In an age of privatization and governance by contracting, collaborations have become vital to produce government services and attain desired outcomes. However, it is often difficult to get actors to agree on a core mission statement and key strategies to achieve it. This problem is best illustrated by the countless organizations breaking ties with an increasing radical Planned Parenthood and, in some cases, Planned Parenthood breaking with moderate counterparts.
Collaborations are formed to bring together different resources and expertise to achieve a specific goal. However, this diversity also leads to “organization aims” which differ from “collaboration aims.” Goals are usually quite broad, for example, “women’s healthcare.” The “aims” are the strategies and actions for achieving that goal. Conflict arises here about how to best achieve the goal. For example, does a “women’s health” collaboration aim to focus more on fostering motherhood (pre and post-natal care), providing mammograms and focusing on illnesses more often found in women, or providing choices to women to terminate a pregnancy. Organizations within collaborations often have different expectations and want to see different outputs. To further this example, Planned Parenthood does not provide mammograms or post-natal services. If these are not in line with local governments, local funding and use of Planned Parenthood might be cut because of these differing aims. Of course, when dealing with Planned Parenthood one cannot help but address the abortion debate. Since abortion services are not packaged, for example they count connected pre-abortion services such as ultrasound and medication as non-abortion treatment despite the end goal and intent which skews statistical data, it is hard to say exactly how much Planned Parenthood makes off abortions - but it is estimated to be about 10-15% and others would claim much higher.
Shelby County in Tennessee was one of the more recent of a wave of local governments breaking from collaboration with Planned Parenthood. Shelby County had collaborated with Planned Parenthood for over 35 years to provide reproductive health services to women. The county switched to a new provider, Christ Community Health Services (CCHS), because they were more in tune with the communities needs. CCHS provided much needed post-natal care, mammograms, and did not provide abortion services that were contrary to the community’s pro-life and pro-motherhood beliefs. A similar situation happened when the Catholic Jesuit Seattle University severed ties with the Planned Parenthood under pressure from the Catholic Church and Catholics across the nation as well as various pro-life groups. The university collaborated with Planned Parenthood by recommending students for internships with them as well as referring students to them for women’s health services. Clearly, this partnership with an abortion provider went against Catholic teaching and the University quickly dropped this partnership.
In the same vein, Planned Parenthood has also severed ties with non-abortion providing affiliates, such as its partner in Corpus Christi, TX. Although one could surmise that the underlying reason is because of the money and political standing abortion generates, the official reason is that Planned Parenthood was aiming to “standardize its operations.” Clearly, differing aims in how to provide women’s health services led to this breakup.
Planned Parenthood has also been under investigation by Congress for questionable business practices which could also lead many collaborating with them to think twice. The group “Live Action” has posted dozens of undercover videos that show Planned Parenthood employees willing to bend the law to give abortions to underage teens without parental consent (or give them advice on where else to go), not report instances of rape and statutory rape to authorities as many states require, and aid in providing services to women enslaved by sex traffickers. Most recently, a Planned Parenthood in New Jersey was caught advising a couple posing as sex traffickers on how to secure secret abortions, STD testing, and contraception for their female underage sex slaves, and make their whole operation “look as legit as possible.” Last September, Congress launched an investigation into these allegations of hiding sex trafficking and not reporting rape as well as Medicaid fraud and other financial disparities. Clearly, a local government or private entity that aims to promote women’s health would be inclined to rethink their collaboration with an entity that supports statutory rape, aids sex trafficking, may defrauds the government.
Differing aims have led to Planned Parenthood losing many public and private sponsors. While Planned Parenthood’s lack of mammogram and post-natal care are a factor, the main reason for the breakups is regarding abortion services and the latest string of unnerving undercover videos. Abortion services are often seen as an aim that does not achieve women’s health, especially when one considers the emotional and psychological side effects such as Post-Abortion Syndrome and the potential link to increased breast cancer. Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, and Texas have mandated laws that warn abortion seekers about possible breast cancer links. Federal funding of Planned Parenthood has also led to debates in Washington and in the recent Republican debates.
New technologies have allowed us to see the unborn through every stage of development. The unborn are increasingly humanized and seen as the people that they are. As America shifts its aims toward a pro-life and pro-motherhood understanding, Planned Parenthood must adapt its aims and provide true women’s health services that glorify womanhood and ease the transition into motherhood or it will lose out in other collaborative opportunities and wind up in the trash bin of history. [I am inclined to hope for the latter].
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Old Habits Like You, Are Hard to Break
It is this song by the Great Hank Williams Jr. that best encapsulates Obama’s new “American Jobs Act,” which was introduced to Congress last Monday. Whether a teenager addicted to pornography, a crack-head to crack, alcoholic to cheap whiskey (“Ten High” is not good whiskey), or Obama to tax payer dollars – old habits are hard to break. Old habits die hard, despite the knowledge that you have a problem and knowing how it affects other people. You would have thought our unprecedented loss of our AAA credit rating would have been the slap this administration needed. But as Obama rolls out his $450 billion spending plan, further eroding the so-called “cuts” made during the debt ceiling crisis, he clearly is in denial or has no incentive to fix his and Washington’s addition to cash.
Obama has repeatedly said his spending plan "will not add a dime to the deficit,” yet has not yet spelled out exactly how he intends to pay for the package. He has specified zero cuts and zero revenue generating proposals to accompany his latest barrel of pork – and they though George W. Bush had fuzzy math!
So is Obama really this stupid? Actually, no he isn’t. Once again, the master of rhetoric has manipulated the current situation into a win-win situation to further propel his sociopathic narcissism and hunger for power and self-glorification to new, and uncharted, heights! If this Jobs Act fails, the Republicans are seen obstructionists. If the jobs act passes, he gets what he wants and “reinvigorates” [bribes] his base of support with cold hard cash. Money will be funneled to union jobs (especially the teachers) and artificial short-term “shovel-ready” construction jobs. These things do nothing to solve the problem the economy faces, lack of demand and confidence. Not even the payroll tax cuts will stimulate growth because there is nothing to grow!
Additionally, the policy of government stimulation of the economy is taking us down a path that can harm us forever. I published an article way back in 2009 on an online magazine that no longer exists, Overtone Magazine. I warned about the ever growing “Governmental-Industrial Complex.” I echoed the sentiment of President Eisenhower’s warning of a “Military-Industrial Complex.” Eisenhower thought it was dangerous to have such a huge chunk of the economy and labor force dependent upon the government. In his era, it was the ever growing military that concerned him. If society has such a heavy stake in an aspect of government it becomes politically unpalatable to cut and eventually it balloons to the point where you can no longer cut it because it would have very far reaching affects. Hence, our defense spending continually soars and our massive Army is left standing long after the wars to end all wars have concluded simply because of the economic engine they provide. This, thereby, creates a Military-Industrial Complex that survives to this very day. I am not saying that big military spending is a good or bad thing at this time, that’s for another discussion. But this economic dependency has become a reality whether we support the relationship or not.
Now, imagine this type of dependency on a grand scale - the whole economy riding on government spending, thereby creating a “Governmental-Industrial Complex!” There was a $158 billion stimulus in 2008, a $787 billion stimulus in 2009, and a defacto stimulus in 2010 that came with the compromise to extend the Bush Tax Cuts. This is also accompanied by unprecedented levels of spending in the annual budget. In 2011, we are now proposed with yet another silver bullet – another stimulus! Does anyone see a trend here? The economy is starting to become reliant on unsustainable government cash-flow to prop it up. If the economy starts to indicate a downward trend, rather than purifying itself through the free market, government is pumping money we don’t have into it in order to calm political pressures. Like the Military-Industrial Complex still in full force today, this Governmental-Industrial Complex if fully formed will not simply go away.
A healthy economy sustains itself. Government spending merely creates an artificial apparatus to imitate the free market. Without the apparatus, all collapses. In economic terms, government money shifts demand and makes what’s left of the private sector unpredictable and impossible to fully recover. While I dabble in stocks, I am no economist - but it seems to me that as soon as government money dries up stocks fall and economists panic. I believe the reasons are two-fold:
(1) Government money alters free market demands and makes it hard to gauge the quality and relevancy of a product. For example, are people buying green technology or new healthcare equipment because they are good technologies or because government flips half the bill? Perhaps a better question would be, would consumers of these technologies be willing to buy the technologies even without funds? Government money distorts these very fundamental questions.
(2) It’s hard to calculate how government money affects the economy. Is a department store profitable because there are good jobs in the area that are based valid consumer demand or is there government money trickling downward somewhere along the line? This indirect effect is caused by the “money multiplier” generally touted in stimulus packages. The idea being that $1 spent brings $2 in wealth to an area through indirect services. If that initial $1 is from the government and it dries up, the effect is gone and the ramifications unpredictable. How can the markets gauge what is a true market demand and what is true market wealth?
If we simply purged the market of its inefficiencies and flaws in 2008, the economy would be much better off today. Unfortunately, thanks to our government’s reckless spending, these market failures still exist. Without a clear picture of the state of our economy, unclouded by government cash pollution, we will never rebuild and grow. We will stagnate at best, which is exactly what we are doing.
Old habits are hard to break, but when it comes to government spending they generally never break. From this premise we must decide if we want to walk the way of socialist Europe and hop the Obama spending train or reclaim the American spirit that built us a continent.
Obama has repeatedly said his spending plan "will not add a dime to the deficit,” yet has not yet spelled out exactly how he intends to pay for the package. He has specified zero cuts and zero revenue generating proposals to accompany his latest barrel of pork – and they though George W. Bush had fuzzy math!
So is Obama really this stupid? Actually, no he isn’t. Once again, the master of rhetoric has manipulated the current situation into a win-win situation to further propel his sociopathic narcissism and hunger for power and self-glorification to new, and uncharted, heights! If this Jobs Act fails, the Republicans are seen obstructionists. If the jobs act passes, he gets what he wants and “reinvigorates” [bribes] his base of support with cold hard cash. Money will be funneled to union jobs (especially the teachers) and artificial short-term “shovel-ready” construction jobs. These things do nothing to solve the problem the economy faces, lack of demand and confidence. Not even the payroll tax cuts will stimulate growth because there is nothing to grow!
Additionally, the policy of government stimulation of the economy is taking us down a path that can harm us forever. I published an article way back in 2009 on an online magazine that no longer exists, Overtone Magazine. I warned about the ever growing “Governmental-Industrial Complex.” I echoed the sentiment of President Eisenhower’s warning of a “Military-Industrial Complex.” Eisenhower thought it was dangerous to have such a huge chunk of the economy and labor force dependent upon the government. In his era, it was the ever growing military that concerned him. If society has such a heavy stake in an aspect of government it becomes politically unpalatable to cut and eventually it balloons to the point where you can no longer cut it because it would have very far reaching affects. Hence, our defense spending continually soars and our massive Army is left standing long after the wars to end all wars have concluded simply because of the economic engine they provide. This, thereby, creates a Military-Industrial Complex that survives to this very day. I am not saying that big military spending is a good or bad thing at this time, that’s for another discussion. But this economic dependency has become a reality whether we support the relationship or not.
Now, imagine this type of dependency on a grand scale - the whole economy riding on government spending, thereby creating a “Governmental-Industrial Complex!” There was a $158 billion stimulus in 2008, a $787 billion stimulus in 2009, and a defacto stimulus in 2010 that came with the compromise to extend the Bush Tax Cuts. This is also accompanied by unprecedented levels of spending in the annual budget. In 2011, we are now proposed with yet another silver bullet – another stimulus! Does anyone see a trend here? The economy is starting to become reliant on unsustainable government cash-flow to prop it up. If the economy starts to indicate a downward trend, rather than purifying itself through the free market, government is pumping money we don’t have into it in order to calm political pressures. Like the Military-Industrial Complex still in full force today, this Governmental-Industrial Complex if fully formed will not simply go away.
A healthy economy sustains itself. Government spending merely creates an artificial apparatus to imitate the free market. Without the apparatus, all collapses. In economic terms, government money shifts demand and makes what’s left of the private sector unpredictable and impossible to fully recover. While I dabble in stocks, I am no economist - but it seems to me that as soon as government money dries up stocks fall and economists panic. I believe the reasons are two-fold:
(1) Government money alters free market demands and makes it hard to gauge the quality and relevancy of a product. For example, are people buying green technology or new healthcare equipment because they are good technologies or because government flips half the bill? Perhaps a better question would be, would consumers of these technologies be willing to buy the technologies even without funds? Government money distorts these very fundamental questions.
(2) It’s hard to calculate how government money affects the economy. Is a department store profitable because there are good jobs in the area that are based valid consumer demand or is there government money trickling downward somewhere along the line? This indirect effect is caused by the “money multiplier” generally touted in stimulus packages. The idea being that $1 spent brings $2 in wealth to an area through indirect services. If that initial $1 is from the government and it dries up, the effect is gone and the ramifications unpredictable. How can the markets gauge what is a true market demand and what is true market wealth?
If we simply purged the market of its inefficiencies and flaws in 2008, the economy would be much better off today. Unfortunately, thanks to our government’s reckless spending, these market failures still exist. Without a clear picture of the state of our economy, unclouded by government cash pollution, we will never rebuild and grow. We will stagnate at best, which is exactly what we are doing.
Old habits are hard to break, but when it comes to government spending they generally never break. From this premise we must decide if we want to walk the way of socialist Europe and hop the Obama spending train or reclaim the American spirit that built us a continent.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
For Amber Waves of Grain!....and Debt!
Today the House and Senate passed an irresponsible debt-ceiling plan that raises the debt limit by $2.4 trillion from $14.3 trillion, taking our debt-ceiling well above 100% of our GDP for the first time since World War II. It makes a meager savings of $2.1 trillion over 10 years. With the current deficit at about $1.7 trillion, that means the debt will more than double in 10 years – adding nearly $15 trillion. The numbers do not add up folks. These cuts aren’t even real cuts; they are cuts from future planned expenditures. My questions are three-fold. First, what are we gaining from these increased expenditures? One would suspect that Obama’s trillion dollar spending spree and a doubling of the national debt over the last 10 years would at least yield short term results that affect the everyday American. Second, how can we be expected to pay back our debts? Third, what can be done in the future?
Americans have gained nothing from this spending spree. Unemployment has been slowly increasing again and now stands at 9.2% and the economy, bailouts and all, is growing at a meager 1.3%. Many economists fear that a double-dip recession is inevitable at this point. Much like the education system, throwing more money at the economy will not help. Attitudes and confidence within our government must be restored. Raising the debt ceiling does the exact opposite! It sends the message that we have no idea how to control our spending and don’t really care. The government is like an alcoholic in denial!
Ron Paul hit the nail on the head a few weeks ago. He said that our debt was so huge that no matter what we do, we will default without radical shifts in policy TODAY. We will default either by not paying our debts at some point in the future or simply by paying them by printing more money, thereby making the dollars paid back all but worthless!
Surprisingly, a practical solution is not as painful as we think. Our current revenue stream is about $2.2 trillion. The last $2.2 trillion budget was only a few years ago in 2004. Why can’t we simply go back to those funding levels and balance the budget? What spending items have come about in the last 7 years that are so vital to protect? Perhaps those are questions worth asking your Congressman. Somehow I do not think projects like the $2.6 million grant spent by the National Institute of Health to make sure Chinese prostitutes drink less are worthwhile.
Congress acted the way it did out of fear. Not fear of defaulting, but fear of the political ramifications. Like I said in my post “Ditch the Party,” political parties are first and foremost looking to protect their own hide. The “Debt Crisis of 1995,” which wasn’t a crisis at all, proved that when push comes to shove we can live under the cap. The debt ceiling was reached in the fall of 1995 and was not raised until the following March. President Clinton simply cut where he could and shifted monies appropriately between various funds to ensure that all our bills were paid and services rendered. Rather than coming up with a rational plan, Obama chose to give a bunch of worthless speeches filled with half truths about starving seniors and defaulting to create fear - and enough Americans bought it. He framed the issue well enough that a lack of a deal was to be mostly blamed on the Republicans, at least that is what polling suggests (not that Obama’s was terribly good either). Of course, Speaker Boehner and Republicans caved out of party interest rather than be the good vertebrates they should be. National interest simply took a back seat today.
Today, America saw a fork in the road and went the wrong way. If we have any hope to save our children and grandchildren’s future, the debate must now be centered on cutting the debt – not just the deficit. In 10 years our debt will be near 200% GDP. That is beyond the breaking point. Whether or not we have little spending items that we like, we must all realize the harsh reality that this is unsustainable (unless your ultimate goal is bankruptcy). I am sure that the Democrats will now try to shift our attention away from this blunder by focusing on ending DOMA or some other irrelevant social issue they generally prey upon. The Republicans too will try and avoid this issue as to not seem spineless going into the 2012 elections. As is the way in Washington, this will be swept under the rug. American’s are notorious for their short-term memory loss with regards to politics. If our country is to survive, that habit must end today!
"Silence in the face of tyranny is cowardice at best, treasonous at worse." - Abe Lincoln
Americans have gained nothing from this spending spree. Unemployment has been slowly increasing again and now stands at 9.2% and the economy, bailouts and all, is growing at a meager 1.3%. Many economists fear that a double-dip recession is inevitable at this point. Much like the education system, throwing more money at the economy will not help. Attitudes and confidence within our government must be restored. Raising the debt ceiling does the exact opposite! It sends the message that we have no idea how to control our spending and don’t really care. The government is like an alcoholic in denial!
Ron Paul hit the nail on the head a few weeks ago. He said that our debt was so huge that no matter what we do, we will default without radical shifts in policy TODAY. We will default either by not paying our debts at some point in the future or simply by paying them by printing more money, thereby making the dollars paid back all but worthless!
Surprisingly, a practical solution is not as painful as we think. Our current revenue stream is about $2.2 trillion. The last $2.2 trillion budget was only a few years ago in 2004. Why can’t we simply go back to those funding levels and balance the budget? What spending items have come about in the last 7 years that are so vital to protect? Perhaps those are questions worth asking your Congressman. Somehow I do not think projects like the $2.6 million grant spent by the National Institute of Health to make sure Chinese prostitutes drink less are worthwhile.
Congress acted the way it did out of fear. Not fear of defaulting, but fear of the political ramifications. Like I said in my post “Ditch the Party,” political parties are first and foremost looking to protect their own hide. The “Debt Crisis of 1995,” which wasn’t a crisis at all, proved that when push comes to shove we can live under the cap. The debt ceiling was reached in the fall of 1995 and was not raised until the following March. President Clinton simply cut where he could and shifted monies appropriately between various funds to ensure that all our bills were paid and services rendered. Rather than coming up with a rational plan, Obama chose to give a bunch of worthless speeches filled with half truths about starving seniors and defaulting to create fear - and enough Americans bought it. He framed the issue well enough that a lack of a deal was to be mostly blamed on the Republicans, at least that is what polling suggests (not that Obama’s was terribly good either). Of course, Speaker Boehner and Republicans caved out of party interest rather than be the good vertebrates they should be. National interest simply took a back seat today.
Today, America saw a fork in the road and went the wrong way. If we have any hope to save our children and grandchildren’s future, the debate must now be centered on cutting the debt – not just the deficit. In 10 years our debt will be near 200% GDP. That is beyond the breaking point. Whether or not we have little spending items that we like, we must all realize the harsh reality that this is unsustainable (unless your ultimate goal is bankruptcy). I am sure that the Democrats will now try to shift our attention away from this blunder by focusing on ending DOMA or some other irrelevant social issue they generally prey upon. The Republicans too will try and avoid this issue as to not seem spineless going into the 2012 elections. As is the way in Washington, this will be swept under the rug. American’s are notorious for their short-term memory loss with regards to politics. If our country is to survive, that habit must end today!
"Silence in the face of tyranny is cowardice at best, treasonous at worse." - Abe Lincoln
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Gay Marriage, Catfish & Apples, and “Radical Acceptionalism”
Recently, Gay Marriage has passed in New York State. As a Yank, I am disgusted by the lack of spine the NYS Senate GOP showed as they passed this measure. As a Christian I am appalled. As a libertarian-leaning conservative, I have to think this one over and remedy my feelings on the issue with my political philosophy that government should not do anything to control or subjugate people.
Homosexuals have been, and continue to be, free to conduct their affairs as they see fit, just like everyone else. As Americans, it is a fundamental right to pursue happiness as we deem fit. For some, this means breaking the norm – a norm informally set by society and its extra-governmental values [traditions]. Gays are not precluded from breaking these norms and pursuing their own happiness. That is the bottom line.
Questions now arise regarding the purpose of marriage. Is marriage a right? Is the purpose of marriage to assist in the pursuit of happiness? If the answer to either question is “yes,” gay marriage must be permitted. However, this is not the case. First and foremost, marriage is not a “right.” Rights are endowed by our creator and marriage isn’t one of them. If marriage is a right, I want government to provide me with the bride I am entitled to if I am not hitched by 30!
Secondly, government marriage has nothing to do with happiness. The God of Abraham, Jesus Christ, Buddha, etc, and their respective Churches and Temples care if you are happy with your marriage, not government. Government marriage and its tax and healthcare related benefits are issued only to ensure a suitable environment for the creation of new life. Government cares about this because a suitable environment for child rearing means couples will have more children, thereby creating a stable or increasing labor force, ensure population stability, and hopefully provide an environment that will yield the scientists and engineers of tomorrow.
I oppose homosexual marriage because homosexual unions do not grant society this benefit. Last I checked, homosexuals cannot create life. How can we call two unions equal if the fundamental groundwork for the union is vastly different? I love fried catfish and I love apples, but I would never compare the two or call fried catfish an apple. If this changes down the line, whether by Darwinian evolution or the Hand of God, I will revisit my conclusion. Perhaps marriage has changed from the days of mom & apple pie, but if it is no longer about creating a family – perhaps government should abolish the institution all together and save its money.
Another aspect to this struggle is one of ideological dominance. Government must treat all life-guiding principles as a religion and enforcing them on another is always wrong. Secularism IS a religion. Under the various guises of women’s rights, reproductive health, marriage equality, and the ACLU – secularism is a poison that seeks to subjugate the masses through social engineering. It seeks to eliminate other value systems, including extra-governmental norms, through a systematic attack through the mediums of government under the false banner of tolerance.
Allowing gays, or anyone for that matter, to live life as they see fit despite ones own reservations is tolerance. Thrusting a value system upon a populous is radical “acceptionalism” (meaning forced acceptance) and is the epitome of intolerance. Gay marriage seeks to thrust a new value system upon society and meticulously dismantle the extra-governmental values that society generally is guided by. Although gay marriage is not the be-all and end-all of this process, it is a mile marker.
With that, I must commend the 41 states that have either constitution bans on same-sex marriage or have laws restricting marriage to one man and one woman.
As a side note, I would not rule out statutorily strengthening contracts delegating inheritance rights and end of life decisions to a same-sex partner for that security is fundamental to the pursuit of happiness and it is ones right to delegate it as such.
Bottom line: Marriage is not a right, state marriage it is not solely meant for the purpose of happiness, gay marriage is biologically different than heterosexual marriage and therefore not comparable nor can it be equated, and gay marriage is part of the great war this country faces against secularism. Do not let the guise of tolerance cloud your judgment in the face of this intolerance.
“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” – Abe Lincoln
Homosexuals have been, and continue to be, free to conduct their affairs as they see fit, just like everyone else. As Americans, it is a fundamental right to pursue happiness as we deem fit. For some, this means breaking the norm – a norm informally set by society and its extra-governmental values [traditions]. Gays are not precluded from breaking these norms and pursuing their own happiness. That is the bottom line.
Questions now arise regarding the purpose of marriage. Is marriage a right? Is the purpose of marriage to assist in the pursuit of happiness? If the answer to either question is “yes,” gay marriage must be permitted. However, this is not the case. First and foremost, marriage is not a “right.” Rights are endowed by our creator and marriage isn’t one of them. If marriage is a right, I want government to provide me with the bride I am entitled to if I am not hitched by 30!
Secondly, government marriage has nothing to do with happiness. The God of Abraham, Jesus Christ, Buddha, etc, and their respective Churches and Temples care if you are happy with your marriage, not government. Government marriage and its tax and healthcare related benefits are issued only to ensure a suitable environment for the creation of new life. Government cares about this because a suitable environment for child rearing means couples will have more children, thereby creating a stable or increasing labor force, ensure population stability, and hopefully provide an environment that will yield the scientists and engineers of tomorrow.
I oppose homosexual marriage because homosexual unions do not grant society this benefit. Last I checked, homosexuals cannot create life. How can we call two unions equal if the fundamental groundwork for the union is vastly different? I love fried catfish and I love apples, but I would never compare the two or call fried catfish an apple. If this changes down the line, whether by Darwinian evolution or the Hand of God, I will revisit my conclusion. Perhaps marriage has changed from the days of mom & apple pie, but if it is no longer about creating a family – perhaps government should abolish the institution all together and save its money.
Another aspect to this struggle is one of ideological dominance. Government must treat all life-guiding principles as a religion and enforcing them on another is always wrong. Secularism IS a religion. Under the various guises of women’s rights, reproductive health, marriage equality, and the ACLU – secularism is a poison that seeks to subjugate the masses through social engineering. It seeks to eliminate other value systems, including extra-governmental norms, through a systematic attack through the mediums of government under the false banner of tolerance.
Allowing gays, or anyone for that matter, to live life as they see fit despite ones own reservations is tolerance. Thrusting a value system upon a populous is radical “acceptionalism” (meaning forced acceptance) and is the epitome of intolerance. Gay marriage seeks to thrust a new value system upon society and meticulously dismantle the extra-governmental values that society generally is guided by. Although gay marriage is not the be-all and end-all of this process, it is a mile marker.
With that, I must commend the 41 states that have either constitution bans on same-sex marriage or have laws restricting marriage to one man and one woman.
As a side note, I would not rule out statutorily strengthening contracts delegating inheritance rights and end of life decisions to a same-sex partner for that security is fundamental to the pursuit of happiness and it is ones right to delegate it as such.
Bottom line: Marriage is not a right, state marriage it is not solely meant for the purpose of happiness, gay marriage is biologically different than heterosexual marriage and therefore not comparable nor can it be equated, and gay marriage is part of the great war this country faces against secularism. Do not let the guise of tolerance cloud your judgment in the face of this intolerance.
“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” – Abe Lincoln
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Ditch the Party
George Washington warned in his Farewell Address:
"[Political Parties] serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests."
It is not a shocking revelation to report that political parties, time and time again, flip-flop on basic issues to serve their own needs rather than doing what is good for the country. And if they act for the good of the country, rest assured it is only for some type of self-gain.
Who can forget Nancy Pelosi’s “pay as you go” budgeting strategy? That philosophy lasted until the second she got in power and needed to serve her party interests before the national interest. What about the PATRIOT Act? The staunch Democratic opposition in the latter Bush years suddenly turned into staunch support in 2010. What about the Civil Rights Act of 1957 supported by Republicans and opposed by Senate Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson and the Democrats? Rather than protect the oppressed black community with a strong bill in 1957, he waited until 1964 when it was politically convenient and his party was in power. Suddenly, Democrats magically become the strong voice for “oppressed minorities.”
Let’s not pick on only the Democrats, the Republicans are no better. The most blatant example being the spend-drunk, yet fiscally responsible, Republicans of the Bush years. It’s even more amusing that they now claim to be born-again fiscal conservatives who wouldn’t dare revert to the Bush years if given the opportunity. We’ll have to see how that plays out.
Political parties not only put their own interest ahead of the national interest, but they actively seek to subjugate the masses with their own brand of “kool-aid.” Democrats actively seek out ignorant teens, minorities, and urban women while Republicans pander to ignorant white men and rural folk.
I will no longer subjugate myself to any party. I am a conservative and only conservatives will get my vote. Give me more liberty, or I will vote third party. I will no longer vote for a lesser of two evils.
"[Political Parties] serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests."
It is not a shocking revelation to report that political parties, time and time again, flip-flop on basic issues to serve their own needs rather than doing what is good for the country. And if they act for the good of the country, rest assured it is only for some type of self-gain.
Who can forget Nancy Pelosi’s “pay as you go” budgeting strategy? That philosophy lasted until the second she got in power and needed to serve her party interests before the national interest. What about the PATRIOT Act? The staunch Democratic opposition in the latter Bush years suddenly turned into staunch support in 2010. What about the Civil Rights Act of 1957 supported by Republicans and opposed by Senate Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson and the Democrats? Rather than protect the oppressed black community with a strong bill in 1957, he waited until 1964 when it was politically convenient and his party was in power. Suddenly, Democrats magically become the strong voice for “oppressed minorities.”
Let’s not pick on only the Democrats, the Republicans are no better. The most blatant example being the spend-drunk, yet fiscally responsible, Republicans of the Bush years. It’s even more amusing that they now claim to be born-again fiscal conservatives who wouldn’t dare revert to the Bush years if given the opportunity. We’ll have to see how that plays out.
Political parties not only put their own interest ahead of the national interest, but they actively seek to subjugate the masses with their own brand of “kool-aid.” Democrats actively seek out ignorant teens, minorities, and urban women while Republicans pander to ignorant white men and rural folk.
I will no longer subjugate myself to any party. I am a conservative and only conservatives will get my vote. Give me more liberty, or I will vote third party. I will no longer vote for a lesser of two evils.
Monday, April 4, 2011
The Great Capitulator Strikes Again!
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, will be tried at Guantanamo Bay and not blocks away from the scene of his crime. After wasting time, money, and making us look stupid - at least Obama has succumb to reason and we can finally have this animal tried and convicted.
Once again, Obama is scurrying to sweep major issues and lapses in judgment under the carpet before election time. I only hope that American’s do not forget gaffes such as this, as we tend to do with our political short-term memory.
Once again, Obama is scurrying to sweep major issues and lapses in judgment under the carpet before election time. I only hope that American’s do not forget gaffes such as this, as we tend to do with our political short-term memory.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Monday, March 7, 2011
Obama's Great Guantanamo Capitulation
To the pleasure of Republicans and Independents and to the dissatisfaction of liberals, Obama has broken yet another campaign promise. Despite promising to close Guantanamo Bay within his first year in office, the administration is now opting to lift the 2-year freeze on military tribunals as well as reinstating the ability to detain terrorists without formal charges.
It is hard to disguise the fact that Mr Obama's lofty ambitions have been in a two-year-long collision with the nation. All attempts to bring terrorists to U.S. soil have been met with stiff opposition and have utterly failed. National security has been given a back seat to ideology, and Americans retaliated. While this capitulation is humiliating for Obama, it is necessary to eliminate this potentially hazardous campaign issue. I suspect we will see more “sticky issues” dealt with in order to clear the table for the campaign.
It is hard to disguise the fact that Mr Obama's lofty ambitions have been in a two-year-long collision with the nation. All attempts to bring terrorists to U.S. soil have been met with stiff opposition and have utterly failed. National security has been given a back seat to ideology, and Americans retaliated. While this capitulation is humiliating for Obama, it is necessary to eliminate this potentially hazardous campaign issue. I suspect we will see more “sticky issues” dealt with in order to clear the table for the campaign.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
US and Mexico reach proposed deal over trucking dispute
Once again, oddly, I must applaud the Obama Administration for ending this 20 year feud. US and Mexican carriers were authorized to cross the border under the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement, but the US has refused to allow Mexican trucks access over concerns of their ability to meet US safety and environmental standards.This resulted in harsh retaliatory tariffs on US products from Mexico.
And end to these archaic tariffs will promote jobs on both sides of the border and open up a viable US market that will bring much needed growth at home. The administration hope to send an official deal to Congress by spring.
And end to these archaic tariffs will promote jobs on both sides of the border and open up a viable US market that will bring much needed growth at home. The administration hope to send an official deal to Congress by spring.
Friday, February 18, 2011
China Patent Surge
With China growing ever stronger in every way, people in Washington tend to turn the other cheek. After all, according to them the USA is still the most innovative country in the world. We have the most patents filed each year and that innovative spirit will keep us ahead of the game, despite that we are loosing out in many other areas.
While there is some truth to this, we should not get to comfortable Last year the USA filed 44,855 patents with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), a 1.7% decline from last year. Although much less than the USA, China filed a respectable 12,337 patents with WIPO. However, that is a 56% increase from last year. Even more disturbing is that this is America's 3rd consecutive year of declining patents. Between 2003-2009, while the US only has a net 5.5% patent growth, China has maintained at 26.1%. It is predicted that China will surpass the USA this year in total patents.While China's investment in science and technology grew by 20% as proportion of GDP from 1999-2006, while America has stagnated with only 1% growth.
This is a very disturbing trend. Perhaps our superiority in such fields isn't as strong as we are told. The effects of loosing this edge are uncertain, but it surely cannot be good.
(Source: China Daily)
While there is some truth to this, we should not get to comfortable Last year the USA filed 44,855 patents with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), a 1.7% decline from last year. Although much less than the USA, China filed a respectable 12,337 patents with WIPO. However, that is a 56% increase from last year. Even more disturbing is that this is America's 3rd consecutive year of declining patents. Between 2003-2009, while the US only has a net 5.5% patent growth, China has maintained at 26.1%. It is predicted that China will surpass the USA this year in total patents.While China's investment in science and technology grew by 20% as proportion of GDP from 1999-2006, while America has stagnated with only 1% growth.
This is a very disturbing trend. Perhaps our superiority in such fields isn't as strong as we are told. The effects of loosing this edge are uncertain, but it surely cannot be good.
(Source: China Daily)
Thursday, February 17, 2011
The Obama Legacy: And it's only just begining!
$46 Trillion: Amount of Spending Contained In Obama's Latest Budget Over Ten Years (Office Of Management And Budget, 2/14/11)
$26.3 Trillion: Amount of Debt Expected In 2021 (Office Of Management And Budget, 2/14/11)
$15.48 Trillion: Estimated Amount of Debt This Year (Office Of Management And Budget, 2/14/11)
$7.2 Trillion: Ten-Year Deficits Under Obama's Budget (Office Of Management And Budget, 2/14/11)
$1.65 Trillion: Estimated FY 2011 Deficit (Office Of Management And Budget, 2/14/11)
$2 Billion: Amount of Stimulus Funds That Have Gone To Foreign
Manufacturers of Wind Turbines (ABC News, 2/9/10)
43.6 Million: Number of People on Food Stamps (The Wall Street Journal, 2/2/11)
$6 Million: Amount of Stimulus Funds Used To Make Snow In Snowy Duluth, MN (The Wall Street Journal, 10/28/09)
3.8 Million: Increase In The Number Of People Who Fell Into Poverty In 2009 (NPR, 9/16/10)
$325,394: Amount of Stimulus Funds to Study How Environment Affects The Mating Decisions of Female Cactus Bugs (The Orlando Sentinel, 2/16/10)
$219,000: Amount of Stimulus Funds to Study the Sex Life Of Female College Freshmen (The Daily Orange, 3/7/10)
102.6 Percent: Debt to GDP Ratio to Be Reached This Year (The Washington Times, 2/14/11)
68 Percent: Number of Americans Who Disapprove Of Obama's Handling Of The Budget (Gallup, 1015A, MoE 4%, 2/2-5/11)
9 Percent: Current Unemployment Rate (U.S. Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed: 2/16/11)
8 Percent: Unemployment Rate Obama Promised We'd Stay under if the Stimulus was passed
0: Number of White House Officials Who Agreed To Testify Regarding The Stimulus (The Wall Street Journal, 2/16/11)
0: Number of Shovel-Ready Projects Obama Now Admits Exist. (The New York Times, 10/13/10)
Friday, February 11, 2011
President Obama on Egypt
I must say, Obama played Egypt smart. In the end, America must stand for principle over convenience. We cannot afford to support tyranny, even if tyranny is our ally. A pig with lipstick is still a pig. In the end, turning from our principles tarnishes our world image.
The pundits say that Egypt may fall to radicalism - I DON'T BUY IT! The Egyptian Army is westernized, American trained, and professionals. It seems that they will hold the line to create an orderly transition, thereby giving time to the moderate political factions to organize and oppose the radical few.
Obama's speech today was very appropriate and was the first time he seemed like a statesmen. He assured Egyptians that we will support their transition to democracy and denounced the violence of the few.
The pundits say that Egypt may fall to radicalism - I DON'T BUY IT! The Egyptian Army is westernized, American trained, and professionals. It seems that they will hold the line to create an orderly transition, thereby giving time to the moderate political factions to organize and oppose the radical few.
Obama's speech today was very appropriate and was the first time he seemed like a statesmen. He assured Egyptians that we will support their transition to democracy and denounced the violence of the few.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Patriot Act Fails in House
ACCORDING TO HERITAGE FOUNDATION:
Last night, despite a strong majority vote in favor of the bill, the House of Representatives fell seven votes short of the two-thirds they needed to suspend the rules and pass three key counterterrorism amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Many of the headlines you will read today will say things like “Patriot Act Extension Fails in House,” but the reality is that much of the PATRIOT Act was already permanently enacted. Of the three amendments to FISA at issue in last night’s vote, two were part of the original PATRIOT Act, one was part of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, and all are set to expire at the end of this month.
It would have extended until December provisions on wiretaps, access to business records, and surveillance of terror suspects without a warrant.
Last night, despite a strong majority vote in favor of the bill, the House of Representatives fell seven votes short of the two-thirds they needed to suspend the rules and pass three key counterterrorism amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Many of the headlines you will read today will say things like “Patriot Act Extension Fails in House,” but the reality is that much of the PATRIOT Act was already permanently enacted. Of the three amendments to FISA at issue in last night’s vote, two were part of the original PATRIOT Act, one was part of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, and all are set to expire at the end of this month.
It would have extended until December provisions on wiretaps, access to business records, and surveillance of terror suspects without a warrant.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Op Ed: The Erosion of the State
With President Ronald Reagan’s 100th Birthday a day away, one cannot help but reflect on his wisdom and political philosophy. One of Reagan’s strongest beliefs was that the U.S. Constitution separates government powers so that the voters can hold government officials accountable. Government power is separated in two ways - the first being the legislative, executive, and judicial branches and the second separation being federal, state, and local levels.
However, with the radical growth of federal programs and federal money in state budgets since the late 1990s, the separation of powers among federal, state, and local levels has become blurred and accountability thereby diminished. In 2008, federal aid to states and state matching funds accounted for an average of 45 percent of government spending within states according to the Heritage Foundation, and that share has continued to rise. As a result, states are slowly becoming subservient to federal whims and federal spending programs. Even when looking at raw state budgets alone, on average about a third is directly federally funded. This has led to a two fold problem in state budgeting, (1) an inefficient allocation of money and (2) inflexibility within state budgets leading to complete state dependence on federal money.
The inefficient allocation of money benefits some of the states and hurts the others, depending upon if you are on the surplus or deficit side of things. In New York’s FY 2011 budget briefing book (pg. 133), it notes that over the last decade NY taxpayers paid $600 billion more to the federal government in taxes than it has received back in aid. Of course, such a number cannot be equal as there are legitimate national expenditures – but $600 billion is quite an imbalance, the highest nationally. For 2008 alone, the imbalance was negative $55.5 billion in New York, $50 billion in NJ, and $42 billion in Minnesota. Meanwhile smaller states have seen massive surpluses. Virginia’s surplus in federal funding in 2008 compared to what it paid out was $51 billion, Kentucky $27 billion, and Maryland $23 billion. Florida also makes the 2008 top 10 surplus list at $15 billion.
These inefficient allocations leave states unable to handle there own internal affairs. People often ask why states like NY have such a large budget deficit. The simple answer is that the Feds got their hands on the money of NY’ers before the state could! States in NY’s deficit condition are being choked by Washington.
There is great inflexibility within state budgets due to what amounts to federal bribery. While Federal intrusions into state systems are unwarranted in any case, it would be political suicide not to participate in federally funded or aided programs. From large programs like Medicaid, food stamps, race-to-the-top, or the interstate highway system; to small programs like school lunch programs and the National Shellfish Sanitation Program – are all federally funded or aided. When states are trying to cut their budgets and reign in deficits, the sheer volume of these programs makes it very hard. No one wants to lose free Federal money since a state will pay out to the Federal Government the same amount of money no matter how much it gets in return. Therefore, the goal is to maximize that return. That means spending state dollars on federally aided programs. It is quite the task to find large state programs that are purely state funded in order to make the needed cuts in these days of budget shortfalls.
The Federal Government has gotten itself into all areas of the state budget and the lines of accountability are now blurred. If a state spends more on Medicaid, is that because the state voters demanded that their state government expand Medicaid or because the voters gave the federal government a mandate to expand the program nationwide? If state voters want to restrain state spending, should they turn to their State Capitol or Washington?
Once the Federal Government got its hands on the people’s purses via the income tax, there was no going back to our state dominated system. The tables have turned, contrary to what our founding fathers wanted, and the Federal Government is in the driver’s seat. Without federal aid and match programs, states no longer have enough internal revenue to function. Unlike the Federal Government, states cannot print their own money as needed. This trend of forcing states to spend more with participation in “voluntary” programs if not halted, will lead to states becoming nothing more than administrators and the eventual erosion of state power.
However, with the radical growth of federal programs and federal money in state budgets since the late 1990s, the separation of powers among federal, state, and local levels has become blurred and accountability thereby diminished. In 2008, federal aid to states and state matching funds accounted for an average of 45 percent of government spending within states according to the Heritage Foundation, and that share has continued to rise. As a result, states are slowly becoming subservient to federal whims and federal spending programs. Even when looking at raw state budgets alone, on average about a third is directly federally funded. This has led to a two fold problem in state budgeting, (1) an inefficient allocation of money and (2) inflexibility within state budgets leading to complete state dependence on federal money.
The inefficient allocation of money benefits some of the states and hurts the others, depending upon if you are on the surplus or deficit side of things. In New York’s FY 2011 budget briefing book (pg. 133), it notes that over the last decade NY taxpayers paid $600 billion more to the federal government in taxes than it has received back in aid. Of course, such a number cannot be equal as there are legitimate national expenditures – but $600 billion is quite an imbalance, the highest nationally. For 2008 alone, the imbalance was negative $55.5 billion in New York, $50 billion in NJ, and $42 billion in Minnesota. Meanwhile smaller states have seen massive surpluses. Virginia’s surplus in federal funding in 2008 compared to what it paid out was $51 billion, Kentucky $27 billion, and Maryland $23 billion. Florida also makes the 2008 top 10 surplus list at $15 billion.
These inefficient allocations leave states unable to handle there own internal affairs. People often ask why states like NY have such a large budget deficit. The simple answer is that the Feds got their hands on the money of NY’ers before the state could! States in NY’s deficit condition are being choked by Washington.
There is great inflexibility within state budgets due to what amounts to federal bribery. While Federal intrusions into state systems are unwarranted in any case, it would be political suicide not to participate in federally funded or aided programs. From large programs like Medicaid, food stamps, race-to-the-top, or the interstate highway system; to small programs like school lunch programs and the National Shellfish Sanitation Program – are all federally funded or aided. When states are trying to cut their budgets and reign in deficits, the sheer volume of these programs makes it very hard. No one wants to lose free Federal money since a state will pay out to the Federal Government the same amount of money no matter how much it gets in return. Therefore, the goal is to maximize that return. That means spending state dollars on federally aided programs. It is quite the task to find large state programs that are purely state funded in order to make the needed cuts in these days of budget shortfalls.
The Federal Government has gotten itself into all areas of the state budget and the lines of accountability are now blurred. If a state spends more on Medicaid, is that because the state voters demanded that their state government expand Medicaid or because the voters gave the federal government a mandate to expand the program nationwide? If state voters want to restrain state spending, should they turn to their State Capitol or Washington?
Once the Federal Government got its hands on the people’s purses via the income tax, there was no going back to our state dominated system. The tables have turned, contrary to what our founding fathers wanted, and the Federal Government is in the driver’s seat. Without federal aid and match programs, states no longer have enough internal revenue to function. Unlike the Federal Government, states cannot print their own money as needed. This trend of forcing states to spend more with participation in “voluntary” programs if not halted, will lead to states becoming nothing more than administrators and the eventual erosion of state power.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Judge holds Obama Administration in Contempt
A New Orleans Judged ruled late on Wednesday that The Obama Administration acted in contempt by continuing its deepwater-drilling moratorium after the policy was struck down.
While the drill-ban policy is no longer formalized, Gulf State lawmakers and offshore drilling interests have accused the Department of Interior for continuing an informal "de facto" ban by not issuing deepwater drill permits. Not a single deepwater permit has been issued in nine months by the Department. The Judge also ordered the government to pay the legal fees of Hornbeck Offshore Services LLC, which filed the initial lawsuit.
Once again the Obama Administration shows complete disregard for the law and is holding American prosperity hostage in order to further his nonsense agendas - in this case his anti-drilling green agenda. As a result of the moratorium thousands are out of work, gas and oil prices are rising, and America is increasing its dependence on oil from the ever unstable Middle East.
Clearly, these ultra-partisan policies are hurting our nation and are something the electorate didn't bargain for in 2008. The Obama Administration's disregard for common citizens and Court rulings seems to be a running theme these last few years.
While the drill-ban policy is no longer formalized, Gulf State lawmakers and offshore drilling interests have accused the Department of Interior for continuing an informal "de facto" ban by not issuing deepwater drill permits. Not a single deepwater permit has been issued in nine months by the Department. The Judge also ordered the government to pay the legal fees of Hornbeck Offshore Services LLC, which filed the initial lawsuit.
Once again the Obama Administration shows complete disregard for the law and is holding American prosperity hostage in order to further his nonsense agendas - in this case his anti-drilling green agenda. As a result of the moratorium thousands are out of work, gas and oil prices are rising, and America is increasing its dependence on oil from the ever unstable Middle East.
Clearly, these ultra-partisan policies are hurting our nation and are something the electorate didn't bargain for in 2008. The Obama Administration's disregard for common citizens and Court rulings seems to be a running theme these last few years.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Senate Votes Down Obamacare Repeal!
The Senate on Wednesday voted against repealing the health-care overhaul. It was a strict party line vote, 51-47 with Democrat Mark Warner of Virginia and independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut absent for the vote.
51 Democrats once again voted against the will of the American Public. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows 55 percent of likely voters favor repeal of the health care law, while 40% oppose repeal. Not only did the Democrats go against public opinion, they completely disregarded the Florida Court ruling earlier this week declaring the bill unconstitutional.
One good thing did come of this, however. The Senate voted 81-17 to remove a piece of the law that calls for businesses to file a 1099 tax form when they pay a vendor more than $600 in a year.Such a form would have plagued businesses with unnecessary paperwork.
Now that the repeal is voted on, we know who the targets for 2012. Every Democrat Senator up for reelections needs to go!
51 Democrats once again voted against the will of the American Public. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows 55 percent of likely voters favor repeal of the health care law, while 40% oppose repeal. Not only did the Democrats go against public opinion, they completely disregarded the Florida Court ruling earlier this week declaring the bill unconstitutional.
One good thing did come of this, however. The Senate voted 81-17 to remove a piece of the law that calls for businesses to file a 1099 tax form when they pay a vendor more than $600 in a year.Such a form would have plagued businesses with unnecessary paperwork.
Now that the repeal is voted on, we know who the targets for 2012. Every Democrat Senator up for reelections needs to go!
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Sean Hannity to Radical Imam: "You are one sick, miserable, evil S.O.B."
Sean Hannity takes on evil incarnate in this vessel called a human being. It calls itself Imam Anjem Choudary. Highlight of his interview include:
Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3
- The 9/11 Hijackers got their 72 Virgins
- American prison population would be lowered if we stoned adulterers, chop off the hands of thieves, and give 40 lashings to those who drink and gamble
- Everyone is free under Sharia as long as they obey it.
- Sharia is coming to America
Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3
Iowa House Advances Marriage Protection Amendment
A proposed constitutional amendment protecting Traditional Marriage in Iowa was approved when three Democrats joined 59 Republicans in the Iowa House yesterday to pass the resolution. The resolution would put the question of gay marriage on the 2013 ballot, but still must pass the State Senate.
Liberals really hate when there policies are put in the Court of public opinion because they fail time and time again. Same-sex marriage has been defeated in all 31 states in which it had been directly put to a popular vote and Iowa is hoping to join that pack. Not only are Iowans pushing to protect Traditional Marriage, they are fighting back against the activist judges that created this mess. As I am sure you are aware, Iowa was force to adopt same-sex marriage after all 7 Supreme Court Justices voted for it. In the last election, Iowans rejected all 3 Supreme Court Justices that were up for retention. As for the other 4 Justices, the Iowa House is trying to drum up support to begin impeachment proceedings.
41 states have banned same-sex marriage either by constitutional amendments or statutes thus far. It will be interesting to see how Iowa plays out this issue.
Liberals really hate when there policies are put in the Court of public opinion because they fail time and time again. Same-sex marriage has been defeated in all 31 states in which it had been directly put to a popular vote and Iowa is hoping to join that pack. Not only are Iowans pushing to protect Traditional Marriage, they are fighting back against the activist judges that created this mess. As I am sure you are aware, Iowa was force to adopt same-sex marriage after all 7 Supreme Court Justices voted for it. In the last election, Iowans rejected all 3 Supreme Court Justices that were up for retention. As for the other 4 Justices, the Iowa House is trying to drum up support to begin impeachment proceedings.
41 states have banned same-sex marriage either by constitutional amendments or statutes thus far. It will be interesting to see how Iowa plays out this issue.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Florida Judge says: NOBAMACARE!
Before today, there were 3 court rulings on the Federal Healthcare reform package. Two had rule in favor and one struck down the section of the bill requiring the purchase of healthcare. However, the biggest case of them all involving 26 states had finally been decided earlier today. In the words of Justice Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court in Pensacola, “A declaratory judgment shall be entered separately, declaring ‘The Patient Protection and Affordable Health Act’ unconstitutional.”
After reading the 78 page judicial opinion on Obamacare, Justice Vinson hit this legislation on two fronts. First, he declared the individual mandate to purchase insurance unconstitutional. The Commerce Clause has been used to regulate activities like growing marijuana, navigating waterways, and the like - but had never been used to force someone to do something they weren’t already doing. “It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause,” he writes.
Secondly, he had to declare the severability of the individual mandate. In legal terms severability decides if a piece of legislation can survive without its unconstitutional language. In this complex bill, Justice Vinson declared that the individual mandate was not severable. Hence, the entire bill was declared VOID. The next step for this lawsuit is the Supreme Court, pending an appeal from the U.S. Justice Department of course.
Finally, a small sigh of relief for small businesses and Americans everywhere – but so much damage is already being done and it’s not even 2014, when this bill comes into full effect. Restrictions on insurers are causing smaller insurance firms to exit the market, thereby, reducing competition. Principle Financial dropped all of their 840,000 health insurance customers last fall. In 2014, small businesses with more than 25 employees to must offer health coverage (as opposed to the current threshold of 50) or pay a $750 penalty per employee and an increased Medicare payroll tax of 3.8% to take effect in 2013. During this unending recession when we need small businesses to start hiring, they are NOW preparing for an onslaught of fees and regulations! While all this is occurring, the Federal Government has begun drafting what Health benefits to dictate to insurance companies.
Justice Vinson has just taken us one step closer to repealing this bill. For the government to dictate what to purchase and for how much is nothing short of tyrannical. What’s next? A government mandate to buy California wine because it’s good for our countries winegrowers or a mandated apple-a-day to keep Obamacare away?
Bravo Justice Vinson for your gavel heard 'round the world proclaiming “NOBAMACARE!”
After reading the 78 page judicial opinion on Obamacare, Justice Vinson hit this legislation on two fronts. First, he declared the individual mandate to purchase insurance unconstitutional. The Commerce Clause has been used to regulate activities like growing marijuana, navigating waterways, and the like - but had never been used to force someone to do something they weren’t already doing. “It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause,” he writes.
Secondly, he had to declare the severability of the individual mandate. In legal terms severability decides if a piece of legislation can survive without its unconstitutional language. In this complex bill, Justice Vinson declared that the individual mandate was not severable. Hence, the entire bill was declared VOID. The next step for this lawsuit is the Supreme Court, pending an appeal from the U.S. Justice Department of course.
Finally, a small sigh of relief for small businesses and Americans everywhere – but so much damage is already being done and it’s not even 2014, when this bill comes into full effect. Restrictions on insurers are causing smaller insurance firms to exit the market, thereby, reducing competition. Principle Financial dropped all of their 840,000 health insurance customers last fall. In 2014, small businesses with more than 25 employees to must offer health coverage (as opposed to the current threshold of 50) or pay a $750 penalty per employee and an increased Medicare payroll tax of 3.8% to take effect in 2013. During this unending recession when we need small businesses to start hiring, they are NOW preparing for an onslaught of fees and regulations! While all this is occurring, the Federal Government has begun drafting what Health benefits to dictate to insurance companies.
Justice Vinson has just taken us one step closer to repealing this bill. For the government to dictate what to purchase and for how much is nothing short of tyrannical. What’s next? A government mandate to buy California wine because it’s good for our countries winegrowers or a mandated apple-a-day to keep Obamacare away?
Bravo Justice Vinson for your gavel heard 'round the world proclaiming “NOBAMACARE!”
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Guns Guns Guns - Oh my!
In the wake of the AZ tragedy, members of Congress, "Mayors Against Gun Violence" (as if some mayors favor gun violence), and the usual special interest suspects are ramping up their anti-gun rhetoric.
Moves are already in the works to play the public's emotions to spin their anti-gun swill. There is already talk of pushing a ban on high-capacity ammo through the Senate, and a bill by Republican Peter King to ban guns within 1,000 ft of certain government officials.
How many shootings at schools or malls will it take before we understand that people who intend to kill are not deterred by gun laws? Last I checked, murder is against the law everywhere. No one intent on murder will be stopped by the prospect of committing a lesser crime like illegal possession of a firearm.
This idea that gun control is crime control is just a myth. The National Academy of Sciences reviewed dozens of studies and could not find a single gun regulation that clearly led to reduced violent crime or murder. If you look at a city ranking of murders per capita, there are two types of cities predominately (but not exclusively) at the top of the list, cities in gun control states and cities along the border. There is zero correlation between safety and gun control laws. In fact in certain case studies like Washington DC, the exact opposite is true. When Washington, D.C., passed its tough handgun ban years ago, gun violence rose! California, which has some of the toughest gun control laws in the nation ranks nearly among the top 10 list, at #14, for highest per capita violent crime rates according to the US Census Bureau.
The press ignores the fact that guns often save lives. Ever hear of the 2002 at the Appalachian School of Law incident? Hearing shots, two students went to their cars, got their guns, and restrained the shooter until police arrested him. In Salt Lake City, Utah an off duty cop with a gun shot dead a gunman who had shot 6 people dead and showed no signs of stopping.
Ever wonder why Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates in Europe? Since Switzerland has only a minimal regular Army, all Swiss men are enrolled in a militia in case of war. NEARLY ALL Swiss men have a government issued rifle in their home.
Here some some more interesting Statistics:
Don't listen to the pundits and self-proclaimed "intellectual elites." Look at the facts, look at the logic.
- As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.
- Only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high.
- Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. Gun advocates say that number can be as high as 2.5 million.
- States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)