I find it amusing.....no, that's not quite correct. I find it disgusting. Yep, that's the word. I find it disgusting that on the day named to honor a hero of the Civil Rights Movement in the United States, we inaugurate a President who claims to support those rights yet does everything in his power to usurp them.
Martin Luther King, Jr., fought for the rights of an oppressed people. Barack Hussein Obama fights to subjugate "We The People." I am saddened that the two are now connected in history. One for a day in his honor and the other for a second pseudo coronation. Yep. Disgusted is the right word.
Monday, January 21, 2013
Friday, January 11, 2013
The Trillion Dollar Debacle
The Administration, along with the Democratic Leadership in Congress, are not concerned with the U.S. defaulting on its financial obligations although that is what they would have the public believe. It's all a "marketing" ploy to position themselves as the "saviors" of the U.S. credit rating when in reality it isn't the possible default that bothers them; it is the cap on their uncontrolled spending. What they want is equivalent to "I can't be out of money, I still have checks!"
I wonder if they realize that there are no bankruptcy laws that apply to the country. If it goes bankrupt they can't just file a few documents that stiff their creditors. When you consider who owns the debt, bankruptcy would likely mean war. You can't fight a war without lots of money. Sounds like a no-win situation to me. I wonder sometimes if they understand how the real world works....oh yeah, work is something others do so that the government can take the fruit of their labor and give to those who don't. Never mind......
I wonder if they realize that there are no bankruptcy laws that apply to the country. If it goes bankrupt they can't just file a few documents that stiff their creditors. When you consider who owns the debt, bankruptcy would likely mean war. You can't fight a war without lots of money. Sounds like a no-win situation to me. I wonder sometimes if they understand how the real world works....oh yeah, work is something others do so that the government can take the fruit of their labor and give to those who don't. Never mind......
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Gun Control
The hot topic for the last few days has been gun control legislation. Sigh. The issue just won't go away.
The Constitution is clear on the rights of the people to own firearms. It is a clause included because of the tendency of government to tyrannize citizens who are unable to defend themselves. Are you as a taxpayer feeling a bit tyrannized lately?
I am not advocating armed revolution. I am advocating balance. The possibility of armed revolt is a check against the tyranny of government. It is one of those "separation of powers" clauses that seeks to create balance. Without the threat of opposition, any power tends to dominate. The right of the citizens to bear arms is an attempt to balance the power of the citizen against the power of the state.
I realize the argument is that people are murdered by firearms. Yes, they are. And by knives and hammers and ladders and cars and medical malpractice and wars and the list goes on and on. It is a cliche but, "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is a true statement. Criminals will find weapons and commit crimes. Firearms in the hands of reasonable citizens is a means of self-protection.
Gun Control is merely another attempt by those in power to consolidate that power. It is a means by which politicians can play on the "heartstrings" of a gullible public to gain power over a broader group of people. It is not about protecting people from violence, it is about gaining power.
If we continue to allow power to accrete to those in Washington we will eventually fall into a completely subservient state. I find that extremely unpalatable. I prefer freedom to slavery.
The Constitution is clear on the rights of the people to own firearms. It is a clause included because of the tendency of government to tyrannize citizens who are unable to defend themselves. Are you as a taxpayer feeling a bit tyrannized lately?
I am not advocating armed revolution. I am advocating balance. The possibility of armed revolt is a check against the tyranny of government. It is one of those "separation of powers" clauses that seeks to create balance. Without the threat of opposition, any power tends to dominate. The right of the citizens to bear arms is an attempt to balance the power of the citizen against the power of the state.
I realize the argument is that people are murdered by firearms. Yes, they are. And by knives and hammers and ladders and cars and medical malpractice and wars and the list goes on and on. It is a cliche but, "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is a true statement. Criminals will find weapons and commit crimes. Firearms in the hands of reasonable citizens is a means of self-protection.
Gun Control is merely another attempt by those in power to consolidate that power. It is a means by which politicians can play on the "heartstrings" of a gullible public to gain power over a broader group of people. It is not about protecting people from violence, it is about gaining power.
If we continue to allow power to accrete to those in Washington we will eventually fall into a completely subservient state. I find that extremely unpalatable. I prefer freedom to slavery.
Sunday, January 6, 2013
Gridlock is a Good Thing
It appears that the best the American public can hope for in the coming weeks is complete and total gridlock on Capitol Hill. The debate hasn't changed. The Fiscal Cliff "crisis" was nothing but a manufactured deadline that truly accomplished nothing lasting. The problems have not changed.
The two opposing philosophies on "tax and spend" vs. "fiscal responsibility" are not driving the discussions. Power and power alone are what is at stake in the minds of the politicians. Is it "my way" or is it "your way" is the only debate. There is not statesmanship and no seeking of a middle-of-the road compromise.
The only possible outcome that meets in the middle is gridlock. Maybe that's the best thing that could happen.
The two opposing philosophies on "tax and spend" vs. "fiscal responsibility" are not driving the discussions. Power and power alone are what is at stake in the minds of the politicians. Is it "my way" or is it "your way" is the only debate. There is not statesmanship and no seeking of a middle-of-the road compromise.
The only possible outcome that meets in the middle is gridlock. Maybe that's the best thing that could happen.
Saturday, January 5, 2013
Aid for Politicians
Disaster Relief is certainly an area where I believe there is a role for the Federal Government. That role however, should be limited.
In the midst of devastation from storms or other natural disasters there is often the need for additional policing activity as well as the immediate reconstruction of basic utility infrastructure -- seeing that there is power and potable water as well as clear avenues of access (roads) is a necessary function of government. For those who have lost everything there is the need to provide shelter and food for a short period -- but not indefinitely.
The problem is that people now seem to expect the government to totally rebuild their lives. This especially irritates me when it includes houses on a beach that are going to be subject to the next hurricane, or houses on the bank of a major river that periodically floods, or houses on a major fault line that is likely to be hit with another earthquake. Private insurance should handle those things.
One of the things that has happened with disaster relief though is that the enabling legislation is often accompanied with "pork." Special interest groups always seem to benefit from disasters. Frequently, it seems that much of the aid never actually reaches the people most in need -- that is, of course, unless they compose a major voting block.
Disasters always provide photo op's for politicians. A highly photographed hug or a well choreographed scene of "picking through the rubble" always seem to make the headlines. Those who are trying to "pick up the pieces of their lives" rarely do though.
Disasters can make or break politicians. If they are seen to be strong, forceful leaders who are watching out for their constituents by fighting for huge volumes of federal relief dollars, they usually get reelected. If on the other hand they are seen to be slow to respond and fail to obtain those federal dollars, they usually are replaced in the next election cycle by someone with a better story.
Self-interest drives behavior. The ability to vote money for oneself at the expense of others will lead to the downfall of our country if we don't elect LEADERS who will stand up and say, "No more pork. We spend what is needed but no more."
In the midst of devastation from storms or other natural disasters there is often the need for additional policing activity as well as the immediate reconstruction of basic utility infrastructure -- seeing that there is power and potable water as well as clear avenues of access (roads) is a necessary function of government. For those who have lost everything there is the need to provide shelter and food for a short period -- but not indefinitely.
The problem is that people now seem to expect the government to totally rebuild their lives. This especially irritates me when it includes houses on a beach that are going to be subject to the next hurricane, or houses on the bank of a major river that periodically floods, or houses on a major fault line that is likely to be hit with another earthquake. Private insurance should handle those things.
One of the things that has happened with disaster relief though is that the enabling legislation is often accompanied with "pork." Special interest groups always seem to benefit from disasters. Frequently, it seems that much of the aid never actually reaches the people most in need -- that is, of course, unless they compose a major voting block.
Disasters always provide photo op's for politicians. A highly photographed hug or a well choreographed scene of "picking through the rubble" always seem to make the headlines. Those who are trying to "pick up the pieces of their lives" rarely do though.
Disasters can make or break politicians. If they are seen to be strong, forceful leaders who are watching out for their constituents by fighting for huge volumes of federal relief dollars, they usually get reelected. If on the other hand they are seen to be slow to respond and fail to obtain those federal dollars, they usually are replaced in the next election cycle by someone with a better story.
Self-interest drives behavior. The ability to vote money for oneself at the expense of others will lead to the downfall of our country if we don't elect LEADERS who will stand up and say, "No more pork. We spend what is needed but no more."
Thursday, January 3, 2013
National Debt
Did you know that the National Debt has increased by $3.86 Billion per day since September 28, 2007? That is scarey by itself. However, when you realize that the Total National Debt of $16,437,033,476,729.94 equals $52,318.49 per person in the U.S. based on an estimated population of 315,172, 572 it's is downright terrifying! (see here of course it changes daily so by the time you read this my figures will be incorrect)
Time to cough up your share.....
Let Congress know you are fed up with their profligate ways!
Time to cough up your share.....
Let Congress know you are fed up with their profligate ways!
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Fallout Follies
The news today was filled with various takes on the averted Fiscal Cliff. The consensus seems to be that virtually all of us will see a tax increase. What we won't see is reduced spending.
Washington will continue to ask for more and more of our money in more and more different ways. Some taxes, like the Income Tax, are easily on everyone's radar. Other taxes are less so. Taxes on imports and exports, taxes on corporations, "fees" for virtually everything that we do -- all are taxes that ultimately hit the consumer's pocket.
The outcry over the fact that no vote was taken on relief for victims of Hurricane Sandy is another interesting piece of this Nation's fiscal puzzle. Reliance on the government to bail everyone out, no matter the "disaster" is just one more contribution to the spend, spend, spend mentality in Washington. After all, votes are at stake. It isn't really about relief to people. Certainly there are needs, but no one is starving and without clothing as a result of Sandy. Local relief and charitable organizations are seeing to those basic needs. Governor Christie is crying out to Washington for one reason only -- to tell "his" voters that he is looking out for their interests.
With the much bigger issue/deadline of averting sequestration, it was inappropriate for Congress to consider anything else. I'm just amazed that they are in session.
Why are people so blind to what is happening in Washington? Is it that there are more people dependent on the government now than are not? If that is the case, we have entered a downward spiral that ends only with failure as a nation. I don't think we are there yet, but the rate of decent is frightening.
Washington will continue to ask for more and more of our money in more and more different ways. Some taxes, like the Income Tax, are easily on everyone's radar. Other taxes are less so. Taxes on imports and exports, taxes on corporations, "fees" for virtually everything that we do -- all are taxes that ultimately hit the consumer's pocket.
The outcry over the fact that no vote was taken on relief for victims of Hurricane Sandy is another interesting piece of this Nation's fiscal puzzle. Reliance on the government to bail everyone out, no matter the "disaster" is just one more contribution to the spend, spend, spend mentality in Washington. After all, votes are at stake. It isn't really about relief to people. Certainly there are needs, but no one is starving and without clothing as a result of Sandy. Local relief and charitable organizations are seeing to those basic needs. Governor Christie is crying out to Washington for one reason only -- to tell "his" voters that he is looking out for their interests.
With the much bigger issue/deadline of averting sequestration, it was inappropriate for Congress to consider anything else. I'm just amazed that they are in session.
Why are people so blind to what is happening in Washington? Is it that there are more people dependent on the government now than are not? If that is the case, we have entered a downward spiral that ends only with failure as a nation. I don't think we are there yet, but the rate of decent is frightening.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)