McCain can easily hit back at some of the ridiculous assumptions and claims made by Barak Obama during his convention speech. Obama's entire speech hammered home that Americans, despite our remarkable history, are now unable to achieve the great heights achieved by our forefathers.
Americans today have even more opportunity and support to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps. Leftists want to tell you that you are not entitled enough. Obama even claims you can't pull yourself up by your bootstraps because you have no boots. Now, how could anybody in this country today be without boots? There are numerous, quality churches throughout this nation that help clothe the naked and feed the hungry, every day of the year. When people fall on hard times, neighbors and friends are there with a helping hand. It is only when people look to these handouts as their source of income do they begin to dry up. This is where the government fails people. It does not have the ability to tell when the need is gone, yet the individual fails to take responsibility for their own existence. This is why welfare should not be a plank in any party's platform. It makes sense to offer short term assistance in unexpected or dire situations. It does not make sense to provide suckling to full grown adults.
Democrats want to measure progress by unemployment and savings rates. But, at the same time, they offer incentives for those who live beyond their income. They want to rescue you from your own decisions; leaving you no opportunity to learn and grow through a process of finding your own solutions. When you remove the consequences from people's actions, you will quickly find that the worst decisions will be the most oft repeated.
Barak Obama has numerous examples of where his forebears and others have fought the hard fight, and come out the victor. These people deserve every ounce of praise they receive. They deserve to have a child that can be a candidate for President of the United States. This is what they fought for. They do not deserve to have thier sacrifice belittled by claiming that it is not a worthwhile endeavor today. We should not stand idly by while we are told that we do not have the fortitude to be able to do as they did. We are not entitled to honor, bravery, strength, or courage. Nobody can bestow these admirable traits upon us. They can only be attained by working the long hours, making the hard decisions, and doing the thankless jobs.
Too many people are asking us to turn our lives over to someone else. They want employees of the government to make the decisions on how we will receive our health care. They want the government workers to decide what is the best course to pursue when it comes to Energy, Transportation, and Housing. They feel that a small group of centralized people can make a better decision than those who are closest to home and the everyday experiences that these decisions will impact. Americans need to consider the effectiveness of ANY single-provider system. When you limit your options to a single provider, the provider no longer has a motivation to provide quality service or affordable prices. Don't let them tell you that this will change. Health Care will become exactly like the electric company that brings power to your house. The only way to change your options will be to move away.
Taxes: Regardless of your feeling on whether tax reductions or tax increases will better fuel the economy, one thing cannot be disputed. Enacting an even greater tax disparity between what is considered rich and what is considered poor will only serve to keep the poor from ever becoming rich. The gap that will have to be overcome, for a middle income family to become a wealthy family, will be widened by the increase in taxes on the "rich". At that point, individuals and families will be faced with the very real possibility that a relatively minor increase in their income will drastically increase their tax burden.
Obama has big plans for our automotive and energy industries. But, how sound are these plans. I'll assume they are more complex than inflating tires and getting regular oil changes. But, how many freedoms do we have to give up for the gains they promise to deliver? Obama wants to put a stop to all decision making that does not fall right in line with his fairness doctrines. Insurance companies cannot discriminate against those who wish to be insured. He means that they will be required to pay for the treatment of ill or injured patients. But, it will also be discrimination if they fail to pay for drunk drivers, illicit drug users, and arsonists? Sen. Obama would like to build a society so full of safety nets that Americans will be entwined in a web of bureacracy at every turn.
Where will the money come from, to fund all of Sen. Obama's big plans? That is easy to answer. It will come directly from the corporations and individuals who are fueling the largest economy in the history of the world. There is no possible alternative economy plan to replace the dollars that will be taken from the personal investments, retirement savings, and research and development accounts. Billions of dollars have been already been poured into the promise of cheap solar energy for over 30 years. What guarantee do we have the Obama can deliver the breakthroughs in alternate energy that he intends to spend an additional 150 Billion Dollars for?
Change does NOT happen because we rise up and demand it. Change happens when we go to work and enact it. Our soldiers entered Afqhanistan and Iraq because we were not getting any results although the United States, alongside the United Nations, demanded change. Our soldiers stepped up to do the job that needed to be done, without demanding a lifetime of security for their service. We will only retain our freedom if we, too, go to work each day and show that we can do more with our personal freedoms than the government can do with its central planning.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Conserve our way out???
There are some obvious facts that the Pelosi types refuse to acknowledge. Americans, and the rest of the world, will continue to use oil. America is literally flooded with oil. And, nobody runs a larger, cleaner economy than the United States of America.
Conservation is a great idea. There is no reason to waste a resource. But, we use oil for more than just refining it into gasoline to put in passenger cars. When you consider jet fuel, diesel fuel for trucking, and cheap plastics, there is no viable alternative to oil. Alternatives may one day be developed, but they are still in their infancy, today.
America has huge deposits of oil, which are easy to tap. Centuries ago, oil seeping to the surface was a pollutant, with little practical use. We have turned this pollutant into a valuable resource. It has reshaped the political scene, providing power to states that have not earned the trust of their constituency. This is the strongest reason for keeping the government's hands out of the pockets of the oil companies. Governments that earn their own income have no need to listen to their citizens. The profits he gleans from the nationalized oil companies is how Hugo Chavez is able to remain in power, against the will of the Venezuelan people.
The only way to release ourselves, and our friends, from the tyranny of countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Russia is to produce our own oil. There is no reason we cannot. This independence in the energy arena will spill over to become strengths for our economy, political muscle, and our options for the future.
No other country should be granted the opportunity to capitalize on America's resources, over and above America's companies. American companies will be able to recover the oil more efficiently than any other country's. Americans will hold themselves to higher standards of ethics and environmental concern than other countries, because we will be the ones directly harmed by any accidents.
The oil is there for our use, and sitting on it just causes our economy and political strength to sink further down the pit that environmentalists have been digging over the last few centuries. America has the ability to quickly and cleanly return to a position of strength and leadership in a world that needs the shining light of Free Enterprise.
Conservation is a great idea. There is no reason to waste a resource. But, we use oil for more than just refining it into gasoline to put in passenger cars. When you consider jet fuel, diesel fuel for trucking, and cheap plastics, there is no viable alternative to oil. Alternatives may one day be developed, but they are still in their infancy, today.
America has huge deposits of oil, which are easy to tap. Centuries ago, oil seeping to the surface was a pollutant, with little practical use. We have turned this pollutant into a valuable resource. It has reshaped the political scene, providing power to states that have not earned the trust of their constituency. This is the strongest reason for keeping the government's hands out of the pockets of the oil companies. Governments that earn their own income have no need to listen to their citizens. The profits he gleans from the nationalized oil companies is how Hugo Chavez is able to remain in power, against the will of the Venezuelan people.
The only way to release ourselves, and our friends, from the tyranny of countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Russia is to produce our own oil. There is no reason we cannot. This independence in the energy arena will spill over to become strengths for our economy, political muscle, and our options for the future.
No other country should be granted the opportunity to capitalize on America's resources, over and above America's companies. American companies will be able to recover the oil more efficiently than any other country's. Americans will hold themselves to higher standards of ethics and environmental concern than other countries, because we will be the ones directly harmed by any accidents.
The oil is there for our use, and sitting on it just causes our economy and political strength to sink further down the pit that environmentalists have been digging over the last few centuries. America has the ability to quickly and cleanly return to a position of strength and leadership in a world that needs the shining light of Free Enterprise.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Thomas Jefferson fights against Big Government
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764.
The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.
Most bad government has grown out of too much government.
Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.
I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.
A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.
The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.
Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now.
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764.
The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.
Most bad government has grown out of too much government.
Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.
I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.
A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.
The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.
Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Voting Rights should be more restricted
I posted the letter below as a separate post, due to its length. In essence, John Adams explains the reasoning of the Founding Fathers in restricting the right to vote to adult male landowners.
While Kids Voting is commonplace now, it is still obvious that they do not have the knowledge and experience to make an informed decision.
It is easy to disagree with his statements regarding women, since it may be claimed that landowners can be similarly preoccupied with working to survive in the same way that women could be preoccupied with nurturing children. I don't think we should restrict the right of women to vote. But, it is interesting to note the number of women who demonstrate, or even publicly state, that they will vote however their husband or boyfriend tells them to. Obviously this does not apply to all women, and could apply to some men. It is simply more prevalent in women.
While it may not be appropriate, at this point, to remove the right to vote from all who don't own real estate, it does make sense to require that they follow an additional process to gain the right to vote. If a person cannot show enough initiative to either acquire and maintain property or follow an established procedure to gain the right to vote, they will certainly not take the initiative to become informed on the issues. The mainstream media loves the "motor voter" type bills, because they control the prime source of information for those that don't do personal research. In an America that followed the understanding of the founding fathers, there would be a test to gain the right to vote, just as there is a test to gain the right to drive.
Alexander Hamilton 1775
[The classic argument for limiting voting rights to adult males who own property: so that voters are excluded who are dependent on the wills of others for their livelihood. — TGW]
[Hamilton is quoting Blackstone’s Commentaries, bk. 1, ch. 2:]
While Kids Voting is commonplace now, it is still obvious that they do not have the knowledge and experience to make an informed decision.
It is easy to disagree with his statements regarding women, since it may be claimed that landowners can be similarly preoccupied with working to survive in the same way that women could be preoccupied with nurturing children. I don't think we should restrict the right of women to vote. But, it is interesting to note the number of women who demonstrate, or even publicly state, that they will vote however their husband or boyfriend tells them to. Obviously this does not apply to all women, and could apply to some men. It is simply more prevalent in women.
While it may not be appropriate, at this point, to remove the right to vote from all who don't own real estate, it does make sense to require that they follow an additional process to gain the right to vote. If a person cannot show enough initiative to either acquire and maintain property or follow an established procedure to gain the right to vote, they will certainly not take the initiative to become informed on the issues. The mainstream media loves the "motor voter" type bills, because they control the prime source of information for those that don't do personal research. In an America that followed the understanding of the founding fathers, there would be a test to gain the right to vote, just as there is a test to gain the right to drive.
Alexander Hamilton 1775
[The classic argument for limiting voting rights to adult males who own property: so that voters are excluded who are dependent on the wills of others for their livelihood. — TGW]
[Hamilton is quoting Blackstone’s Commentaries, bk. 1, ch. 2:]
"If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other."
-- From http://www.vindicatingthefounders.comJohn Adams to James Sullivan on women, the poor, and voting rights
May 26, 1776
[Adams explains why women, children, and the poor are excluded from the vote. — TGW]
It is certain in theory, that the only moral foundation of government is the consent of the people. But to what an extent shall we carry this principle? Shall we say, that every individual of the community, old and young, male and female, as well as rich and poor, must consent, expressly, to every act of legislation? No, you will say. This is impossible. How then does the right arise in the majority to govern the minority, against their will? Whence arises the right of the men to govern women, without their consent? Whence the right of the old to bind the young, without theirs?
But let us first suppose, that the whole community of every age, rank, sex, and condition, has a right to vote. This community, is assembled—a motion is made and carried by a majority of one voice. The minority will not agree to this. Whence arises the right of the majority to govern, and the obligation of the minority to obey? from necessity, you will say, because there can be no other rule.
But why exclude women? You will say, because their delicacy renders them unfit for practice and experience, in the great business of life, and the hardy enterprises of war, as well as the arduous cares of state. Besides, their attention is so much engaged with the necessary nurture of their children, that nature has made them fittest for domestic cares. And children have not judgment or will of their own. True. But will not these reasons apply to others?
Is it not equally true, that men in general in every society, who are wholly destitute of property, are also too little acquainted with public affairs to form a right judgment, and too dependent upon other men to have a will of their own?
If this is a fact, if you give to every man, who has no property, a vote, will you not make a fine encouraging provision for corruption by your fundamental law?Such is the frailty of the human heart, that very few men, who have no property, have any judgment of their own. They talk and vote as they are directed by some man of property, who has attached their minds to his interest…
I should think that wisdom and policy would dictate in these times, to be very cautious of making alterations. Our people have never been very rigid in scrutinizing into the qualifications of voters, and I presume they will not now begin to be so. But I would not advise them to make any alteration in the laws, at present, respecting the qualifications of voters.
Your idea, that those laws, which affect the lives and personal liberty of all, or which inflict corporal punishment, affect those, who are not qualified to vote, as well as those who are, is just. But, so they do women, as well as men, children as well as adults. What reason should there be, for excluding a man of twenty years, Eleven months and twenty-seven days old, from a vote when you admit one, who is twenty one? The reason is, you must fix upon some period in life, when the understanding and will of men in general is fit to be trusted by the public. Will not the same reason justify the state in fixing upon some certain quantity of property, as a qualification.
The same reasoning, which will induce you to admit all men, who have no property, to vote, with those who have, for those laws, which affect the person will prove that you ought to admit women and children: for generally speaking, women and children, have as good judgment, and as independent minds as those men who are wholly destitute of property: these last being to all intents and purposes as much dependent upon others, who will please to feed, clothe, and employ them, as women are upon their husbands, or children on their parents…
Society can be governed only by general rules. Government cannot accommodate itself to every particular case, as it happens, nor to the circumstances of particular persons. It must establish general, comprehensive regulations for cases and persons. The only question is, which general rule, will accommodate most cases and most persons.
Depend upon it, sir, it is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy and altercation, as would be opened by attempting to alter the qualifications of voters. There will be no end of it. New claims will arise. Women will demand a vote. Lads from 12 to 21 will think their rights not enough attended to, and every man, who has not a farthing, will demand an equal voice with any other in all acts of state. It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and prostrate all ranks, to one common level.Obama Gaffes and Flip-Flops
I decided it is time to start capturing, in one place, the elitist and offensive statements made by Barak Obama, in his run to be the President of the most powerful nation on earth. Due to his woeful inexperience, I expect this list to grow as he is forced to state a platform and stick to it.
Soundbites:
"I don't want her punished with a baby."
"typical white person"
"clinging to their guns and religion"
Flip-Flops:
Unequivocally Pull Troops from Iraq
Public Funding for political campaigns
No Washington Insiders pulling the strings
Soundbites:
"I don't want her punished with a baby."
"typical white person"
"clinging to their guns and religion"
Flip-Flops:
Unequivocally Pull Troops from Iraq
Public Funding for political campaigns
No Washington Insiders pulling the strings
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Big Win for Congress - Finally
Good news out of Washington - Republicans found their backbone and blocked passage of the Windfall Profits bill. According to the Associated Press,*
There are so many things wrong with this, that I will limit myself to the few most obvious items. Who determines "unreasonable" profits? Where, and how, is it determined that this tax revenue will be used to reduce the costs to the consumer? It is a medieval mindset that profits are evil. The modern economist recognizes that the reward of high profits draws more creativity, ingenuity, and participants into the marketplace. This decreases the profit per company, spurs innovation, decreases risk, and benefits consumers much more than government intervention. The contrary claim could be that oil is a finite resource, so additional participants will deplete the supply more quickly. But, supply does not drive demand. In contrast, you will have more companies with a vested interest in prolonging the supply or finding viable alternatives.
While it is clear that this will give more power to government, and make price-gouging a federal crime, what proof is there that this will benefit consumers? What power does the government have to limit oil speculation? The only thing that tempers rampant speculation is a clear signal that it has gone beyond the pale. For the recent housing speculation bust, the signal came when the volume of buyers was far outpaced by the number of sellers. It is difficult to tell how this signal will manifest itself with oil speculation. There are many more players, no geographic restrictions, and the ability to 'buy in' with a much lower risk. The plans to increase supply by bringing more wells and petroleum technologies online appears to be the most likely trigger to stop speculation. Attempts to use alternative sources like wind, solar, or geothermal sources have not been shown to be applicable on a large enough scale to make an impact.
Apparently a hint is given as to where the money taken from the oil companies will be spent, by pursuing antitrust actions against OPEC countries. But, there is no evidence that OPEC is responsible for the spike in prices. All this will do is anger countries with whom we already have tenuous relations. If we truly believed that this action was necessary, we would not wait to tax windfall profits before pursuing this course of action.
The peak of ignorance in the article* is the statement: "But there was nothing to lose by taking on Big Oil when people are paying $60 to $100 to fill up their gas tanks." To say something so blatantly false illuminates the fact that the writer, Josef Hebert, refuses to even consider the alternatives or unintended consequences.
Democrats are already spinning this as another loss to the Oil Companies and to the Republicans who they claim are firmly in their pocket. However, the people pushing this bill are the ones who bear the burden of proof, which they have never satisfied. They are the ones attempting to convict without a fair trial. This was clear last month, when they call the Oil Executives in to their Kangaroo Court to berate and belittle them, while never actually seeking an understanding of the situation.
* http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080610/ap_on_go_co/congress_oil_profits
The Democratic energy package would have imposed a 25 percent tax on any "unreasonable" profits of the five largest U.S. oil companies, which together made $36 billion during the first three months of the year. It also would have given the government more power to address oil market speculation, opened the way for antitrust actions against countries belonging to the OPEC oil cartel, and made energy price gouging a federal crime.
There are so many things wrong with this, that I will limit myself to the few most obvious items. Who determines "unreasonable" profits? Where, and how, is it determined that this tax revenue will be used to reduce the costs to the consumer? It is a medieval mindset that profits are evil. The modern economist recognizes that the reward of high profits draws more creativity, ingenuity, and participants into the marketplace. This decreases the profit per company, spurs innovation, decreases risk, and benefits consumers much more than government intervention. The contrary claim could be that oil is a finite resource, so additional participants will deplete the supply more quickly. But, supply does not drive demand. In contrast, you will have more companies with a vested interest in prolonging the supply or finding viable alternatives.
While it is clear that this will give more power to government, and make price-gouging a federal crime, what proof is there that this will benefit consumers? What power does the government have to limit oil speculation? The only thing that tempers rampant speculation is a clear signal that it has gone beyond the pale. For the recent housing speculation bust, the signal came when the volume of buyers was far outpaced by the number of sellers. It is difficult to tell how this signal will manifest itself with oil speculation. There are many more players, no geographic restrictions, and the ability to 'buy in' with a much lower risk. The plans to increase supply by bringing more wells and petroleum technologies online appears to be the most likely trigger to stop speculation. Attempts to use alternative sources like wind, solar, or geothermal sources have not been shown to be applicable on a large enough scale to make an impact.
Apparently a hint is given as to where the money taken from the oil companies will be spent, by pursuing antitrust actions against OPEC countries. But, there is no evidence that OPEC is responsible for the spike in prices. All this will do is anger countries with whom we already have tenuous relations. If we truly believed that this action was necessary, we would not wait to tax windfall profits before pursuing this course of action.
The peak of ignorance in the article* is the statement: "But there was nothing to lose by taking on Big Oil when people are paying $60 to $100 to fill up their gas tanks." To say something so blatantly false illuminates the fact that the writer, Josef Hebert, refuses to even consider the alternatives or unintended consequences.
Democrats are already spinning this as another loss to the Oil Companies and to the Republicans who they claim are firmly in their pocket. However, the people pushing this bill are the ones who bear the burden of proof, which they have never satisfied. They are the ones attempting to convict without a fair trial. This was clear last month, when they call the Oil Executives in to their Kangaroo Court to berate and belittle them, while never actually seeking an understanding of the situation.
* http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080610/ap_on_go_co/congress_oil_profits
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
