would be helping to “spread the wealth” around to others! This disturbing comment began to circulate in the media, and a few days later, it became a fixture in the presidential debate when Obama and McCain mentioned him 23 times!
Joe has definitely struck a nerve. It’s funny how these things seem to pop up from nowhere every voting cycle. There was “Willy Horton,” “Read My Lips,” “Swift Boaters” and now this! Millions of dollars are spent every presidential election on intricate political platforms and slick marketing profiles, but invariably, it comes down to some unplanned, symbolic thing like this, that always sways the election.
Joe wasn’t too happy with Obama’s answer. In a host of interviews following this event, Joe explained why. It seems Joe is tired of people running down our country and proposing what he sees as Socialist policies. McCain echoed Joe’s concern during the debate, and now on the stump, by repeating Joe’s view of the American Dream. In Joe and McCain’s world, Americans are allowed to succeed to the extent that their God-given talent and hard work allows. They shouldn’t have to be punished for higher achievement by getting hit with higher taxes. In true Marxist fashion, Obama sees economic success as an opportunity to confiscate and redistribute more wealth: “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
Joe the Plumber doesn’t want “another set of parents” in the government that has the power to force him to surrender some of his hard-earned profits. In that sentiment, he harkens back to the old, pioneer spirit of Rugged Individualism that built this country. It’s hard not to root for Joe. Progressive Taxation smacks of an un-American principle of punishing achievement. One’s Property Rights shouldn’t automatically decrease just because more property is earned! Who does the wealth belong to anyway: the person who earned it, or the government? And, who can spend that wealth more wisely: Obama and his “spread” machine, or Joe the Plumber. My money’s on Joe!
In an interview posted on the internet, Joe explained how he’s tired of folks “apologizing for America.” He said, “I’m not sorry for being an American. I’m not sorry for the things I have. I have worked hard for them.” He added, “We are the greatest country in the world. People downing America upsets me.” It’s clear his opinions lean to the Right, and it took no time for the Mainstream Media to figure this out. Within hours, several news agencies began critical investigations into Joe’s past examining his- plumbing license, tax returns, outstanding traffic tickets and voter registration, among other things! It’s really shameful that the Media can find so many resources to investigate this innocent by-stander, yet offer no scrutiny at all regarding Barack Obama.
When asked if he had a main issue, Joe related his frustration with the reporting on the Iraq War. He said, “I’m not sorry that we’re in Iraq. We’ve done an incredible thing there, liberating a country and giving them freedom. My friends who’ve served there tell me how much the Iraqi people appreciate us and thank us, but it doesn’t get enough play here. I’m proud of what we’ve done there, and it’s kept us safe!”
Joe the Plumber may end-up being like the character Kevin Costner played in the recent movie “Swing Vote.” Bud Johnson had a failed vote cast by his conniving daughter as result of the power going off before completing the process. The presidential election was a tie, and Johnson had the power in a special run-off election to pick the President. Of course, it was an absurd notion—about as absurd as this year’s Joe the Plumber!
(send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757. see this and other columns at: ontherighttrack.blogspot.com)
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Political Rhetoric & Economic Fallacies
It’s election time, and once again we’re in the season of political rhetoric. One of the oldest campaign themes in American history is the idea that “Democrats are for the working man,” or “Democrats are for the poor, and Republicans are for the rich.” This is nothing more than mindless propaganda that’s built upon a fairy tale supported by three underlying fallacies.
Fallacy number one. Politicians in our government are granted the Constitutional authority to be “for” or “against” certain groups in our national economy.
If you search our Constitution, you will find no reference whatsoever to the unequal principle of government power used to favor one economic class over another. None. The phrase reads, “promote [not provide] the general [not specific] welfare” of Americans. In fact, in Canada right now there’s a legal effort underway to overturn their Universal Healthcare system based on the grounds that their government services are fundamentally unequal in their application. This is what happens when governments claim they’re going to promote “fairness” by sticking their nose in the marketplace. Those with political favor always end-up with the most “fairness!” Sound familiar?
Fallacy number two. The government needs to be “for” certain people in our country’s economy (i.e. “victims” who fail) because the free market is fundamentally unfair and unjust.
This is an ignorant and foolish indictment of freedom. One should always remember that without the freedom to fail, there is no freedom to succeed! Although it may seem comforting to grant government the power to intervene in the marketplace to avert failure, the results never turn out favorable in the long run. Government activism in the economy always creates perverse incentives that ultimately disrupt normal supply and demand functions that, otherwise, work to enhance the maximization of wealth creation!
A perfect example of this misguided vision is the current subprime housing crisis. It was engineered, albeit unintentionally, by government interference. It wasn’t the free market that created this housing bubble. It wasn’t rational, private sector, risk-management that brought us to this catastrophe that has adversely affected every market in the world. It was the socialist dream of “affordable housing” for all, via Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac & the Community Reinvestment Act! Alas, the market rewards rational decisions, the government rewards political cronyism.
Fallacy number three. The “poor” or “rich” represent absolute classifications of people who remain “poor” or “rich” their entire lives.
For anyone who cares to find out- Federal statistics clearly show that there has always been a fluid movement of people, both directions, throughout all five categories, (Quintiles), of our economy. People generally begin their adult lives in the lower Quintiles then move up to higher Quintiles as they age. Economic advancement is a natural progression for most people, and is based upon the individual merits of God-given talent and effort. Therefore, the manipulative appeal of tempting politicians who preach special favors to the “middle class” is a complete canard. Think about it. Any policy that would exclusively benefit the middle Quintile would necessarily have to account for a means to keep middle Quintile people trapped in their circumstances indefinitely. This is the frustrating reality of a divisive ideology that demonizes one group in favor of another.
“Group” politics can’t permit individual, self-determined achievement like that of Justice Clarence Thomas or Gov. Sarah Palin. If it did, then there would be no political opportunity to exploit voters in exchange for “group” favors that serve to consolidate more and more power for the governing elite.
Instead of adhering to fraudulent political rhetoric that belies economic realities, wouldn’t it be better to decide our political future using other, more thoughtful, assessments?
America is the envy of the world, not because of our government guarantees, but because of our freedom. Freedom inherently exists in the absence of guarantees, and so, we should be wary of any politician who attempts to promise them. Our economic environment simply can’t provide both freedom and guarantees.
Politics will always have stump speeches full of empty-headed rhetoric designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator of the masses. The responsibility of each citizen, however, is to look past all of the smoke and mirrors and vote on principle over populism. (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757.)
Fallacy number one. Politicians in our government are granted the Constitutional authority to be “for” or “against” certain groups in our national economy.
If you search our Constitution, you will find no reference whatsoever to the unequal principle of government power used to favor one economic class over another. None. The phrase reads, “promote [not provide] the general [not specific] welfare” of Americans. In fact, in Canada right now there’s a legal effort underway to overturn their Universal Healthcare system based on the grounds that their government services are fundamentally unequal in their application. This is what happens when governments claim they’re going to promote “fairness” by sticking their nose in the marketplace. Those with political favor always end-up with the most “fairness!” Sound familiar?
Fallacy number two. The government needs to be “for” certain people in our country’s economy (i.e. “victims” who fail) because the free market is fundamentally unfair and unjust.
This is an ignorant and foolish indictment of freedom. One should always remember that without the freedom to fail, there is no freedom to succeed! Although it may seem comforting to grant government the power to intervene in the marketplace to avert failure, the results never turn out favorable in the long run. Government activism in the economy always creates perverse incentives that ultimately disrupt normal supply and demand functions that, otherwise, work to enhance the maximization of wealth creation!
A perfect example of this misguided vision is the current subprime housing crisis. It was engineered, albeit unintentionally, by government interference. It wasn’t the free market that created this housing bubble. It wasn’t rational, private sector, risk-management that brought us to this catastrophe that has adversely affected every market in the world. It was the socialist dream of “affordable housing” for all, via Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac & the Community Reinvestment Act! Alas, the market rewards rational decisions, the government rewards political cronyism.
Fallacy number three. The “poor” or “rich” represent absolute classifications of people who remain “poor” or “rich” their entire lives.
For anyone who cares to find out- Federal statistics clearly show that there has always been a fluid movement of people, both directions, throughout all five categories, (Quintiles), of our economy. People generally begin their adult lives in the lower Quintiles then move up to higher Quintiles as they age. Economic advancement is a natural progression for most people, and is based upon the individual merits of God-given talent and effort. Therefore, the manipulative appeal of tempting politicians who preach special favors to the “middle class” is a complete canard. Think about it. Any policy that would exclusively benefit the middle Quintile would necessarily have to account for a means to keep middle Quintile people trapped in their circumstances indefinitely. This is the frustrating reality of a divisive ideology that demonizes one group in favor of another.
“Group” politics can’t permit individual, self-determined achievement like that of Justice Clarence Thomas or Gov. Sarah Palin. If it did, then there would be no political opportunity to exploit voters in exchange for “group” favors that serve to consolidate more and more power for the governing elite.
Instead of adhering to fraudulent political rhetoric that belies economic realities, wouldn’t it be better to decide our political future using other, more thoughtful, assessments?
America is the envy of the world, not because of our government guarantees, but because of our freedom. Freedom inherently exists in the absence of guarantees, and so, we should be wary of any politician who attempts to promise them. Our economic environment simply can’t provide both freedom and guarantees.
Politics will always have stump speeches full of empty-headed rhetoric designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator of the masses. The responsibility of each citizen, however, is to look past all of the smoke and mirrors and vote on principle over populism. (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757.)
Friday, September 26, 2008
America’s Financial Chickens Coming Home to Roost
Liberal Democrats are quick to blame Capitalism and the Free Market for the recent collapse on Wall Street. This is foolish, class warfare rhetoric that is irresponsibly exploiting voter’s fear and ignorance.
The heart of the problem is Fannie Mae, or the Federal National Mortgage Association, created by FDR.
By the way, the current situation, despite what you hear, isn’t anything like the Great Depression. The Great Depression had triple the unemployment, a prolonged negative GDP, five times the stock devaluation and 400 times the number of bank failures!
Fannie Mae, unlike private business, was granted an exclusive state monopoly on the secondary mortgage market in 1938. It is now in conservatorship along with Freddie Mac and holds an interest in about half of all mortgages. It’s important to note, however, that 98% of our banks are in good shape with over 90% of our mortgages in good standing.
For 2007, seller-rated “AAA” subprime ARMs, that constituted most of the Fannie market, were just 6.8% of all mortgages, and yet, represented nearly half of all foreclosures. The overall delinquency rate stands now at about 6.4%. So, although Fannie is deeply corrupted and having grave implications for our Financial System, nevertheless, over 90% of the mortgage industry seems to be on strong, fundamental ground.
A couple of weeks ago, Treasury Sect. Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke announced a bailout of Fannie Mae and it’s partner Freddie Mac with a price tag of about $200 billion. Of course, now we know this is not the total bill as AIG has been added to the list, ($85 billion), along with Bear Stearns, ($30 billion), and now, the pending $700 billion in additional funding for a comprehensive bailout package before Congress. Speaker Pelosi has been quick to say that Democrats have nothing whatsoever to do with this failure. The evidence, however, suggests otherwise.
Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo along with former Obama-advisor Jim Johnson, and Dem. Sen., Christopher Dodd, Chairman of the Bank Committee, were recently implicated in a sweetheart loan scandal. Reduced rate loans, and perhaps other considerations, were made in exchange for large campaign contributions. Fannie Mae is connected because it was the single largest customer for Countrywide’s mortgages.
In 2006, the year Democrats took control of Congress promising “the most ethical Congress in history,” 26% of Fannie’s purchases were Countrywide loans. In 2007, the figure rose to 28%. Sen. Dodd received the most money from Fannie, $165,000, while Obama came in second with $126,000. There’s also another Fannie CEO, Franklin Raines, who has served as an advisor to the Obama campaign.
In 2003, Rep. Barney Frank, the ranking Democrat on the Finance Committee, responded to the Bush Administration’s repeated pressures to reform these institutions:
“These two entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac- are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in affordable housing.”
“Affordable housing” apparently means taxpayers get to buy houses for unfit credit risks while politicians like Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd and Barack Obama get to pad their campaign war chests!
And then there’s the 2005 Federal Housing Finance Reform Act co-sponsored by Sen. John McCain. It failed in committee strictly along party lines with Democrats defeating the reform measure. McCain’s statement at the time was prophetic:
“For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac…and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. The report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. It solidifies my view that these Government-sponsored entities, or GSEs need to be reformed without delay. I join as a co-sponsor of S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.”
Credit comes from the root word “credere” which means “to trust, entrust, believe!” Perhaps, the most important thing we face now is who to believe. (send comments toWFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757
The heart of the problem is Fannie Mae, or the Federal National Mortgage Association, created by FDR.
By the way, the current situation, despite what you hear, isn’t anything like the Great Depression. The Great Depression had triple the unemployment, a prolonged negative GDP, five times the stock devaluation and 400 times the number of bank failures!
Fannie Mae, unlike private business, was granted an exclusive state monopoly on the secondary mortgage market in 1938. It is now in conservatorship along with Freddie Mac and holds an interest in about half of all mortgages. It’s important to note, however, that 98% of our banks are in good shape with over 90% of our mortgages in good standing.
For 2007, seller-rated “AAA” subprime ARMs, that constituted most of the Fannie market, were just 6.8% of all mortgages, and yet, represented nearly half of all foreclosures. The overall delinquency rate stands now at about 6.4%. So, although Fannie is deeply corrupted and having grave implications for our Financial System, nevertheless, over 90% of the mortgage industry seems to be on strong, fundamental ground.
A couple of weeks ago, Treasury Sect. Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke announced a bailout of Fannie Mae and it’s partner Freddie Mac with a price tag of about $200 billion. Of course, now we know this is not the total bill as AIG has been added to the list, ($85 billion), along with Bear Stearns, ($30 billion), and now, the pending $700 billion in additional funding for a comprehensive bailout package before Congress. Speaker Pelosi has been quick to say that Democrats have nothing whatsoever to do with this failure. The evidence, however, suggests otherwise.
Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo along with former Obama-advisor Jim Johnson, and Dem. Sen., Christopher Dodd, Chairman of the Bank Committee, were recently implicated in a sweetheart loan scandal. Reduced rate loans, and perhaps other considerations, were made in exchange for large campaign contributions. Fannie Mae is connected because it was the single largest customer for Countrywide’s mortgages.
In 2006, the year Democrats took control of Congress promising “the most ethical Congress in history,” 26% of Fannie’s purchases were Countrywide loans. In 2007, the figure rose to 28%. Sen. Dodd received the most money from Fannie, $165,000, while Obama came in second with $126,000. There’s also another Fannie CEO, Franklin Raines, who has served as an advisor to the Obama campaign.
In 2003, Rep. Barney Frank, the ranking Democrat on the Finance Committee, responded to the Bush Administration’s repeated pressures to reform these institutions:
“These two entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac- are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in affordable housing.”
“Affordable housing” apparently means taxpayers get to buy houses for unfit credit risks while politicians like Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd and Barack Obama get to pad their campaign war chests!
And then there’s the 2005 Federal Housing Finance Reform Act co-sponsored by Sen. John McCain. It failed in committee strictly along party lines with Democrats defeating the reform measure. McCain’s statement at the time was prophetic:
“For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac…and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. The report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. It solidifies my view that these Government-sponsored entities, or GSEs need to be reformed without delay. I join as a co-sponsor of S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.”
Credit comes from the root word “credere” which means “to trust, entrust, believe!” Perhaps, the most important thing we face now is who to believe. (send comments toWFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Israel Celebrates 60 Years of Existence
As the last days of summer wind down, let’s pause for a moment to take a look back at a noteworthy anniversary- Israel’s sixtieth birthday.
On May 14, 1948, the modern State of Israel was born. The mandate making the goal of a Jewish state possible came via British sponsorship following WWII, but grew out of earlier efforts.
Culminating in 1948 was a two thousand year old dream for those of the Jewish Diaspora longing to return to their traditional homeland. The idea was first proclaimed officially at the Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland on August 31, 1897- a date that is coincidently shared with the birth of La Follette. Led by Theodor Herzl, the Congress hosted over two hundred participants from 17 countries.
The new nation of Israel, approximately the size of New Jersey, was viciously attacked shortly after becoming a state. It met this challenge, as it has all others, with a miraculous ability to survive and defeat its enemies. Israel truly has a unique history of attracting hatred. From the very beginning, going back to Abraham, there’s been enmity between Israel and Ishmael. The surrounding Arab nations have consistently launched attacks against Israel denying their right to exist! No matter what you think about Israel, honoring that requirement is rather difficult.
Friendship with Israel does not come cheaply. It has brought regular retaliations against America. Recent fliers found around Detroit proclaim threats to “"Kill Jews and Christians if they don't believe in Allah and Mohammad." This simple declaration from the Koran reveals all you need to know about the challenges we face.
I believe there’s an underlying spiritual animus that explains this visceral opposition. Israel and America represent the Old and New Testaments of God. Enemies of God have always existed and will always be infuriated by those who represent the authentic, unchanging truths of a Creator God who judges the world.
The Bible contains God’s promise that He will “bless those who bless Israel, and curse those who curse Israel,” Gen. 12:3. Implicit in that covenant is a fair warning to those who would take unyielding positions against Israel.
Can the Democrats be trusted on this issue?
Jimmy Carter proved his anti-Israel views recently in his book “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.” Fourteen Carter Center advisors resigned in protest.
Unbelievably, former PLO-leader Yasser Arafat was invited to the Clinton Whitehouse more than any other foreign figure! On one occasion Hillary even kissed Yasser’s wife after she made a speech denouncing Israel. Hillary has collected $50,000 from the American Muslim Alliance, a group that promotes terrorism against Israel. Bill has said, “Hillary’s really tight with the people in the PLO in New York [and] doesn’t like what Israel is up to.”
Former Democrat-candidate Wesley Clark has characterized support for Israel against Hezbollah as “a mistake.” Jesse Jackson, of course, has his “Hymietown” remark and Sen. Joe Biden has told Israeli officials that they would have to accept the idea of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons! That’s the country, by the way, vowing to wipe Israel off the map. Barack Obama calls Iran a “tiny threat.” Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who could be elected again next year, has a different view. He calls Iran the equivalent of Germany circa 1938.
Also, we must not forget Obama’s church of twenty years that is on friendly terms with the anti-Semitic, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan who calls Judaism a “gutter religion!” Obama’s church even printed a Hamas terror manifesto in one of their bulletins.
Conservatives have long kept faith with Israel over the years appreciating their common spiritual heritage. This Judeo-Christian foundation has sustained Western Civilization from the beginning.
At the time of this writing, Russia is sending ships and planes to Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela for military maneuvers. Russia is also assisting Iran in the construction of their nuclear facility. North Korea is unified with these nations suggesting an alliance that would be incomprehensible if not for the spiritual antipathy they share. Dictators, whether from Communist, Islamic or Liberal-Socialist governments, all find agreement in their common hatred of conservatives who seek to maintain a traditional view of God.
Recent polls in Israel are showing a preference for McCain over Obama by twenty points. McCain has a long history of support for Israel’s security. McCain’s running mate Gov. Palin reinforces this loyalty. She proudly proclaims her support by displaying an Israeli flag in her office! It’s comforting to know that in this landmark year for Israel there are at least some American politicians who are striving to maintain a healthy respect for Israel. (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)
On May 14, 1948, the modern State of Israel was born. The mandate making the goal of a Jewish state possible came via British sponsorship following WWII, but grew out of earlier efforts.
Culminating in 1948 was a two thousand year old dream for those of the Jewish Diaspora longing to return to their traditional homeland. The idea was first proclaimed officially at the Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland on August 31, 1897- a date that is coincidently shared with the birth of La Follette. Led by Theodor Herzl, the Congress hosted over two hundred participants from 17 countries.
The new nation of Israel, approximately the size of New Jersey, was viciously attacked shortly after becoming a state. It met this challenge, as it has all others, with a miraculous ability to survive and defeat its enemies. Israel truly has a unique history of attracting hatred. From the very beginning, going back to Abraham, there’s been enmity between Israel and Ishmael. The surrounding Arab nations have consistently launched attacks against Israel denying their right to exist! No matter what you think about Israel, honoring that requirement is rather difficult.
Friendship with Israel does not come cheaply. It has brought regular retaliations against America. Recent fliers found around Detroit proclaim threats to “"Kill Jews and Christians if they don't believe in Allah and Mohammad." This simple declaration from the Koran reveals all you need to know about the challenges we face.
I believe there’s an underlying spiritual animus that explains this visceral opposition. Israel and America represent the Old and New Testaments of God. Enemies of God have always existed and will always be infuriated by those who represent the authentic, unchanging truths of a Creator God who judges the world.
The Bible contains God’s promise that He will “bless those who bless Israel, and curse those who curse Israel,” Gen. 12:3. Implicit in that covenant is a fair warning to those who would take unyielding positions against Israel.
Can the Democrats be trusted on this issue?
Jimmy Carter proved his anti-Israel views recently in his book “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.” Fourteen Carter Center advisors resigned in protest.
Unbelievably, former PLO-leader Yasser Arafat was invited to the Clinton Whitehouse more than any other foreign figure! On one occasion Hillary even kissed Yasser’s wife after she made a speech denouncing Israel. Hillary has collected $50,000 from the American Muslim Alliance, a group that promotes terrorism against Israel. Bill has said, “Hillary’s really tight with the people in the PLO in New York [and] doesn’t like what Israel is up to.”
Former Democrat-candidate Wesley Clark has characterized support for Israel against Hezbollah as “a mistake.” Jesse Jackson, of course, has his “Hymietown” remark and Sen. Joe Biden has told Israeli officials that they would have to accept the idea of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons! That’s the country, by the way, vowing to wipe Israel off the map. Barack Obama calls Iran a “tiny threat.” Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who could be elected again next year, has a different view. He calls Iran the equivalent of Germany circa 1938.
Also, we must not forget Obama’s church of twenty years that is on friendly terms with the anti-Semitic, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan who calls Judaism a “gutter religion!” Obama’s church even printed a Hamas terror manifesto in one of their bulletins.
Conservatives have long kept faith with Israel over the years appreciating their common spiritual heritage. This Judeo-Christian foundation has sustained Western Civilization from the beginning.
At the time of this writing, Russia is sending ships and planes to Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela for military maneuvers. Russia is also assisting Iran in the construction of their nuclear facility. North Korea is unified with these nations suggesting an alliance that would be incomprehensible if not for the spiritual antipathy they share. Dictators, whether from Communist, Islamic or Liberal-Socialist governments, all find agreement in their common hatred of conservatives who seek to maintain a traditional view of God.
Recent polls in Israel are showing a preference for McCain over Obama by twenty points. McCain has a long history of support for Israel’s security. McCain’s running mate Gov. Palin reinforces this loyalty. She proudly proclaims her support by displaying an Israeli flag in her office! It’s comforting to know that in this landmark year for Israel there are at least some American politicians who are striving to maintain a healthy respect for Israel. (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Vice President Picks Reveal Candidates’ Judgment
The first decision a presidential candidate makes that reveals his or her capacity for good executive judgment is the choice for vice president. Since both candidates have now made their picks, how does this analysis stack up?
Sen. Obama chose Joe “the plagiarist” Biden and received no bounce in the polls. Despite the electoral logic of picking a running mate like Hillary who garnered 18 million primary votes, he chose an old-style, pre-Clintonian, Liberal Democrat from inside-the-beltway. Only five other Senators have been in the Senate longer than Biden and only two are more liberal! That’s hardly an endorsement for change.
It’s assumed that Obama made this pick for two reasons: (1) He and Michelle don’t like the Clintons; and, (2) Russia’s invasion of Georgia put Obama’s weakness of “foreign policy” back in the forefront.
Biden currently serves as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and has a long history of global involvement. Though his experience is quite extensive, one’s quantity of judgment shouldn’t matter as much as one’s quality of judgment.
Most recently, Biden championed a plan for Iraq that would have been disastrous. His idea, which was thoroughly rejected by the Iraqis, involved dividing Iraq into three new countries of Kurdish, Sunni and Shia control. It’s telling- that in today’s Democrat party, this kind of screwball thinking counts for superior foreign policy judgment!
Biden has been rejected by his party in both of his campaigns for president. This year, he couldn’t even get past Iowa where he finished fifth! Why would we suddenly believe now that he’d make a good president?
Perhaps the most revealing aspect about Obama’s choice is how it gives the lie to his mantra for “change” and “no more politics as usual.” Apparently, this rhetoric is as superficial as a Paris Hilton or Britney Spears photo op!
By contrast, Sen. McCain, “the Maverick,” made one of the most exciting and intriguing choices in the history of running mates! Choosing Alaskan Gov. Sarah Palin was a brilliant move. This choice emphatically demonstrates why John McCain’s judgment will bring authentic change and reform to Washington D.C.
Gov. Palin is a self-described “hockey mom.” She’s a 44 year-old mother of five, who earned her political success by taking on the corrupt “machine” of her own party! She challenged the previous governor in a Republican primary and won. Showing a McCain- like aversion to wasteful spending, she rejected the infamous, pork barrel project known as “the bridge to nowhere” and sold off the previous governor’s jet on Ebay.
Palin, a former Miss Alaska runner-up, is a committed Christian with prior-leadership in the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. She’s also a lifelong NRA member who loves to hunt and eat moose! She supports capital punishment, opposes homosexual marriage and believes strongly in creationism.
While in high school, Palin was the captain of her basketball team where she earned the nickname “Barracuda” for her toughness. She led her team to the state championship making the winning free throw on a broken ankle!
Palin is staunchly pro-life, having her last child following a diagnosis of Down syndrome. She’s a military mom with a son soon to be serving in Iraq. Most of all, she’s down to earth with a clear and trustworthy position on energy policies.
Palin began her career on the Wasilla town council in 1992 and was elected governor in 2006 where she immediately began a project to open a natural gas pipeline from the Northern Slope. She doesn’t believe in manmade Global Warming and is very much in favor of drilling in ANWR. Confident in her assessment of Alaska’s true resources, she has sued the Federal Government to remove the polar bear from the endangered species list before it jeopardizes any further energy projects.
Her public support in Alaska is impressive with an approval rating of over 80 percent.
Palin is similar to another underestimated, popular, conservative governor: Ronald Reagan. She once was a sports broadcaster and comes from a western state known for its rugged individualism and love of freedom. She has cut property taxes by 40% and is a reformer who refuses to accept the failings of the status quo establishment.
McCain has done more than show superior judgment with this pick, he has galvanized his base- something many thought impossible! On the day of his announcement, campaign contributions quadrupled. After the second day, a total of ten million dollars had been added to McCain’s coffers, proving that the Palin-choice had indeed energized the base!
The future of America this campaign year may yet belong to those wanting to “break the glass ceiling” with the first woman vice president in U.S. history- America’s own “Iron Lady from the Last Frontier!” (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757.)
Sen. Obama chose Joe “the plagiarist” Biden and received no bounce in the polls. Despite the electoral logic of picking a running mate like Hillary who garnered 18 million primary votes, he chose an old-style, pre-Clintonian, Liberal Democrat from inside-the-beltway. Only five other Senators have been in the Senate longer than Biden and only two are more liberal! That’s hardly an endorsement for change.
It’s assumed that Obama made this pick for two reasons: (1) He and Michelle don’t like the Clintons; and, (2) Russia’s invasion of Georgia put Obama’s weakness of “foreign policy” back in the forefront.
Biden currently serves as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and has a long history of global involvement. Though his experience is quite extensive, one’s quantity of judgment shouldn’t matter as much as one’s quality of judgment.
Most recently, Biden championed a plan for Iraq that would have been disastrous. His idea, which was thoroughly rejected by the Iraqis, involved dividing Iraq into three new countries of Kurdish, Sunni and Shia control. It’s telling- that in today’s Democrat party, this kind of screwball thinking counts for superior foreign policy judgment!
Biden has been rejected by his party in both of his campaigns for president. This year, he couldn’t even get past Iowa where he finished fifth! Why would we suddenly believe now that he’d make a good president?
Perhaps the most revealing aspect about Obama’s choice is how it gives the lie to his mantra for “change” and “no more politics as usual.” Apparently, this rhetoric is as superficial as a Paris Hilton or Britney Spears photo op!
By contrast, Sen. McCain, “the Maverick,” made one of the most exciting and intriguing choices in the history of running mates! Choosing Alaskan Gov. Sarah Palin was a brilliant move. This choice emphatically demonstrates why John McCain’s judgment will bring authentic change and reform to Washington D.C.
Gov. Palin is a self-described “hockey mom.” She’s a 44 year-old mother of five, who earned her political success by taking on the corrupt “machine” of her own party! She challenged the previous governor in a Republican primary and won. Showing a McCain- like aversion to wasteful spending, she rejected the infamous, pork barrel project known as “the bridge to nowhere” and sold off the previous governor’s jet on Ebay.
Palin, a former Miss Alaska runner-up, is a committed Christian with prior-leadership in the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. She’s also a lifelong NRA member who loves to hunt and eat moose! She supports capital punishment, opposes homosexual marriage and believes strongly in creationism.
While in high school, Palin was the captain of her basketball team where she earned the nickname “Barracuda” for her toughness. She led her team to the state championship making the winning free throw on a broken ankle!
Palin is staunchly pro-life, having her last child following a diagnosis of Down syndrome. She’s a military mom with a son soon to be serving in Iraq. Most of all, she’s down to earth with a clear and trustworthy position on energy policies.
Palin began her career on the Wasilla town council in 1992 and was elected governor in 2006 where she immediately began a project to open a natural gas pipeline from the Northern Slope. She doesn’t believe in manmade Global Warming and is very much in favor of drilling in ANWR. Confident in her assessment of Alaska’s true resources, she has sued the Federal Government to remove the polar bear from the endangered species list before it jeopardizes any further energy projects.
Her public support in Alaska is impressive with an approval rating of over 80 percent.
Palin is similar to another underestimated, popular, conservative governor: Ronald Reagan. She once was a sports broadcaster and comes from a western state known for its rugged individualism and love of freedom. She has cut property taxes by 40% and is a reformer who refuses to accept the failings of the status quo establishment.
McCain has done more than show superior judgment with this pick, he has galvanized his base- something many thought impossible! On the day of his announcement, campaign contributions quadrupled. After the second day, a total of ten million dollars had been added to McCain’s coffers, proving that the Palin-choice had indeed energized the base!
The future of America this campaign year may yet belong to those wanting to “break the glass ceiling” with the first woman vice president in U.S. history- America’s own “Iron Lady from the Last Frontier!” (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757.)
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
This Foolish Business of Oil
There is plenty of oil. If certain people wanted to, they could release enough supplies to bring the price of gas down to a dollar per gallon. Hard to believe? Well, google Lindsey Williams and see for yourself. Much of his testimony was recently verified on the Glenn Beck show by former Nixon aide Kevin Phillips. So, why don’t the Powers That Be allow the oil to be brought to market? That is the $64,000 question-- or in today’s inflated dollars-- the $384,000 question.
In Alaska one doesn’t have to go drilling in the environmentally protected region of ANWR to retrieve all the oil we need. There are huge reserves, as large as those in Saudi Arabia, along the North Slope, Prudhoe Bay and around Gull Island. If this is the reality, then one would naturally wonder why we aren’t drilling there now. There is a reason, and it involves the old nemesis of the Money Changers.
Put simply, we find ourselves in this predicament because securing an external support for our debt-based monetary system is more important than providing Americans with cheap oil. At least that’s the issue proving to be more important to certain interests currently involved in manipulating the dollar.
In 1971, for various reasons, Nixon took us off the gold standard. Since that time our currency has floated more or less freely as determined by market forces. Expanding the money supply was part of the plan, thus making the dollar the de facto currency of the world. But, each time our Central Bank (the Federal Reserve) has desired to inflate the dollar- as it must inherently do- they find themselves in need of more and more folks to buy the necessary U.S. debt that underwrites its creation.
What most people don’t realize is that: for every new dollar that comes into existence there’s an additional dollar plus interest in debt that comes attached. With this understanding you now know why it is impossible for us to ever eliminate our national debt. To do so, would be to effectively extinguish the very existence of our money. In fact, there doesn’t even exist enough currency in the world to pay off our debt if we wanted to. Think about that astonishing truth for a second.
So, to enlarge the game and entice foreign investors to buy our taxpayer-backed, “government securities,” former Sect. of State Henry Kissinger made a fateful trip to the Mideast in the early 70s to work out an arrangement.
As the story goes, Henry offered the OPEC Nations a deal they couldn’t refuse. They would become rich beyond their wildest dreams if they did two things: (1) denominate the selling of their oil on the world market in dollars; and, (2) buy our national debt. In exchange, we promised to buy oil from them in huge quantities. Naturally, if we ever stopped buying their oil in sufficient amounts because we decided to use our own oil, they’d be free to use another currency and stop buying the debt we need to keep our economy afloat.
The euro stands now as the best candidate to one day overthrow the dollar as the currency of choice for the global economy. Of course, if that happens the ever-expanding debt-based dollar will begin its inevitable and catastrophic decline. What the bank interests have done is create a bubble of unsustainable inflation, coupled with debt obligations that must ultimately do one of two things. Either it will grow and spread its virus around the globe until it infects every economy with its doomsday malignancy, or it will lose value precipitously as the nations of the world wise-up and opt for a better, more stable currency for their wealth holdings. It’s interesting to note that Iran has been hinting of late that they may soon begin selling their anticipated, new oil production in euros.
The game now all turns on one principle factor. Many modern economies outside the U.S. have geared their industries almost completely towards satisfying American consumers. Therefore, they are dependent upon a large export business, which necessarily relies upon a relatively weak euro. The minute investors start fleeing the dollar for a stronger, non-inflationary euro the exchange rate becomes unfavorable to their export business. As a result, proponents of a strong euro back down thereby prolonging the dollar’s final Judgment Day. The good news, if there is any, is that we get to import their tangible assets of real value with cheaper and cheaper dollars. One day, however, this speculative swindle of “shaving the shekel” will ultimately, and justly, come to a merciful end.
To further understand the corrupting “debt virus” problem of our dollar visit MoneyMasters.com and click on the Milton Friedman-endorsed Monetary Reform Act. It’s the only solution that can reasonably save our economic future. (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)
In Alaska one doesn’t have to go drilling in the environmentally protected region of ANWR to retrieve all the oil we need. There are huge reserves, as large as those in Saudi Arabia, along the North Slope, Prudhoe Bay and around Gull Island. If this is the reality, then one would naturally wonder why we aren’t drilling there now. There is a reason, and it involves the old nemesis of the Money Changers.
Put simply, we find ourselves in this predicament because securing an external support for our debt-based monetary system is more important than providing Americans with cheap oil. At least that’s the issue proving to be more important to certain interests currently involved in manipulating the dollar.
In 1971, for various reasons, Nixon took us off the gold standard. Since that time our currency has floated more or less freely as determined by market forces. Expanding the money supply was part of the plan, thus making the dollar the de facto currency of the world. But, each time our Central Bank (the Federal Reserve) has desired to inflate the dollar- as it must inherently do- they find themselves in need of more and more folks to buy the necessary U.S. debt that underwrites its creation.
What most people don’t realize is that: for every new dollar that comes into existence there’s an additional dollar plus interest in debt that comes attached. With this understanding you now know why it is impossible for us to ever eliminate our national debt. To do so, would be to effectively extinguish the very existence of our money. In fact, there doesn’t even exist enough currency in the world to pay off our debt if we wanted to. Think about that astonishing truth for a second.
So, to enlarge the game and entice foreign investors to buy our taxpayer-backed, “government securities,” former Sect. of State Henry Kissinger made a fateful trip to the Mideast in the early 70s to work out an arrangement.
As the story goes, Henry offered the OPEC Nations a deal they couldn’t refuse. They would become rich beyond their wildest dreams if they did two things: (1) denominate the selling of their oil on the world market in dollars; and, (2) buy our national debt. In exchange, we promised to buy oil from them in huge quantities. Naturally, if we ever stopped buying their oil in sufficient amounts because we decided to use our own oil, they’d be free to use another currency and stop buying the debt we need to keep our economy afloat.
The euro stands now as the best candidate to one day overthrow the dollar as the currency of choice for the global economy. Of course, if that happens the ever-expanding debt-based dollar will begin its inevitable and catastrophic decline. What the bank interests have done is create a bubble of unsustainable inflation, coupled with debt obligations that must ultimately do one of two things. Either it will grow and spread its virus around the globe until it infects every economy with its doomsday malignancy, or it will lose value precipitously as the nations of the world wise-up and opt for a better, more stable currency for their wealth holdings. It’s interesting to note that Iran has been hinting of late that they may soon begin selling their anticipated, new oil production in euros.
The game now all turns on one principle factor. Many modern economies outside the U.S. have geared their industries almost completely towards satisfying American consumers. Therefore, they are dependent upon a large export business, which necessarily relies upon a relatively weak euro. The minute investors start fleeing the dollar for a stronger, non-inflationary euro the exchange rate becomes unfavorable to their export business. As a result, proponents of a strong euro back down thereby prolonging the dollar’s final Judgment Day. The good news, if there is any, is that we get to import their tangible assets of real value with cheaper and cheaper dollars. One day, however, this speculative swindle of “shaving the shekel” will ultimately, and justly, come to a merciful end.
To further understand the corrupting “debt virus” problem of our dollar visit MoneyMasters.com and click on the Milton Friedman-endorsed Monetary Reform Act. It’s the only solution that can reasonably save our economic future. (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Holiday Drill
Congress is getting ready to go on vacation. I hope they’re not planning on going very far. Whether it’s filling their tank or getting a flight, either way traveling is a real problem nowadays with the rising cost of fuel. In their desperation, some airlines have petitioned congress recently to do something or watch them go out of business.
Since taking over after the ’06 election this Democrat congress has done nothing. It’s enough to make Harry Truman roll over in his grave. Oh, they have named a whole bunch of post offices and given tributes to ball teams for successful seasons, but that’s about it. Now, with this oil crisis wreaking havoc the best they can offer is an arrogant and misleading critique of the oil companies.
Democrat representative Heath Schuler gave an impassioned speech the other day complaining that it’s the oil companies fault for not supplying enough oil. The nerve of the guy! Why is it that these politicians think they know so much about everything! Well, at least their admitting there’s a “supply” issue involved.
Schuler was towing the party line that oil companies don’t need relief in seeking new drilling opportunities off the gulf coast or in Alaska because they have all these leases, you see, on land they’re not developing. Liberals want oil companies to drill where there’s no oil. That sounds like a plan. Are we suppose to be impressed?
These leases are on lands that have a number of issues for why they are not being drilled. Some are strategic, some have already been drilled, some are being further explored, etc. The geologists who know more than the likes of Schuler have determined that there are more dependable and accessible oil reserves in places like the outer continental shelf. That’s why, last week President Bush authorized the lifting of the executive ban on offshore drilling. The unfortunate reality is that congress has a ban too, and Pelosi and company aren’t budging one bit. They’re too busy making vacation plans!
Many folks have complained about the speculators driving up the price of oil. What they have missed is how speculators can also drive down the price of oil. Democrats, besides impersonating geologists and presuming to instruct oil companies on where they should drill, have been saying in unison how it will take twenty years before we see one drop of that oil, and consequently, a drop in price. That is another extraordinary fabrication created for no other reason than political expediency to aid and abet Democrat election strategies.
Most estimates concur that it would be more like 3 years before new drilling operations yield production. However, we saw just this last week how fast the price of oil can be affected. After President Bush’s call to lift the ban on offshore drilling, the speculation started moving in the opposite direction without one drop of oil actually existing. You see, markets respond based on predictions for future supply and demand, not just on what’s currently available. As a result of oil prices moving back a little, the stock market enjoyed a nice rally. All of this on a modest executive proposal that shows a little leadership. You would think Pelosi, Schuler and other Democrats would get the message.
Politics is about accessing and holding on to power. The Democrats know that the voters blame the White House (Bush and the Republicans) for the current high gas prices. If they were to take responsible action now to lead our country to a better economic position regarding oil, they would be undermining their own chances at achieving better electoral results this November. Pelosi and company are counting on the American people being too stupid to figure this out. So, when you think of drilling- you should think of how this Democrat congress is drilling you! (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)
Since taking over after the ’06 election this Democrat congress has done nothing. It’s enough to make Harry Truman roll over in his grave. Oh, they have named a whole bunch of post offices and given tributes to ball teams for successful seasons, but that’s about it. Now, with this oil crisis wreaking havoc the best they can offer is an arrogant and misleading critique of the oil companies.
Democrat representative Heath Schuler gave an impassioned speech the other day complaining that it’s the oil companies fault for not supplying enough oil. The nerve of the guy! Why is it that these politicians think they know so much about everything! Well, at least their admitting there’s a “supply” issue involved.
Schuler was towing the party line that oil companies don’t need relief in seeking new drilling opportunities off the gulf coast or in Alaska because they have all these leases, you see, on land they’re not developing. Liberals want oil companies to drill where there’s no oil. That sounds like a plan. Are we suppose to be impressed?
These leases are on lands that have a number of issues for why they are not being drilled. Some are strategic, some have already been drilled, some are being further explored, etc. The geologists who know more than the likes of Schuler have determined that there are more dependable and accessible oil reserves in places like the outer continental shelf. That’s why, last week President Bush authorized the lifting of the executive ban on offshore drilling. The unfortunate reality is that congress has a ban too, and Pelosi and company aren’t budging one bit. They’re too busy making vacation plans!
Many folks have complained about the speculators driving up the price of oil. What they have missed is how speculators can also drive down the price of oil. Democrats, besides impersonating geologists and presuming to instruct oil companies on where they should drill, have been saying in unison how it will take twenty years before we see one drop of that oil, and consequently, a drop in price. That is another extraordinary fabrication created for no other reason than political expediency to aid and abet Democrat election strategies.
Most estimates concur that it would be more like 3 years before new drilling operations yield production. However, we saw just this last week how fast the price of oil can be affected. After President Bush’s call to lift the ban on offshore drilling, the speculation started moving in the opposite direction without one drop of oil actually existing. You see, markets respond based on predictions for future supply and demand, not just on what’s currently available. As a result of oil prices moving back a little, the stock market enjoyed a nice rally. All of this on a modest executive proposal that shows a little leadership. You would think Pelosi, Schuler and other Democrats would get the message.
Politics is about accessing and holding on to power. The Democrats know that the voters blame the White House (Bush and the Republicans) for the current high gas prices. If they were to take responsible action now to lead our country to a better economic position regarding oil, they would be undermining their own chances at achieving better electoral results this November. Pelosi and company are counting on the American people being too stupid to figure this out. So, when you think of drilling- you should think of how this Democrat congress is drilling you! (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)
Thursday, July 10, 2008
The Red, White and Confused
Last week Barack Obama delivered a speech on patriotism in Independence, Mo. It was a fairly innocuous speech filled with various feel-good expressions, but it was the context surrounding the speech that proved to be the real story for this 4th of July campaign season.
The day before Obama’s tightly scripted appearance in Independence, Mo. a surrogate for the Obama Campaign, Gen. Wesley Clark, appeared on the CBS program “Face the Nation” and launched a shameless attack on John McCain:
“I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.”
Clark, who was a Democrat candidate for president in 2004, tried to clarify what he meant but only dug himself in deeper. He said McCain didn’t “understand [taking] risks” or “matters of being held accountable.” He belittled McCain’s Vietnam experience by saying he “wasn’t in a wartime squadron.” I would think that’s highly debatable since McCain was shot down on a dive bombing combat mission over Hanoi by an enemy who held him captive for 5 1/2 years. Let’s review, shall we?
In 1967, after requesting a combat assignment as a naval aviator, McCain was flying his 23rd mission in an A-4E Skyhawk when a Russian-made missile sheared off one of his wings. He ejected out of a tailspin from 4,500 ft. breaking his leg and both his arms in the process. He landed in a small lake and almost drowned before struggling ashore with crippling injuries and the weight of his gear. After a few moments, he was greeted by a group of North Vietnamese communists who smashed his shoulder with a rifle stock and stabbed his foot with a bayonet. The captors denied him medical treatment compounding the trauma of his injuries McCain spent the next 5 ½ years in a North Vietnamese prison, (nicknamed the “Hanoi Hilton” by American POWs). There he endured incredible hardships and withstood torturous interrogations that would make Abu Ghraib look like a picnic. He was routinely bound with ropes and beaten by the communists. In further attempts to break his will, they placed him in solitary confinement for over two years. During his captivity he was given an offer to be repatriated but bravely refused, preferring instead to remain with his fellow soldiers. McCain, to this day, carries debilitating wounds resulting from this brutal treatment.
McCain’s experience, far from being a detriment, seems to me to be an asset for leadership. His perseverance and commitment, on the part of his country, would appear to be worthwhile qualifications by anyone’s standard of leadership.
Clark hasn’t backed down from his attack and continues to question the integrity of John McCain. It’s interesting to note that President Clinton and Defense Secretary William Cohen removed Clark from his NATO leadership position in Kosovo exactly because of bad judgment. Clark’s reckless actions almost caused WWIII when he ordered a British General to shoot Russian troops upon an unauthorized landing at the Kosovo airport. According to Gen. Hugh Shelton, “the reason [Clark] came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues,” the very things Clark now claims to be an authority on.
To complete the charade, another Obama surrogate, Sen. Jim Webb, appeared on MSNBC’s “Countdown” the same day, right on cue, warning Republicans to avoid using military service in politics and instructing John McCain to “calm down.”
What did McCain say? Did he fly off the handle in responding to Clark? No, McCain had made a very simple statement declaring the comments “unnecessary” and unhelpful because they don’t “reduce the price of a gallon of gas by one penny.”
So, Webb’s choice of words begs the question: was this a set-up? It would appear so. A few days later Bill Clinton awkwardly got himself into the debate saying, “anybody who’s ever been a POW for any length of time, you will see…go along for months or maybe even years, and then something will happen and it will trigger all those bad dreams and they will come back.”
Most folks are aware that McCain has a temper and I believe this was a planned strategy on the part of the Obama campaign attempting to neutralize McCain on military and patriotism issues because this is where they feel the most vulnerable.
Whatever you may think of McCain’s other qualifications for president, his wartime sacrifice should be respected and honored. While others may strive to satisfy their own patriotic qualifications, let us not impugn someone like John McCain who’s very actions define what it means to be a patriot. (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)
The day before Obama’s tightly scripted appearance in Independence, Mo. a surrogate for the Obama Campaign, Gen. Wesley Clark, appeared on the CBS program “Face the Nation” and launched a shameless attack on John McCain:
“I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.”
Clark, who was a Democrat candidate for president in 2004, tried to clarify what he meant but only dug himself in deeper. He said McCain didn’t “understand [taking] risks” or “matters of being held accountable.” He belittled McCain’s Vietnam experience by saying he “wasn’t in a wartime squadron.” I would think that’s highly debatable since McCain was shot down on a dive bombing combat mission over Hanoi by an enemy who held him captive for 5 1/2 years. Let’s review, shall we?
In 1967, after requesting a combat assignment as a naval aviator, McCain was flying his 23rd mission in an A-4E Skyhawk when a Russian-made missile sheared off one of his wings. He ejected out of a tailspin from 4,500 ft. breaking his leg and both his arms in the process. He landed in a small lake and almost drowned before struggling ashore with crippling injuries and the weight of his gear. After a few moments, he was greeted by a group of North Vietnamese communists who smashed his shoulder with a rifle stock and stabbed his foot with a bayonet. The captors denied him medical treatment compounding the trauma of his injuries McCain spent the next 5 ½ years in a North Vietnamese prison, (nicknamed the “Hanoi Hilton” by American POWs). There he endured incredible hardships and withstood torturous interrogations that would make Abu Ghraib look like a picnic. He was routinely bound with ropes and beaten by the communists. In further attempts to break his will, they placed him in solitary confinement for over two years. During his captivity he was given an offer to be repatriated but bravely refused, preferring instead to remain with his fellow soldiers. McCain, to this day, carries debilitating wounds resulting from this brutal treatment.
McCain’s experience, far from being a detriment, seems to me to be an asset for leadership. His perseverance and commitment, on the part of his country, would appear to be worthwhile qualifications by anyone’s standard of leadership.
Clark hasn’t backed down from his attack and continues to question the integrity of John McCain. It’s interesting to note that President Clinton and Defense Secretary William Cohen removed Clark from his NATO leadership position in Kosovo exactly because of bad judgment. Clark’s reckless actions almost caused WWIII when he ordered a British General to shoot Russian troops upon an unauthorized landing at the Kosovo airport. According to Gen. Hugh Shelton, “the reason [Clark] came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues,” the very things Clark now claims to be an authority on.
To complete the charade, another Obama surrogate, Sen. Jim Webb, appeared on MSNBC’s “Countdown” the same day, right on cue, warning Republicans to avoid using military service in politics and instructing John McCain to “calm down.”
What did McCain say? Did he fly off the handle in responding to Clark? No, McCain had made a very simple statement declaring the comments “unnecessary” and unhelpful because they don’t “reduce the price of a gallon of gas by one penny.”
So, Webb’s choice of words begs the question: was this a set-up? It would appear so. A few days later Bill Clinton awkwardly got himself into the debate saying, “anybody who’s ever been a POW for any length of time, you will see…go along for months or maybe even years, and then something will happen and it will trigger all those bad dreams and they will come back.”
Most folks are aware that McCain has a temper and I believe this was a planned strategy on the part of the Obama campaign attempting to neutralize McCain on military and patriotism issues because this is where they feel the most vulnerable.
Whatever you may think of McCain’s other qualifications for president, his wartime sacrifice should be respected and honored. While others may strive to satisfy their own patriotic qualifications, let us not impugn someone like John McCain who’s very actions define what it means to be a patriot. (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)
Thursday, June 26, 2008
GITMO Decision
Who should get the benefit of the doubt: our own American Military or suspected terrorists plotting our destruction? According to a 5 to 4 ruling by the Supreme Court on June 12, it’s the terrorists! This decision in the Boumediene v. Bush case is the first-ever application of a constitutional right of habeas corpus in American history for alien combatants held abroad in the course of an ongoing war. The “wisdom” of the Court now decrees that these foreign, enemy combatants, (POWs), are to be treated like U.S. citizens and have the protection of habeas corpus along with all of the other attending benefits of our civil court system. Can you imagine?
It’s insane to contemplate just where the liberals will take this ruling: yellow crime tape in the battlefield, arrest warrants for Osama bin Laden, reading Miranda rights to suicide bombers, granting the right of discovery, calling soldiers as witnesses, filing endless briefs and offering endless appeals! It will practically nullify our ability to prosecute the War on Terror, leaving our nation and our soldiers open to more deadly attacks.
Al Qaeda, decimated on the field of battle by our troops and demoralized by the growing success of the Surge, has just received a big shot in the arm. Hooray for justices Kennedy, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer coming to the rescue just in time! The liberal wing of the Court has just demonstrated to you why the next presidential election is so desperately important. The swing of just one vote can make a huge difference. It’s expected that at least two justices will likely be replaced in the next presidential term. Obama is on record fully supporting this decision, whereas McCain has called it one of the worst decisions in history. Remember, McCain has promised to appoint justices like Alito and Roberts: two of the dissenters in this case.
Why is this so crucial? The first responsibility of government is the protection of the people. There’s an important and vital difference between the military and domestic law enforcement. History is replete with example after example of how governments, in times of great peril, resort to the appropriate measures of self-preservation and survival. Suspending habeas corpus represents a requirement of the higher law that grants to the state certain privileges of self-defense in face of rebellion, insurrection or national emergency. Desperate times, do indeed, call for desperate measures. It’s apparent, that the common sense of this necessity is well beyond the comprehension of most liberal, activist judges who care more about “process” than “getting the bad guy.” They seem to always frustrate justice by hiding it somewhere, cleverly, in the fine print of the law.
To examine this properly, it’s important to realize how this whole Guantanamo Bay mess got started. Once the military engagement began in Afghanistan, following 9/11, we started collecting enemy combatants on the field of battle and needed some place to hold them. That’s when the Naval Base (GITMO) at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba was established.
This is where the 9/11 terrorists were detained, including the confessed mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The attack of 9/11 wasn’t a bank robbery that should be treated like some law enforcement issue. That’s the way Bill Clinton, the ACLU and other liberals would like to conduct our response to the worst attack ever on American soil. This Supreme Court ruling, which puts foreign militants in the category of shoplifters, will undoubtedly cost American lives. Dissenting Justice Scalia warned “it will make the war harder on us, and almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.” Major Kyndra Rotunda, a former Member of the GITMO prosecution team, said the decision “will lead to more dead Americans.” She went on to say, “we already know 5 to 10% of these released end up back on the battlefield interfering with the mission in Iraq. With this ruling we could end up with that ten fold.”
At least 30 of the estimated 395 detainees who have been released from Guantanamo Bay returned to Afghanistan to engage in further hostilities against Coalition forces. One promptly resumed his post as a senior Taliban commander and murdered a UN engineer and three Afghan soldiers. Another murdered an Afghan judge. And, last March, Abdallah Salih al-Ajmi, after being released from GITMO, launched a suicide attack in Mosul.
Since the beginning of the Afghanistan war in 2002, 775 enemy combatants have been brought to GITMO. None of them are American citizens or legal residents. Approximately 240, or just 30%, now remain. More than one fifth have been cleared, but the U.S. officials can’t find a country that’s willing to take them. So, it’s wrong to think that this situation has not been getting resolved, over time, with due process.
The ACLU, the UN and Human Rights organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch believe we are engaging in torture simply by having an indefinite period of detention for these enemy combatants. The ACLU has been suing the military to obtain the GITMO manual. The fact is, the detainees receive the most systematic and extensive procedural protections afforded to foreign enemy combatants in the history of armed conflict, including unprecedented access to legal representation and U.S. courts. Even the Geneva Conventions require that combatants be released from custody only “after the cessation of active hostilities.” How would Obama suggest that we keep these individuals, once released, from returning to the battlefield?
Detainees at Guantanamo Bay actually have it pretty good. They have received more procedural protections ensuring the fairness of their detention than any foreign enemy combatant in any armed conflict in the history of warfare. Chief Justice Roberts termed it “the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants.” Detainees have the right to appointed counsel, the right to a summary of the evidence, the right to attend all open portions of the tribunal proceedings, the opportunity to call witnesses, the right to cross-examine and the right to testify. They are judged by a neutral panel of three commissioned officers who make a determination by majority vote on the preponderance of the evidence. These procedures go far beyond what most nations provide and what the Geneva Conventions require.
The GITMO detainees are afforded several considerations. They are provided with Muslim diets, prayer caps, prayer beads, prayer rugs, arrows in their cells pointing to Mecca, calls to prayer five times a day with guards “standing down” out of respect, and up to 22 hours of daily recreation.
What the Supreme Court has done is inexcusable. It will make our war effort much more difficult and jeopardize the lives of our military personnel. This decision will force attorneys to release evidence against enemy combatants to the terrorists’ own lawyers. Detainees will have a legal right of access to classified information. It has emboldened our enemy at a time when we have them on the run. It has put every American at risk from some new terrorist attack within our borders. Keeping the people safe is the first, and most important, job of government. This November, it would serve us well to vote for candidates who will help, not hinder, the proper defense of our great nation! (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)
It’s insane to contemplate just where the liberals will take this ruling: yellow crime tape in the battlefield, arrest warrants for Osama bin Laden, reading Miranda rights to suicide bombers, granting the right of discovery, calling soldiers as witnesses, filing endless briefs and offering endless appeals! It will practically nullify our ability to prosecute the War on Terror, leaving our nation and our soldiers open to more deadly attacks.
Al Qaeda, decimated on the field of battle by our troops and demoralized by the growing success of the Surge, has just received a big shot in the arm. Hooray for justices Kennedy, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer coming to the rescue just in time! The liberal wing of the Court has just demonstrated to you why the next presidential election is so desperately important. The swing of just one vote can make a huge difference. It’s expected that at least two justices will likely be replaced in the next presidential term. Obama is on record fully supporting this decision, whereas McCain has called it one of the worst decisions in history. Remember, McCain has promised to appoint justices like Alito and Roberts: two of the dissenters in this case.
Why is this so crucial? The first responsibility of government is the protection of the people. There’s an important and vital difference between the military and domestic law enforcement. History is replete with example after example of how governments, in times of great peril, resort to the appropriate measures of self-preservation and survival. Suspending habeas corpus represents a requirement of the higher law that grants to the state certain privileges of self-defense in face of rebellion, insurrection or national emergency. Desperate times, do indeed, call for desperate measures. It’s apparent, that the common sense of this necessity is well beyond the comprehension of most liberal, activist judges who care more about “process” than “getting the bad guy.” They seem to always frustrate justice by hiding it somewhere, cleverly, in the fine print of the law.
To examine this properly, it’s important to realize how this whole Guantanamo Bay mess got started. Once the military engagement began in Afghanistan, following 9/11, we started collecting enemy combatants on the field of battle and needed some place to hold them. That’s when the Naval Base (GITMO) at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba was established.
This is where the 9/11 terrorists were detained, including the confessed mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The attack of 9/11 wasn’t a bank robbery that should be treated like some law enforcement issue. That’s the way Bill Clinton, the ACLU and other liberals would like to conduct our response to the worst attack ever on American soil. This Supreme Court ruling, which puts foreign militants in the category of shoplifters, will undoubtedly cost American lives. Dissenting Justice Scalia warned “it will make the war harder on us, and almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.” Major Kyndra Rotunda, a former Member of the GITMO prosecution team, said the decision “will lead to more dead Americans.” She went on to say, “we already know 5 to 10% of these released end up back on the battlefield interfering with the mission in Iraq. With this ruling we could end up with that ten fold.”
At least 30 of the estimated 395 detainees who have been released from Guantanamo Bay returned to Afghanistan to engage in further hostilities against Coalition forces. One promptly resumed his post as a senior Taliban commander and murdered a UN engineer and three Afghan soldiers. Another murdered an Afghan judge. And, last March, Abdallah Salih al-Ajmi, after being released from GITMO, launched a suicide attack in Mosul.
Since the beginning of the Afghanistan war in 2002, 775 enemy combatants have been brought to GITMO. None of them are American citizens or legal residents. Approximately 240, or just 30%, now remain. More than one fifth have been cleared, but the U.S. officials can’t find a country that’s willing to take them. So, it’s wrong to think that this situation has not been getting resolved, over time, with due process.
The ACLU, the UN and Human Rights organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch believe we are engaging in torture simply by having an indefinite period of detention for these enemy combatants. The ACLU has been suing the military to obtain the GITMO manual. The fact is, the detainees receive the most systematic and extensive procedural protections afforded to foreign enemy combatants in the history of armed conflict, including unprecedented access to legal representation and U.S. courts. Even the Geneva Conventions require that combatants be released from custody only “after the cessation of active hostilities.” How would Obama suggest that we keep these individuals, once released, from returning to the battlefield?
Detainees at Guantanamo Bay actually have it pretty good. They have received more procedural protections ensuring the fairness of their detention than any foreign enemy combatant in any armed conflict in the history of warfare. Chief Justice Roberts termed it “the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants.” Detainees have the right to appointed counsel, the right to a summary of the evidence, the right to attend all open portions of the tribunal proceedings, the opportunity to call witnesses, the right to cross-examine and the right to testify. They are judged by a neutral panel of three commissioned officers who make a determination by majority vote on the preponderance of the evidence. These procedures go far beyond what most nations provide and what the Geneva Conventions require.
The GITMO detainees are afforded several considerations. They are provided with Muslim diets, prayer caps, prayer beads, prayer rugs, arrows in their cells pointing to Mecca, calls to prayer five times a day with guards “standing down” out of respect, and up to 22 hours of daily recreation.
What the Supreme Court has done is inexcusable. It will make our war effort much more difficult and jeopardize the lives of our military personnel. This decision will force attorneys to release evidence against enemy combatants to the terrorists’ own lawyers. Detainees will have a legal right of access to classified information. It has emboldened our enemy at a time when we have them on the run. It has put every American at risk from some new terrorist attack within our borders. Keeping the people safe is the first, and most important, job of government. This November, it would serve us well to vote for candidates who will help, not hinder, the proper defense of our great nation! (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)
Thursday, June 19, 2008
To Tax or Not To Tax
This is the question: Can the answers to all of the world’s problems be solved with a wealth-destroying tax? Liberals seem to think so.
Back in 1993, Bill Clinton proposed a multi-billion dollar value-added tax, (VAT), but we thankfully dodged that bullet when it died a merciful death in Congress. It was designed to help pay for Hillary-Care and the anticipated high cost of Free, Universal Healthcare, or Socialized Medicine. The VAT is a broad-based consumption tax which has been used for decades by the Socialists in Europe. It’s something that Liberals in this country have always admired despite evidence which shows its devastation upon entrepreneurial activity and economic growth. Well, don’t look now, but here it comes again.
The UN has lobbied for a Global Tax for years out of interest in paying for all of their Global Utopian schemes. Never mind the fact that these programs don’t work and that the UN is a corrupt organization which routinely votes against America’s interests. That’s beside the point. The Liberals are quick to protest that such “nuances” are nothing compared to the do-gooder “warm and fuzzies” we’re all sure to feel by disengaging our minds and disemboweling our wallets!
UN representative Jeffrey Sachs, Director of the Earth Institute, is part of this New Age, “enlightened” crowd that is working to alleviate global poverty through another round of government-controlled wealth redistribution. Sound familiar? It should, it’s a rehash of LBJ’s “Great Society” programs, and we all know how well that turned out! Well, this time, the scam is much larger, much more Marxist, and fully supported by a much more popular politician- Barack Obama, the presumptive Democrat-nominee for president.
Sachs has said, “the only way to raise the kind of money needed, [$845 Billion], to fight Global Poverty is through a Global Tax, preferably one aimed at carbon-emitting fossil fuels.”
Obama recently sponsored a bill, “the Global Poverty Act,” (S. 2433) which serves as the perfect blueprint for this colossal, new government activism. His bill, to “fight world poverty,” commits .7 % of our nation’s GDP every year to the whims of UN managers. But, it doesn’t stop there with the imposition of another failed wealth redistribution scheme, it also includes a wiz bang provision to ban all small arms and light weapons! Presumably, these would be exactly the type of weapons individuals might choose for their own God-given Right to self-protection. For UN promoters, a policy of gun confiscation is almost as cherished as more taxes. These are the type of weapons, ironically enough, that Congolese women could be using right now to defend themselves from those pesky, unwanted advances made by UN soldiers. Mustn’t worry about that though, we have a Global Mercy Mission to launch! Pass the blindfold and “soak the rich.” Liberalism’s chief benefit remains- No Time To Think.
The U.S. Senate, sensing the apparent rise of this new wave of pro-Government enthusiasm, just voted for cloture on the Lieberman-Warren Climate Security Act, aka “Cap and Trade.” I guess, it’s open season now on the American Taxpayer. Who knew? Politics is the only endeavor I know of in nature where “the hunted” give routine aid and comfort to “the hunters!” This proposed annual cap on greenhouse gases- with the added feature of transferable restrictions- amounts to the “mother of all carbon taxes,” ala Jeffrey Sachs. Fortunately, it has stalled for the time being, but the danger is far from over.
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the cost of compliance for this tax would be $90 Billion per year by 2012. Our losses in GDP for years 2010 through 2030 would range from $1.7 to $4.8 Trillion! It would also cost one million jobs by 2022, and would create a spike in energy costs adding another $1.10 to gas prices. As a bonus for all the do-gooders out there, it would create five, brand new, government bureaucracies to cheer for as they manage all of this capital destruction. Yea!
None of this makes sense. Europe has already tried these initiatives and they have proven disastrous for their economies. The insanity of it all is that it won’t make any difference. We’re looking at trillions of dollars wasted for nothing. Countries like China and India are developing quickly, using more and more fossil fuels and they would not be subject to any of these carbon restrictions- that is, assuming there’s any real benefit from curtailing these emissions in the first place, per the Global Warming hysteria.
The baby-blue helmeted UN Zoo-Keepers are also looking to tax our emails, our currency exchanges, our air travel, among many, many other things just as soon as they can think of them. They are basically, power-hungry Peaceniks desperate to find all the money they can to finance their Liberal fantasies for a Global Commune. They want an International Criminal Court and various Conventions which would rule over us in the name of: “the Rights of the Child,” “the Law of the Sea,” “the Rights of Women,” and “the Protection of Biological Diversity,” etc. Basically, they are taxes to you and me which would go toward financing the end of American Sovereignty. The perplexity of it all is seeing Americans welcome the subservience. Barack Obama is clearly an advocate for this type of “change,” and he’s currently leading in the polls.
“To Tax, or Not To Tax” may simply come down to-- “To Elect Obama, or Not Elect Obama.” (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)
Back in 1993, Bill Clinton proposed a multi-billion dollar value-added tax, (VAT), but we thankfully dodged that bullet when it died a merciful death in Congress. It was designed to help pay for Hillary-Care and the anticipated high cost of Free, Universal Healthcare, or Socialized Medicine. The VAT is a broad-based consumption tax which has been used for decades by the Socialists in Europe. It’s something that Liberals in this country have always admired despite evidence which shows its devastation upon entrepreneurial activity and economic growth. Well, don’t look now, but here it comes again.
The UN has lobbied for a Global Tax for years out of interest in paying for all of their Global Utopian schemes. Never mind the fact that these programs don’t work and that the UN is a corrupt organization which routinely votes against America’s interests. That’s beside the point. The Liberals are quick to protest that such “nuances” are nothing compared to the do-gooder “warm and fuzzies” we’re all sure to feel by disengaging our minds and disemboweling our wallets!
UN representative Jeffrey Sachs, Director of the Earth Institute, is part of this New Age, “enlightened” crowd that is working to alleviate global poverty through another round of government-controlled wealth redistribution. Sound familiar? It should, it’s a rehash of LBJ’s “Great Society” programs, and we all know how well that turned out! Well, this time, the scam is much larger, much more Marxist, and fully supported by a much more popular politician- Barack Obama, the presumptive Democrat-nominee for president.
Sachs has said, “the only way to raise the kind of money needed, [$845 Billion], to fight Global Poverty is through a Global Tax, preferably one aimed at carbon-emitting fossil fuels.”
Obama recently sponsored a bill, “the Global Poverty Act,” (S. 2433) which serves as the perfect blueprint for this colossal, new government activism. His bill, to “fight world poverty,” commits .7 % of our nation’s GDP every year to the whims of UN managers. But, it doesn’t stop there with the imposition of another failed wealth redistribution scheme, it also includes a wiz bang provision to ban all small arms and light weapons! Presumably, these would be exactly the type of weapons individuals might choose for their own God-given Right to self-protection. For UN promoters, a policy of gun confiscation is almost as cherished as more taxes. These are the type of weapons, ironically enough, that Congolese women could be using right now to defend themselves from those pesky, unwanted advances made by UN soldiers. Mustn’t worry about that though, we have a Global Mercy Mission to launch! Pass the blindfold and “soak the rich.” Liberalism’s chief benefit remains- No Time To Think.
The U.S. Senate, sensing the apparent rise of this new wave of pro-Government enthusiasm, just voted for cloture on the Lieberman-Warren Climate Security Act, aka “Cap and Trade.” I guess, it’s open season now on the American Taxpayer. Who knew? Politics is the only endeavor I know of in nature where “the hunted” give routine aid and comfort to “the hunters!” This proposed annual cap on greenhouse gases- with the added feature of transferable restrictions- amounts to the “mother of all carbon taxes,” ala Jeffrey Sachs. Fortunately, it has stalled for the time being, but the danger is far from over.
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the cost of compliance for this tax would be $90 Billion per year by 2012. Our losses in GDP for years 2010 through 2030 would range from $1.7 to $4.8 Trillion! It would also cost one million jobs by 2022, and would create a spike in energy costs adding another $1.10 to gas prices. As a bonus for all the do-gooders out there, it would create five, brand new, government bureaucracies to cheer for as they manage all of this capital destruction. Yea!
None of this makes sense. Europe has already tried these initiatives and they have proven disastrous for their economies. The insanity of it all is that it won’t make any difference. We’re looking at trillions of dollars wasted for nothing. Countries like China and India are developing quickly, using more and more fossil fuels and they would not be subject to any of these carbon restrictions- that is, assuming there’s any real benefit from curtailing these emissions in the first place, per the Global Warming hysteria.
The baby-blue helmeted UN Zoo-Keepers are also looking to tax our emails, our currency exchanges, our air travel, among many, many other things just as soon as they can think of them. They are basically, power-hungry Peaceniks desperate to find all the money they can to finance their Liberal fantasies for a Global Commune. They want an International Criminal Court and various Conventions which would rule over us in the name of: “the Rights of the Child,” “the Law of the Sea,” “the Rights of Women,” and “the Protection of Biological Diversity,” etc. Basically, they are taxes to you and me which would go toward financing the end of American Sovereignty. The perplexity of it all is seeing Americans welcome the subservience. Barack Obama is clearly an advocate for this type of “change,” and he’s currently leading in the polls.
“To Tax, or Not To Tax” may simply come down to-- “To Elect Obama, or Not Elect Obama.” (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Respecting the Memory of Freedom’s Defenders
Memorial Day was celebrated this past weekend and it occurred to me that we should not only respect the sacrifices of yesterday, but those that are happening today. Time seems to neatly put things in perspective, and though only a minority of Americans actually supported our own Revolution, today we all take pride in those sacrifices that won our Independence from Great Britain. Two generations after the Patriots’ sacrifice came the great struggle for Union and an end to the horrors of slavery. This too was a divided affair, but no one today makes a serious claim that the Confederacy and Slavery was truly a better way.
We look back upon these sacrifices with respect, but it’s instructive to realize that these life and death struggles for Independence and freedom were not always universally supported. Today we hear those who say they support the troops in Iraq but oppose the war. I wonder how many of our American Continental Soldiers, Union Infantrymen, WWI Doughboys, or other veterans would feel about that kind of self-serving equivocation? What does it mean? It would be like saying you support the individual members of a ball team but not their mission of actually winning any games. Thanks, but no thanks. Presumably, their “support” would stop just short of actually cheering for the other team!
This last week the House Democrats, in an effort to stifle the good news coming out of Iraq, passed a Defense bill that included a prohibition against “concerted efforts to propagandize” the war. This begs the question: just what have THEY been doing these past few years? Democrat “leaders” have been saying the war is lost, that it is a civil war quagmire akin to Vietnam, that US troops are terrorizing innocent Iraqis in the dead of night and murdering people in cold blood, etc. If this isn’t propaganda, then what is? How can they be so irresponsible in their comments, while simultaneously criminalizing other opinions? Whose side are they really on? Apparently, only negative propaganda is allowed.
The fact is, the Democrats so own defeat now that they can’t let it be known that victory is imminent. They simply can’t afford the inconvenient prospect of voters finding out the truth and discovering how wrong they’ve been. They’ve been politicizing this war all along to win back the White House, so nothing is going to stop them now with the election so close. They’re maintaining the Jack Murtha claim that “the war is over” and America lost despite all indications that victory is at hand. To put it mildly, their lust for power has seriously clouded their judgement. “Al Qaeda’s network in the country has NEVER been closer to defeat,” says ambassador Ryan Crocker. The Iraqi forces trained by our military have done an incredible job cracking down on al Qaeda militants in Mosul and decimating Shiite militants in Basra and Sadr City. Cries of a hopeless civil war don’t compute either with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki forming a consensus agreement between Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish factions. The Sunnis have returned to the coalition parliament and are now ready to participate in the coming elections. Al Sadr has moved out of Iraq and his army is weakening. So, regardless of what the Left would have you believe- reconciliation is definitely taking place in Iraq under the Rule of Law.
Gen. David Petraeus (“Betray Us” to the Liberals) is expecting to draw down troops this autumn and predicts a continued redeployment out of Iraq over the next five years. But, because of all the defeatist “propaganda” on the Left dominating the Democrat Party, folks like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (hopefuls in the race to “lead” our military) can’t afford to admit the truth and give any respect to Gen. Petraeus and our military! This is what happens when you politicize a war. Is it any wonder that Hamas has endorsed Obama? The chief political advisor to the Prime Minister of Hamas, Ahmed Yousef, recently said, “we like Obama and we hope he will win the election. He has a vision to change America.” Maybe they see the chance to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat with the hopeful changes brought about by an Obama administration? The fact remains, progress is happening. According to a Canadian Human Security Report, terror attacks worldwide are down 40% since 2001. Al Qaeda support in the Arab world has “collapsed.” Remember the claims of how our engagement was increasing recruitment for terrorists? Not so. It would help the Democrats to realize that their brand of appeasement only encourages our enemies, while strong, effective engagement serves the cause of winning. This was the whole lesson of the Surge.
Meanwhile, Sen. Tom Harkin, (D) IA, insists that McCain’s military viewpoint is “pretty dangerous” to America. Call me crazy, but I’m thinking McCain’s point of view would be pretty dangerous to America’s enemies. If McCain’s plea for more troops would have been listened to earlier, we could have enjoyed success in Iraq much sooner. The Reagan Doctrine says it best, “Peace Through Strength.” Whether it’s a war for Independence, freedom, or simply victory over the forces of evil- the best way to memorialize our American legacy is through an authentic respect for the difficult work of patriotic duty.
In time, the Iraq War will take its place alongside our other wars in future Memorial Day observances. The question remains: who are the real supporters and who are the mere pretenders? (send comments to: WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)
We look back upon these sacrifices with respect, but it’s instructive to realize that these life and death struggles for Independence and freedom were not always universally supported. Today we hear those who say they support the troops in Iraq but oppose the war. I wonder how many of our American Continental Soldiers, Union Infantrymen, WWI Doughboys, or other veterans would feel about that kind of self-serving equivocation? What does it mean? It would be like saying you support the individual members of a ball team but not their mission of actually winning any games. Thanks, but no thanks. Presumably, their “support” would stop just short of actually cheering for the other team!
This last week the House Democrats, in an effort to stifle the good news coming out of Iraq, passed a Defense bill that included a prohibition against “concerted efforts to propagandize” the war. This begs the question: just what have THEY been doing these past few years? Democrat “leaders” have been saying the war is lost, that it is a civil war quagmire akin to Vietnam, that US troops are terrorizing innocent Iraqis in the dead of night and murdering people in cold blood, etc. If this isn’t propaganda, then what is? How can they be so irresponsible in their comments, while simultaneously criminalizing other opinions? Whose side are they really on? Apparently, only negative propaganda is allowed.
The fact is, the Democrats so own defeat now that they can’t let it be known that victory is imminent. They simply can’t afford the inconvenient prospect of voters finding out the truth and discovering how wrong they’ve been. They’ve been politicizing this war all along to win back the White House, so nothing is going to stop them now with the election so close. They’re maintaining the Jack Murtha claim that “the war is over” and America lost despite all indications that victory is at hand. To put it mildly, their lust for power has seriously clouded their judgement. “Al Qaeda’s network in the country has NEVER been closer to defeat,” says ambassador Ryan Crocker. The Iraqi forces trained by our military have done an incredible job cracking down on al Qaeda militants in Mosul and decimating Shiite militants in Basra and Sadr City. Cries of a hopeless civil war don’t compute either with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki forming a consensus agreement between Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish factions. The Sunnis have returned to the coalition parliament and are now ready to participate in the coming elections. Al Sadr has moved out of Iraq and his army is weakening. So, regardless of what the Left would have you believe- reconciliation is definitely taking place in Iraq under the Rule of Law.
Gen. David Petraeus (“Betray Us” to the Liberals) is expecting to draw down troops this autumn and predicts a continued redeployment out of Iraq over the next five years. But, because of all the defeatist “propaganda” on the Left dominating the Democrat Party, folks like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (hopefuls in the race to “lead” our military) can’t afford to admit the truth and give any respect to Gen. Petraeus and our military! This is what happens when you politicize a war. Is it any wonder that Hamas has endorsed Obama? The chief political advisor to the Prime Minister of Hamas, Ahmed Yousef, recently said, “we like Obama and we hope he will win the election. He has a vision to change America.” Maybe they see the chance to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat with the hopeful changes brought about by an Obama administration? The fact remains, progress is happening. According to a Canadian Human Security Report, terror attacks worldwide are down 40% since 2001. Al Qaeda support in the Arab world has “collapsed.” Remember the claims of how our engagement was increasing recruitment for terrorists? Not so. It would help the Democrats to realize that their brand of appeasement only encourages our enemies, while strong, effective engagement serves the cause of winning. This was the whole lesson of the Surge.
Meanwhile, Sen. Tom Harkin, (D) IA, insists that McCain’s military viewpoint is “pretty dangerous” to America. Call me crazy, but I’m thinking McCain’s point of view would be pretty dangerous to America’s enemies. If McCain’s plea for more troops would have been listened to earlier, we could have enjoyed success in Iraq much sooner. The Reagan Doctrine says it best, “Peace Through Strength.” Whether it’s a war for Independence, freedom, or simply victory over the forces of evil- the best way to memorialize our American legacy is through an authentic respect for the difficult work of patriotic duty.
In time, the Iraq War will take its place alongside our other wars in future Memorial Day observances. The question remains: who are the real supporters and who are the mere pretenders? (send comments to: WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
A Lie Cannot Live Forever
Ever since the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, those who have held a belief in a Supernatural Creator have been relegated to the “back of the bus” in our society by so-called modern scientists. These Darwinian Evolutionists, as it turns out, are not interested in science at all. They are interested, rather, in propagating and sustaining their own agenda of a values-free religion. It’s called Secular Humanism and was acknowledged as a religion by our own Supreme Court in 1961, (Torcasco v. Watkins).
Science, by definition, is knowledge obtained by collecting data through observation and experimentation that is formulated by the testing of a hypothesis. The “origins of life” is a field of study that is necessarily outside this specific discipline, and therefore, inaccessible to science. Still, this hasn’t stopped certain individuals from constructing an elaborate dogma of religion under the guise of scientific fact. This dogma stands in direct conflict with the Judeo-Christian belief system, but is beginning to suffer greatly now from the growing body of evidence that is debunking its fundamental claims. The Evolution Fundamentalists are not taking it very well, and have launched a modern day Inquisition against all dissidents.
Actor Ben Stein has just released a remarkable new documentary entitled, “Expelled” that demonstrates the hard-line censorship that’s currently crusading through our nation’s educational institutions. The film shows several scientists who have been fired and persecuted for the simple crime of challenging Darwin’s failing theory.
Most of these targeted individuals are proponents of an emerging theory known as Intelligent Design, (ID). There are hundreds of scientists now accepting this theory after having grown frustrated with Darwin’s inadequate, materialistic bias regarding Natural Selection and Common Descent.
“Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups,” says professor Louis Bounoure, director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum. “The theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.” Sir Arthur Keith, who wrote the forward to the 100th Anniversary of Darwin’s book commented, “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.”
So, why does it persist? Primarily, it is fear of the alternative of a moral God that holds Humanity accountable. As one writer put it, “Evolution is nothing more than an elaborate path one takes to run away from God.” Also, it’s a matter of selfish pride and not wanting to admit error. One museum curator noted, “[Evolution] could never be retracted because its already gone too far. Science would never be trusted again.”
The primary flaw in Darwin’s theory is the idea that all things originate from spontaneous generation. The vast complexities of the cell are such that no one really believes it could have organized itself. The odds of just one, single cell nucleus organizing its proteins in the right order are one in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion. Even Dr. Richard Dawkins, a hostile opponent of ID and author of the book “The God Delusion,” readily admits the problems of spontaneous life forming out of random, non-living material. Ironically, Dawkins admits in the film the possibility of an Intelligent Designer, but insists that it can’t be God. Dawkins proposes the unscientific idea of aliens from outer space “seeding” our planet billions of years ago. E.T. phone home!
Perhaps the worst aspect of this jackbooted dogma is the philosophical agreement it shares with Eugenics and Nazism.
The full title of Darwin’s 1859 book was “The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.” Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” was a major intellectual foundation for the Nazi program of exterminating all those deemed “unfit” for human evolution. In a chilling scene from “Expelled,” Stein is led through one of the death camps by a German woman who couldn’t bring herself to condemn the Nazi “doctors” for their murders. Darwin’s Humanism not only directed the thoughts of these Nazi monsters, but also, apparently, the thoughts of this tour guide who had lost all moral capacity to judge Evil.
Karl Marx was another fan of Darwin. His economic theories on atheistic communism were adapted from Evolutionary theory. He wanted to dedicate his book “Das Kapital” to his friend Darwin because it validated his work. In the communist re-education camps of both China and the USSR, the first thing taught was Darwinism.
Dr. Dawkins admits in the film that Evolution erodes Faith. As one Evolutionist put it: “first, one denies the deity, then the rest falls very easily: life after death, morality and free will.”
Evolution is bad science, but worse than that, it’s a seductive pathway to a rationalized, Humanistic cult of death, destruction and tyranny. Go see the movie, while you still can!
(send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)
Science, by definition, is knowledge obtained by collecting data through observation and experimentation that is formulated by the testing of a hypothesis. The “origins of life” is a field of study that is necessarily outside this specific discipline, and therefore, inaccessible to science. Still, this hasn’t stopped certain individuals from constructing an elaborate dogma of religion under the guise of scientific fact. This dogma stands in direct conflict with the Judeo-Christian belief system, but is beginning to suffer greatly now from the growing body of evidence that is debunking its fundamental claims. The Evolution Fundamentalists are not taking it very well, and have launched a modern day Inquisition against all dissidents.
Actor Ben Stein has just released a remarkable new documentary entitled, “Expelled” that demonstrates the hard-line censorship that’s currently crusading through our nation’s educational institutions. The film shows several scientists who have been fired and persecuted for the simple crime of challenging Darwin’s failing theory.
Most of these targeted individuals are proponents of an emerging theory known as Intelligent Design, (ID). There are hundreds of scientists now accepting this theory after having grown frustrated with Darwin’s inadequate, materialistic bias regarding Natural Selection and Common Descent.
“Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups,” says professor Louis Bounoure, director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum. “The theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.” Sir Arthur Keith, who wrote the forward to the 100th Anniversary of Darwin’s book commented, “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.”
So, why does it persist? Primarily, it is fear of the alternative of a moral God that holds Humanity accountable. As one writer put it, “Evolution is nothing more than an elaborate path one takes to run away from God.” Also, it’s a matter of selfish pride and not wanting to admit error. One museum curator noted, “[Evolution] could never be retracted because its already gone too far. Science would never be trusted again.”
The primary flaw in Darwin’s theory is the idea that all things originate from spontaneous generation. The vast complexities of the cell are such that no one really believes it could have organized itself. The odds of just one, single cell nucleus organizing its proteins in the right order are one in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion. Even Dr. Richard Dawkins, a hostile opponent of ID and author of the book “The God Delusion,” readily admits the problems of spontaneous life forming out of random, non-living material. Ironically, Dawkins admits in the film the possibility of an Intelligent Designer, but insists that it can’t be God. Dawkins proposes the unscientific idea of aliens from outer space “seeding” our planet billions of years ago. E.T. phone home!
Perhaps the worst aspect of this jackbooted dogma is the philosophical agreement it shares with Eugenics and Nazism.
The full title of Darwin’s 1859 book was “The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.” Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” was a major intellectual foundation for the Nazi program of exterminating all those deemed “unfit” for human evolution. In a chilling scene from “Expelled,” Stein is led through one of the death camps by a German woman who couldn’t bring herself to condemn the Nazi “doctors” for their murders. Darwin’s Humanism not only directed the thoughts of these Nazi monsters, but also, apparently, the thoughts of this tour guide who had lost all moral capacity to judge Evil.
Karl Marx was another fan of Darwin. His economic theories on atheistic communism were adapted from Evolutionary theory. He wanted to dedicate his book “Das Kapital” to his friend Darwin because it validated his work. In the communist re-education camps of both China and the USSR, the first thing taught was Darwinism.
Dr. Dawkins admits in the film that Evolution erodes Faith. As one Evolutionist put it: “first, one denies the deity, then the rest falls very easily: life after death, morality and free will.”
Evolution is bad science, but worse than that, it’s a seductive pathway to a rationalized, Humanistic cult of death, destruction and tyranny. Go see the movie, while you still can!
(send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)
Monday, April 28, 2008
The Tyranny of the Federal Registry
With gas prices pushing $4 a gallon, a declining dollar and a mortgage crisis that refuses to go away, our nation’s economy is becoming the number one issue for the 2008 presidential campaign. There should be, however, some healthy skepticism regarding any candidate who implies that such things can be successfully controlled from Washington. Experience has clearly shown- centralized control under the operation of federal busybodies doesn’t make for a successful scenario. More times than not, it does more harm than good.
For example: the current Ethanol food crisis is a obvious demonstration of how government intervention proves to be a cure that’s far worse than the disease. Instead of improving a situation, government activism has the propensity for producing the opposite result. The pundits call this effect- “the Law of Unintended Consequences.” It is a very real phenomenon indeed, and issues forth most readily from that vain impulse of Liberal do-goodism.
One of the worst cases of this abuse is the federal government’s hidden tax that emanates from over-regulation. The cost of complying with all of our nation’s spider web of federal dictates was estimated by the U.S. Small Business Administration to be $1.14 trillion in 2006. That’s almost half of the expressed, total budget for 2006. Amazingly, this inflicted abuse on the part of unelected bureaucrats is an amount equal to about 10% of our GDP. Combined with the normal budget items, that’s a total tax burden of almost a full third of our economy’s productivity. Given our current economic struggles, perhaps the best thing Washington can do now is ease off the oppression!
Naturally, these expenses we struggle to pay now originally came to us by some smiling politician who simply wanted to grace us with benevolent gifts of government largesse. How sweet. Fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice…
These rules taxing almost every conceivable behavior imaginable are published in the Federal Register. In 2006, the Register grew to a massive 75,000 pages and issued almost 4,000 Nanny State guidelines on how we best behave. God gave Moses 10.
The EPA, the Dept. of Commerce, the Dept. of Agriculture, the Dept. of Interior and the Dept. of Treasury accounted for 44% of all new additions in 2006.
A report from last year says that the 60-plus federal departments, agencies and commissions are not content with what they have. They are busy creating about 4,000 more rules that will cost an additional $100 million to individuals and small business.
The worst aspect of this growing tyranny is the attending political unaccountability. There’s very little influence at the ballot box over these governmental authorities. Our elected leaders come and go, but these bureaucrat turf warriors remain forever entrenched and beyond our reach.
How can we possibly reverse this trend? Well, it’s certainly not by adding more agencies through Big Government programs like Universal Healthcare. We should lobby our representatives for more transparency and disclosure in government. We should also begin holding Congress accountable for the bad things these departments do. Finally, there should be a requirement that Congress and the President give signed authority before a new rule goes into effect.
Our Constitutional form of government was never intended to be administered by unelected bureaucrats with this type of power over the people. This is “regulation without representation” and a condition of servitude that a free people should never permit.
The cost we face now in unmonitored and unlimited regulation is more than the total federal budget of 1987. Something is desperately wrong with this trend. This election year, we should try to reverse it. The first step-- not falling prey to that old, Liberal, siren song that says, “more government is the answer!” (send comments to: WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)
For example: the current Ethanol food crisis is a obvious demonstration of how government intervention proves to be a cure that’s far worse than the disease. Instead of improving a situation, government activism has the propensity for producing the opposite result. The pundits call this effect- “the Law of Unintended Consequences.” It is a very real phenomenon indeed, and issues forth most readily from that vain impulse of Liberal do-goodism.
One of the worst cases of this abuse is the federal government’s hidden tax that emanates from over-regulation. The cost of complying with all of our nation’s spider web of federal dictates was estimated by the U.S. Small Business Administration to be $1.14 trillion in 2006. That’s almost half of the expressed, total budget for 2006. Amazingly, this inflicted abuse on the part of unelected bureaucrats is an amount equal to about 10% of our GDP. Combined with the normal budget items, that’s a total tax burden of almost a full third of our economy’s productivity. Given our current economic struggles, perhaps the best thing Washington can do now is ease off the oppression!
Naturally, these expenses we struggle to pay now originally came to us by some smiling politician who simply wanted to grace us with benevolent gifts of government largesse. How sweet. Fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice…
These rules taxing almost every conceivable behavior imaginable are published in the Federal Register. In 2006, the Register grew to a massive 75,000 pages and issued almost 4,000 Nanny State guidelines on how we best behave. God gave Moses 10.
The EPA, the Dept. of Commerce, the Dept. of Agriculture, the Dept. of Interior and the Dept. of Treasury accounted for 44% of all new additions in 2006.
A report from last year says that the 60-plus federal departments, agencies and commissions are not content with what they have. They are busy creating about 4,000 more rules that will cost an additional $100 million to individuals and small business.
The worst aspect of this growing tyranny is the attending political unaccountability. There’s very little influence at the ballot box over these governmental authorities. Our elected leaders come and go, but these bureaucrat turf warriors remain forever entrenched and beyond our reach.
How can we possibly reverse this trend? Well, it’s certainly not by adding more agencies through Big Government programs like Universal Healthcare. We should lobby our representatives for more transparency and disclosure in government. We should also begin holding Congress accountable for the bad things these departments do. Finally, there should be a requirement that Congress and the President give signed authority before a new rule goes into effect.
Our Constitutional form of government was never intended to be administered by unelected bureaucrats with this type of power over the people. This is “regulation without representation” and a condition of servitude that a free people should never permit.
The cost we face now in unmonitored and unlimited regulation is more than the total federal budget of 1987. Something is desperately wrong with this trend. This election year, we should try to reverse it. The first step-- not falling prey to that old, Liberal, siren song that says, “more government is the answer!” (send comments to: WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
The “Leave Us Alone” Conservative Coalition
Conservative-activist Grover Norquist, (founder of Americans for Tax Reform), has written an enlightening new book entitled, “Leave Us Alone: Getting the Government’s Hands off our Money, our Guns, our Lives.”
In this in-depth study, Norquist attempts to fundamentally define the components that have driven the conservative, Reagan coalition over the past 25 years.
It’s a very informative examination of the competing motives behind our political system. As I have written before, there are only three motivating factors, outside what Norquist calls “Legacy Voters” who blindly vote out of loyalty to their parents, which determine one’s affiliation: the Ideology of the Left, the Ideology of the Right and Patronage.
Patronage is easy, it’s the method by which you selfishly choose the politician that promises you the most benefits. It’s the static, “fixed pie” scenario of carving up the goodies. But, as Reagan so rightly said, “America is about more than who gets what.”
The Ideology of the Left offers the option of what Norquist terms a “Takings Coalition,” where people put forward a thinly disguised patronage system under the philosophy of “working together for a better world.” This is the home of socialistic, egalitarian reformers, otherwise known as: trial lawyers, labor unions, Utopian micromanagers, big city political machines and the welfare industry (both dependents and deliverers). They are all united by one thing-- their desperate appetite for other people’s money through ever-increasing taxes.
The “Takings Coalition” turn JFK’s famous quote on its head by asking not what they can do for their country, but asking what the country can do for them. The “country,” after all, can’t spend one dime without forcibly taking it from another private citizen. Some call it charity, but this transfer of wealth is really “legalized plunder,” as the philosopher Frederick Bastiat noted in his landmark book “The Law.” Charity invokes the idea of Free Will, but the last time I checked, the IRS doesn’t permit “no” for an answer. In addition, it’s a fundamentally flawed system. The more one taxes and transfers wealth, the more one damages the incentives that create wealth in the first place. That’s why all socialist experiments around the world ultimately fail. Socialism simply cannibalizes the wealth that capitalism creates.
The Ideology of the Right offers the option of “Being Left Alone.” These are people united in their desire to have lower taxes, fewer regulations and greater freedom to live their lives without government intrusion. It’s not an anti-government coalition however, because these people want a responsible government that will provide for a valid criminal justice system and an adequate national defense. These principles of security are the very reason why governments are organized. These safeguards help to make “Being Left Alone” more accessible for all because they allow people to live their lives free from the threats of domestic crime or foreign aggression. By contrast, the “Takings Coalition” erroneously believes that the existence of laws and armies, by themselves, is the sole reason why we have bad behavior. Their political answer is always based upon capitulation and appeasement that favors the aggressor at the expense of the innocent victim.
Some people question whether this Center-Right “Leave Us Alone” coalition truly aims to advance liberty when some regard the Religious Right as a type of Theocratic tyranny. Norquist tackles this question openly and honestly. In his book, he relates how the religious conservatives first became aligned with this Coalition. It wasn’t when prayer was taken out of school or when Roe v. Wade legalized abortion. It happened after the Carter administration attempted to raise taxes on Christian schools and regulate religious radio with the Fairness Doctrine- something that Hillary Clinton has vowed to utilize if she becomes President. So again, it was religious people who wanted to be left alone in their schools and radio stations that first created the so-called Religious Right movement. Ironically, this happened only a few years after Jimmy Carter had built a strong, Christian coalition for his campaign in 1976.
Norquist sees a bright future for the “Leave Us Alone” coalition. More and more Americans are becoming investors in the stock market. Their mutual funds, IRAs and 401Ks are making them converts to the Center-Right Republican Party. Every time a “Takings Coalition” politician talks about raising taxes “on the rich,” they begin to lose Democrats who’ve come to realize there’s a target now drawn on their retirement accounts. A recent Rasmussen poll demonstrates how, over time, stock market investors become 20% more likely to vote Republican. The trend toward individual stock ownership will continue to erode elements of the “Takings Coalition” in the future.
The bottom line for the “Leave Us Alone” coalition is Individualism and Independence. Norquist defines the top agenda items as: school choice; personalizing both Social Security and Healthcare; outsourcing government work to the private sector; and, advocating “transparency” in government. These are all initiatives for greater self-empowerment and less overall dependency on government.
Texas is one of several states that has recently placed all of their state business online for everyone to see. In Texas, every check written by the state can now be tracked on the web. This movement portends an ill fate for old-style political machines that are full of corruption, sweetheart deals and slush funds, i.e. the “meat and potatoes” of the “Takings Coalition.”
Norquist insists that his book is an accurate portrayal of the current political players. He states that the Conservative Movement has always been about conserving our Founding Father’s concept of God-given, Individual Rights to life, liberty and property. The Ideology of America’s Constitutional Framers was based upon limited government, because they understood that only by limiting government, can one maximize freedom. (send comments to WFC83197, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)
In this in-depth study, Norquist attempts to fundamentally define the components that have driven the conservative, Reagan coalition over the past 25 years.
It’s a very informative examination of the competing motives behind our political system. As I have written before, there are only three motivating factors, outside what Norquist calls “Legacy Voters” who blindly vote out of loyalty to their parents, which determine one’s affiliation: the Ideology of the Left, the Ideology of the Right and Patronage.
Patronage is easy, it’s the method by which you selfishly choose the politician that promises you the most benefits. It’s the static, “fixed pie” scenario of carving up the goodies. But, as Reagan so rightly said, “America is about more than who gets what.”
The Ideology of the Left offers the option of what Norquist terms a “Takings Coalition,” where people put forward a thinly disguised patronage system under the philosophy of “working together for a better world.” This is the home of socialistic, egalitarian reformers, otherwise known as: trial lawyers, labor unions, Utopian micromanagers, big city political machines and the welfare industry (both dependents and deliverers). They are all united by one thing-- their desperate appetite for other people’s money through ever-increasing taxes.
The “Takings Coalition” turn JFK’s famous quote on its head by asking not what they can do for their country, but asking what the country can do for them. The “country,” after all, can’t spend one dime without forcibly taking it from another private citizen. Some call it charity, but this transfer of wealth is really “legalized plunder,” as the philosopher Frederick Bastiat noted in his landmark book “The Law.” Charity invokes the idea of Free Will, but the last time I checked, the IRS doesn’t permit “no” for an answer. In addition, it’s a fundamentally flawed system. The more one taxes and transfers wealth, the more one damages the incentives that create wealth in the first place. That’s why all socialist experiments around the world ultimately fail. Socialism simply cannibalizes the wealth that capitalism creates.
The Ideology of the Right offers the option of “Being Left Alone.” These are people united in their desire to have lower taxes, fewer regulations and greater freedom to live their lives without government intrusion. It’s not an anti-government coalition however, because these people want a responsible government that will provide for a valid criminal justice system and an adequate national defense. These principles of security are the very reason why governments are organized. These safeguards help to make “Being Left Alone” more accessible for all because they allow people to live their lives free from the threats of domestic crime or foreign aggression. By contrast, the “Takings Coalition” erroneously believes that the existence of laws and armies, by themselves, is the sole reason why we have bad behavior. Their political answer is always based upon capitulation and appeasement that favors the aggressor at the expense of the innocent victim.
Some people question whether this Center-Right “Leave Us Alone” coalition truly aims to advance liberty when some regard the Religious Right as a type of Theocratic tyranny. Norquist tackles this question openly and honestly. In his book, he relates how the religious conservatives first became aligned with this Coalition. It wasn’t when prayer was taken out of school or when Roe v. Wade legalized abortion. It happened after the Carter administration attempted to raise taxes on Christian schools and regulate religious radio with the Fairness Doctrine- something that Hillary Clinton has vowed to utilize if she becomes President. So again, it was religious people who wanted to be left alone in their schools and radio stations that first created the so-called Religious Right movement. Ironically, this happened only a few years after Jimmy Carter had built a strong, Christian coalition for his campaign in 1976.
Norquist sees a bright future for the “Leave Us Alone” coalition. More and more Americans are becoming investors in the stock market. Their mutual funds, IRAs and 401Ks are making them converts to the Center-Right Republican Party. Every time a “Takings Coalition” politician talks about raising taxes “on the rich,” they begin to lose Democrats who’ve come to realize there’s a target now drawn on their retirement accounts. A recent Rasmussen poll demonstrates how, over time, stock market investors become 20% more likely to vote Republican. The trend toward individual stock ownership will continue to erode elements of the “Takings Coalition” in the future.
The bottom line for the “Leave Us Alone” coalition is Individualism and Independence. Norquist defines the top agenda items as: school choice; personalizing both Social Security and Healthcare; outsourcing government work to the private sector; and, advocating “transparency” in government. These are all initiatives for greater self-empowerment and less overall dependency on government.
Texas is one of several states that has recently placed all of their state business online for everyone to see. In Texas, every check written by the state can now be tracked on the web. This movement portends an ill fate for old-style political machines that are full of corruption, sweetheart deals and slush funds, i.e. the “meat and potatoes” of the “Takings Coalition.”
Norquist insists that his book is an accurate portrayal of the current political players. He states that the Conservative Movement has always been about conserving our Founding Father’s concept of God-given, Individual Rights to life, liberty and property. The Ideology of America’s Constitutional Framers was based upon limited government, because they understood that only by limiting government, can one maximize freedom. (send comments to WFC83197, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
