The stimulus is working! Yeah, right. I can't believe this article came from the Associated Press, I guess the 'magic' is wearing off. Let's take a look at one way the administration is coming up with their "jobs created or saved" numbers. I wish I could say this is unbelievable, but sadly it is not.
It seems that pay raises are being counted as saved jobs. First of all, what are they doing giving out pay raises during bad economic times? Only the government would do that...I didn't even receive a cost of living adjustment last year, much less a raise. And I'm pretty sure it will be more of the same this year. At least I still have a job, I wonder if Obama is taking credit for saving that one too.
Back to the fuzzy math, they claim the stimulus "saved 935 jobs at the Southwest Georgia Community Action Council...(t)rouble is, only 508 people work there." So how does that work? "director Myrtis Mulkey-Ndawula said she followed the guidelines the Obama administration provided. She said she multiplied the 508 employees by 1.84 — the percentage pay raise they received — and came up with 935 jobs saved." Again, besides the obvious nonsense of the equation, that means they increased their payroll by 84%! When is the last time you got an 84% raise? And what is it exactly that this "Community Action Council" does? Perhaps it's ACORN's replacement?
No, this isn't an isolated incident, the same reporting is coming out of other government organizations:
Administration for Children and Families at Health and Human Services - of the 14,506 jobs claimed to be saved, more than 9,300 were existing employees who received pay raises
Bergen County Community Action Program - noted the nearly $213,000 it received went to cover raises for existing staff only
And of course, the Chicago area school system had to get in on the payoffs...
Wilmette Public Schools District 39 - credited with 166 jobs saved by stimulus . Superintendent Raymond Lechner said the number should be zero.
Dolton-Riverdale School District 148 - saved the equivalent of 382 full-time teaching jobs -- 142 more than the district actually has.
Kankakee School District 111 - logged the equivalent of 665 full-time jobs saved. The entire payroll -- full and part time -- is 600 workers.
How's that for an open and honest administration? Don't worry, the mouthpieces can explain everything...
"It's a glitch in the system," said Ben Allen, the research director at the National Head Start Association. Thanks, Ben. I noticed that. Allen said a cost-of-living adjustment "may not be viewed traditionally as a job saved, but one could interpret it that, by providing COLA, you're retaining staff." Oh, now I see.
"If I give you a raise, it is going to save a portion of your job," HHS spokesman Luis Rosero said. A portion of my job? You really do think we're that stupid, don't you?
Ed DeSeve, who oversees the stimulus at the White House, said the Head Start numbers "represent a few percent of all jobs reported" and said the problems would probably be balanced out by other errors that underreported jobs. "So we don't expect any corrections to this data to meaningfully impact the total 640,000 direct jobs." Yeah, I'm sure it will all work out in the end. Move along, there's nothing to see here.
I always wondered just how they would calculate "jobs saved", now we know. This is only one example that's come to light, I'm sure there will be many more to follow.
Links:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jMNoef6xDenBbHWO0Im6rIjDmAgAD9BOJH300
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/education/chi-education-stimulus-04-nov04,0,2066518,full.story
11.05.2009
10.28.2009
Environmentalism as Religion
Kind of off topic but important nonetheless, here's a Michael Crichton speech from 2003. I've read some of his thoughts on the issue before but I just read this one today. I have absolutely zero disagreement with anything he wrote here:
http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-environmentalismaseligion.html
http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-environmentalismaseligion.html
10.09.2009
What It Feels Like To Be A Libertarian
Yes, this blog is called Republican Remix but I am actually a Libertarian. My point is that in order to better the country the Republican Party must adopt more Libertarian principles. I won't go into the reasoning behind that view here, see some of my earlier posts for that. I came across this excellent article by John Hasnas, a professor at Georgetown's McDonough School of Business, and I had to share.
"Political analysts frequently consider what it means to be a libertarian. In fact, in 1997, Charles Murray published a short book entitled "What It Means to Be a Libertarian" that does an excellent job of presenting the core principles of libertarian political philosophy. But almost no one ever discusses what it feels like to be a libertarian. How does it actually feel to be someone who holds the principles described in Murray’s book?
I’ll tell you. It feels bad. Being a libertarian means living with an almost unendurable level of frustration. It means being subject to unending scorn and derision despite being inevitably proven correct by events..."
Read the rest here:
http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/FeelsLike.htm
"Political analysts frequently consider what it means to be a libertarian. In fact, in 1997, Charles Murray published a short book entitled "What It Means to Be a Libertarian" that does an excellent job of presenting the core principles of libertarian political philosophy. But almost no one ever discusses what it feels like to be a libertarian. How does it actually feel to be someone who holds the principles described in Murray’s book?
I’ll tell you. It feels bad. Being a libertarian means living with an almost unendurable level of frustration. It means being subject to unending scorn and derision despite being inevitably proven correct by events..."
Read the rest here:
http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/FeelsLike.htm
7.16.2009
Healthcare
The first word that comes to mind after looking at the "Obamacare" bill is unbelievable. Unfortunately, after my initial reaction I realize that there is actually nothing unbelievable about it. At least the democrats are starting to be open about where they really stand, within their legislation that is, I doubt they wanted this to be picked up by the public. Here are some excerpts from an Investor's Business Daily editorial (which I would recommend reading every day at ibdeditorials.com):
"It didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal."
"Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:
"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law."
"So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers."
The full article can be found here.
Do you still think Obama is being honest and open with the American public? Last month at a town hall he said "“We should be able to find a way to create a uniquely American solution to this problem that controls cost but preserves the innovation that is introduced in part with a free- market system". Someone please explain to me what a "free market system" is because I have apparently been mistaken all these years if the president is to be believed.
I always hear the line that the republicans have nothing better to offer and that is true to some extent. Our supposed leaders don't seem to have one but I do. I'll try to provide just a basic outline and I'll possibly write up the entire plan in full detail at some point.
Although I hate for the government to mandate anything, I have to have them involved when it comes to children's health care because many people are unfit parents in this country. That and you're just not going to get any democratic support without this provision. At birth, a parent or guardian should be required to purchase a health plan for their child. This can be from any private insurer and could be any plan with at least some basic level of coverage. Insurers would gladly take on this risk with no medical underwriting because they will have very good actuarial models on which to base their assumptions on the morbidity of such a group. This takes away the 'what about people with pre-existing problems' argument. If you couldn't tell, I am very familiar with the insurance industry, I'd be happy to explain any of these concepts if you are not.
The insured would be free to switch coverage to another company at any time (that is what a free market is). Many insurers would accept a new customer without underwriting again because their actuarial models could account for the risk. Basically this plan would be like on giant group plan, similar to what you have with your employer. Adverse selection (meaning the risk that people looking for insurance are more likely to do so when they are not in good health) would not be much of a concern either since people would mostly be switching plans due to market concerns like customer service and price.
At age 18, you can drop coverage altogether if you wanted to. Adults should be free to make their own decisions. Just remember that there may not be a plan available to you at the point that you decide to get coverage again without medical underwriting. Also, if you want to maintain your existing coverage you would have the option to convert to an adult plan with no underwriting. This would protect people who do get a disease or other health problem before adulthood. Under this plan, if you were to never let your coverage lapse you would always be guaranteed to have coverage at a price that is consistent with other members of your age and sex.
Another option that insurers would be eager offer is a fully underwritten policy. If you are an adult and you feel you are healthier than the average person you could qualify for better rates, just like individual policies work now. And remember, on the other hand if you are in poorer health your coverage can never be taken away as long as you keep it current.
Another key component of this plan is the Health Savings Account, which is another benefit the democrats would like to end. Throughout your life you should be able to place before tax money into your own account to pay for premiums or any other medical care. If the government really had your best interests at heart, wouldn't these accounts be preserved and even enhanced?
This seems like such an easy solution to me. Perhaps that's why it actually looks profound when compared to anything a politician could come up with. Health "crisis" solved.
"It didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal."
"Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:
"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law."
"So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers."
The full article can be found here.
Do you still think Obama is being honest and open with the American public? Last month at a town hall he said "“We should be able to find a way to create a uniquely American solution to this problem that controls cost but preserves the innovation that is introduced in part with a free- market system". Someone please explain to me what a "free market system" is because I have apparently been mistaken all these years if the president is to be believed.
I always hear the line that the republicans have nothing better to offer and that is true to some extent. Our supposed leaders don't seem to have one but I do. I'll try to provide just a basic outline and I'll possibly write up the entire plan in full detail at some point.
Although I hate for the government to mandate anything, I have to have them involved when it comes to children's health care because many people are unfit parents in this country. That and you're just not going to get any democratic support without this provision. At birth, a parent or guardian should be required to purchase a health plan for their child. This can be from any private insurer and could be any plan with at least some basic level of coverage. Insurers would gladly take on this risk with no medical underwriting because they will have very good actuarial models on which to base their assumptions on the morbidity of such a group. This takes away the 'what about people with pre-existing problems' argument. If you couldn't tell, I am very familiar with the insurance industry, I'd be happy to explain any of these concepts if you are not.
The insured would be free to switch coverage to another company at any time (that is what a free market is). Many insurers would accept a new customer without underwriting again because their actuarial models could account for the risk. Basically this plan would be like on giant group plan, similar to what you have with your employer. Adverse selection (meaning the risk that people looking for insurance are more likely to do so when they are not in good health) would not be much of a concern either since people would mostly be switching plans due to market concerns like customer service and price.
At age 18, you can drop coverage altogether if you wanted to. Adults should be free to make their own decisions. Just remember that there may not be a plan available to you at the point that you decide to get coverage again without medical underwriting. Also, if you want to maintain your existing coverage you would have the option to convert to an adult plan with no underwriting. This would protect people who do get a disease or other health problem before adulthood. Under this plan, if you were to never let your coverage lapse you would always be guaranteed to have coverage at a price that is consistent with other members of your age and sex.
Another option that insurers would be eager offer is a fully underwritten policy. If you are an adult and you feel you are healthier than the average person you could qualify for better rates, just like individual policies work now. And remember, on the other hand if you are in poorer health your coverage can never be taken away as long as you keep it current.
Another key component of this plan is the Health Savings Account, which is another benefit the democrats would like to end. Throughout your life you should be able to place before tax money into your own account to pay for premiums or any other medical care. If the government really had your best interests at heart, wouldn't these accounts be preserved and even enhanced?
This seems like such an easy solution to me. Perhaps that's why it actually looks profound when compared to anything a politician could come up with. Health "crisis" solved.
7.08.2009
Capitalism, Darwinism, Religion and Government
Let's start with a disclaimer: This is not a Christian (or any other religion) bashing article. I will not try to talk you out of your faith. However, evidence for evolution is overwhelming and I accept it as should you. I can debate this point from a scientific standpoint just as easily as I can refute the anthropogenic global warming theory but that's really not the point of this entry. Would a God who set a sequence of events in motion that lead to us be any less worthy than one who creates a modern human from scratch? I would actually argue the reverse, but now back to the topic at hand.
One of the most puzzling aspects of the human psyche is that most people who can be defined as left or right seem to have Darwinism (or survival of the fittest) backwards. Capitalism is a natural extension of this principle, those who are the most fit for our system, the most productive, enjoy more success in life. It's a beautiful thing.
So why do so many conservatives subscribe to this principle economically but not to life in general? I think the basic answer is obvious, because of a long standing religious view against evolution. This ends up hurting the Republican position on other issues, global warming for example. If you refuse to study the science of one issue, how will anyone take you serious when you try to back other positions with science?
Conversely, those on the left look at the natural world and see the beauty in evolution but then refuse to apply a survival of the fittest model to human affairs. The strongest or best equipped animal is the most prosperous but when it comes to humans they believe in equality. Are we not an animal? They love the natural world, the extreme environmentalist in fact has a disdain for humans. If the natural world is the model which we should live by then why should we be subject to a centrally planned existence? Where in nature is there central control? Why would anyone want to be controlled by another? Only if you are the weak, or at least the naive I suppose.
Both sides have their 'religion' or 'faith', which on certain issues supersedes their rationality. I obviously am of the opinion that the right exercises far more reason on a day to day basis but that does not mean that improvement is not necessary.
One of the most puzzling aspects of the human psyche is that most people who can be defined as left or right seem to have Darwinism (or survival of the fittest) backwards. Capitalism is a natural extension of this principle, those who are the most fit for our system, the most productive, enjoy more success in life. It's a beautiful thing.
So why do so many conservatives subscribe to this principle economically but not to life in general? I think the basic answer is obvious, because of a long standing religious view against evolution. This ends up hurting the Republican position on other issues, global warming for example. If you refuse to study the science of one issue, how will anyone take you serious when you try to back other positions with science?
Conversely, those on the left look at the natural world and see the beauty in evolution but then refuse to apply a survival of the fittest model to human affairs. The strongest or best equipped animal is the most prosperous but when it comes to humans they believe in equality. Are we not an animal? They love the natural world, the extreme environmentalist in fact has a disdain for humans. If the natural world is the model which we should live by then why should we be subject to a centrally planned existence? Where in nature is there central control? Why would anyone want to be controlled by another? Only if you are the weak, or at least the naive I suppose.
Both sides have their 'religion' or 'faith', which on certain issues supersedes their rationality. I obviously am of the opinion that the right exercises far more reason on a day to day basis but that does not mean that improvement is not necessary.
To the conservative, keep your faith but don't let yourself be blinded. Interpret the lessons to be learned from your holy works for yourself, much of the dogma you follow could be the interpretation of just another man who lived perhaps a thousand years ago. Times have changed and just as his interpretation differed from the opinion of a thousand years before that, perhaps you can update your views. Did God give you the miracle of the human brain for no reason? Maybe He expects man to continue to uncover more truth with each successive generation.
You preach against government indoctrination, yet you are also indoctrinated. You are an individualist, yet you follow the congregation. We have seen enough scandals involving church officials, many seem to have the same character as politicians. Why rail against one group but not the other? Be an individual, can you handle a personal relationship with God? Do you need some other man to tell you what is right? Maybe humanity is now approaching adulthood in God's plan. Maybe some men are now ready to leave school and make it on their own. Just maybe God is tired of you following other men.
To the leftist (I hate that the word liberal has been bastardized), competition breeds success. Embrace it. What happens to species that have no competition or threats for an extended period once those challenges inevitably arrive? That period of stagnation leads to extinction. Look at the stories of the colonization of New Zealand and the Galapagos Islands and what happened to the native species there.
You are a naturalist, yet you support the artificiality of government control. You believe in the superiority of man over god, yet you have nothing but pessimism for the human race. If the climate does change, can't we handle whatever comes our way? We have seen enough scandals involving politicians, many seem to have the same character as church officials. Why rail against one group but not the other? Be an individual, can you handle personal responsibility for your own life? Do you need some other man to tell you what is right? Maybe government is stifling human potential. Maybe a group mentality can never equal the sum of its parts or even one of its parts.
The human race has all but overcome any natural threat to our survival, but we still have a yearning to create, to explore, to learn. We are still of this Earth, we are programmed for competition. Our new battlefield is economics, it is what makes us all prosperous and what makes us human. Capitalism is not evil, it has brought us to where we are. Our standard of living has exploded since the founding of this country because of it. Our production is our species' measure of fitness, it is who we are... whether you like it or not.
5.08.2009
Dr. Evil?
See Michael Ramirez' cartoons every day at www.ibdeditorials.com, and for that matter read their editorials.5.06.2009
On Gun Control...and The Civil War?
I actually started this entry as a reply to http://robertdrovie.blogspot.com/2009/05/from-my-cold-dead-hands.html, but quickly realized this was going to turn into more than a comment. I encourage you to visit his blog, we definitely don't agree on everything but we're both willing to discuss and maybe even listen. Too bad politicians can't learn that lesson.
That post was very well written, and I agree with most of it except that I think he is a little too optimistic about our government, like many. I can see how it looks like the right thing to try to regulate guns in some way but like everything else, it's a slippery slope. I suppose we can look at guns like cars, it seems some regulation is necessary for safety. That is a good argument, but where should the line be drawn between personal responsibility and government control?
The Second Amendment states "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Part of the problem in interpreting the Second Amendment is understanding the time in which it was written. The country has changed in many ways since then and in my opinion, part of the intent of the amendment was actually to prevent some of these very changes. You have to remember, our Founding Fathers' concerns mostly revolved around keeping us (the people) free from tyranny. Tyranny comes from where? Why government, of course.
So when you see the language, "necessary to the security of a free state", I believe the intent was to be able to protect one's self from the inevitable tyranny of a central government. If you want a parallel, the structure of our country was a lot more like the EU than the US today. It's not a perfect analogy, but the point is that each state was mostly autonomous.
And then came the Civil War...
Let me start by saying I believe the war was necessary and was the right thing to do from the Union's standpoint. If it was only fought for secession from the Union based on the taking of freedoms by the central government, then I would actually side with the Confederacy. I will be critical of Lincoln in a moment, but I understand the difficulties of the decisions he had to make.
I feel that this was a war not so much about states' rights but about individual freedom. "All men are created equal" is not a phrase consistent with slavery so I believe that institution had to be abolished in order to finally bring our Union in line with its ideals. It was basically righting a wrong that should have been righted from the beginning. I'll leave this issue, in relation to the founding of our country, for another post since it is worthy of its own discussion.
So where do I disagree with Lincoln and how does this relate to the Second Amendment? In his War Address to Congress (http://facweb.furman.edu/~benson/docs/lincoln.htm), Lincoln laid out the case for going to war after the southern states basically suspended the functions of the Federal Government there. There is no evidence for this, but I believe that he based his decision mostly on the reasoning I have just put forth in the previous paragraph. In his address, however, he does not make this case.
Lincoln argues that "Having never been States, either in substance or in name, outside of the Union, whence this magical omnipotence of "State rights," asserting a claim of power to lawfully destroy the Union itself? Much is said about the "sovereignty" of the States, but the word even is not in the national Constitution, nor, as is believed, in any of the State constitutions."
He went on by framing this as a 'pocketbook' issue. "The nation purchased, with money, the countries out of which several of these States were formed. Is it just that they shall go off without leave and without refunding?"
One statement can be taken as anti-slavery but it was left as a last and brief argument, "On the side of the Union it is a struggle for maintaining in the world that form and substance of government whose leading object is to elevate the condition of men".
Why did Lincoln take this approach? Slavery in far away states was not enough of an issue in itself to convince others to go to war so I believe he did what he had to do. While it would be impossible to defend not taking action in this situation, there is still an ethical concern here. Rarely does "the ends justifies the means" approach lead to anything but mass suffering. If this was Lincoln's thinking then it is hard criticize him, other than to suggest that by being forthright about the slavery issue he could have opened the hearts of men to fight to free their enslaved brothers. Would that have worked though? Maybe, but we will never know.
If his arguments were laid out in order of importance to him in that address then I fear I would have little respect for the man. Perhaps if he wasn't assassinated, his plan was to go back and to make sure the Federal Government did not use this as a basis for continued accumulation of power. Again, we'll never know. The fact of the matter is, after the Civil War, the government went on a joy ride that has only accelerated since.
The 15th and 16th Amendments would never have been passed if not for the slow assumption of powers by the Federal Government. Those are of course the amendments allowing collection of an income tax and direct election to the US Senate. The 16th destroyed anything that was left of states' rights by making Senators representatives of the people, not of the state. What is the House of Representatives for then?
This long interlude does lead back to the Second Amendment in case you've lost track. Again, I firmly believe that its intent was to protect us from tyranny. Now that the states are nothing more than a direct extension of the Federal Government, a state-regulated militia would be useless. Who can protect us now other than ourselves? Are we headed down the road towards a Soviet or Nazi-like takeover of our freedoms? If so, how long do we have? There’s plenty of room for debate on that. One thing is for certain though, I have learned from history, have you?
Notice I haven't even touched on issues of protection from criminals and personal responsibility. Of course they are valid arguments, but if you don't see their merits then you wouldn't have read this far to begin with so there's no need.
Although I will never look for war or violence in any situation, the bottom line is that I reserve, now and forever, the right to defend myself, my family, and my country if need be.
That post was very well written, and I agree with most of it except that I think he is a little too optimistic about our government, like many. I can see how it looks like the right thing to try to regulate guns in some way but like everything else, it's a slippery slope. I suppose we can look at guns like cars, it seems some regulation is necessary for safety. That is a good argument, but where should the line be drawn between personal responsibility and government control?
The Second Amendment states "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Part of the problem in interpreting the Second Amendment is understanding the time in which it was written. The country has changed in many ways since then and in my opinion, part of the intent of the amendment was actually to prevent some of these very changes. You have to remember, our Founding Fathers' concerns mostly revolved around keeping us (the people) free from tyranny. Tyranny comes from where? Why government, of course.
So when you see the language, "necessary to the security of a free state", I believe the intent was to be able to protect one's self from the inevitable tyranny of a central government. If you want a parallel, the structure of our country was a lot more like the EU than the US today. It's not a perfect analogy, but the point is that each state was mostly autonomous.
And then came the Civil War...
Let me start by saying I believe the war was necessary and was the right thing to do from the Union's standpoint. If it was only fought for secession from the Union based on the taking of freedoms by the central government, then I would actually side with the Confederacy. I will be critical of Lincoln in a moment, but I understand the difficulties of the decisions he had to make.
I feel that this was a war not so much about states' rights but about individual freedom. "All men are created equal" is not a phrase consistent with slavery so I believe that institution had to be abolished in order to finally bring our Union in line with its ideals. It was basically righting a wrong that should have been righted from the beginning. I'll leave this issue, in relation to the founding of our country, for another post since it is worthy of its own discussion.
So where do I disagree with Lincoln and how does this relate to the Second Amendment? In his War Address to Congress (http://facweb.furman.edu/~benson/docs/lincoln.htm), Lincoln laid out the case for going to war after the southern states basically suspended the functions of the Federal Government there. There is no evidence for this, but I believe that he based his decision mostly on the reasoning I have just put forth in the previous paragraph. In his address, however, he does not make this case.
Lincoln argues that "Having never been States, either in substance or in name, outside of the Union, whence this magical omnipotence of "State rights," asserting a claim of power to lawfully destroy the Union itself? Much is said about the "sovereignty" of the States, but the word even is not in the national Constitution, nor, as is believed, in any of the State constitutions."
He went on by framing this as a 'pocketbook' issue. "The nation purchased, with money, the countries out of which several of these States were formed. Is it just that they shall go off without leave and without refunding?"
One statement can be taken as anti-slavery but it was left as a last and brief argument, "On the side of the Union it is a struggle for maintaining in the world that form and substance of government whose leading object is to elevate the condition of men".
Why did Lincoln take this approach? Slavery in far away states was not enough of an issue in itself to convince others to go to war so I believe he did what he had to do. While it would be impossible to defend not taking action in this situation, there is still an ethical concern here. Rarely does "the ends justifies the means" approach lead to anything but mass suffering. If this was Lincoln's thinking then it is hard criticize him, other than to suggest that by being forthright about the slavery issue he could have opened the hearts of men to fight to free their enslaved brothers. Would that have worked though? Maybe, but we will never know.
If his arguments were laid out in order of importance to him in that address then I fear I would have little respect for the man. Perhaps if he wasn't assassinated, his plan was to go back and to make sure the Federal Government did not use this as a basis for continued accumulation of power. Again, we'll never know. The fact of the matter is, after the Civil War, the government went on a joy ride that has only accelerated since.
The 15th and 16th Amendments would never have been passed if not for the slow assumption of powers by the Federal Government. Those are of course the amendments allowing collection of an income tax and direct election to the US Senate. The 16th destroyed anything that was left of states' rights by making Senators representatives of the people, not of the state. What is the House of Representatives for then?
This long interlude does lead back to the Second Amendment in case you've lost track. Again, I firmly believe that its intent was to protect us from tyranny. Now that the states are nothing more than a direct extension of the Federal Government, a state-regulated militia would be useless. Who can protect us now other than ourselves? Are we headed down the road towards a Soviet or Nazi-like takeover of our freedoms? If so, how long do we have? There’s plenty of room for debate on that. One thing is for certain though, I have learned from history, have you?
Notice I haven't even touched on issues of protection from criminals and personal responsibility. Of course they are valid arguments, but if you don't see their merits then you wouldn't have read this far to begin with so there's no need.
Although I will never look for war or violence in any situation, the bottom line is that I reserve, now and forever, the right to defend myself, my family, and my country if need be.
4.30.2009
Growing Up
Most children grow into their teens with a disdain for authority, I know that I did. What is it that makes the majority of younger voters attracted to the democratic party then? It just seems to be ingrained in them.
Is it government-run schools, the media, or maybe just that their parents are republicans and they want to rebel? Whatever the cause, the bottom line is that this mindset can only come from ignorance- of world and American history, economics, politics, and a lack of the experience of self-sufficiency.
My aim is not to insult anyone, ignorance is not stupidity, it's the lack of knowledge and experience. I speak from experience as I've been registered as a democrat myself, then as an independent, then a libertarian, and now as a republican. I guess it can be said that you live and you learn.
At the age of 21, I received my wake up call on 9/11. That is when the idealism of my youth was shaken, I began to realize that we can't all just get along. I started studying history and politics, which led into economics and the picture became clear.
I do not see how anyone who truly has a grasp of these subjects and thinks with reason rather than emotion would not move to the right. I can understand how these people become independents or libertarians rather than republicans though. That happens to be the point of my blog, see post #1.
Parents need to teach their children at a younger age because we know that their school is not going to. Make them work for what they want so that they learn independence. Explain to them that in a left-leaning country they will never truly grow up, the government will always be there to play the role of parent.
I think this is an effective lesson, democrat equals more authority over your life, republican equals less. In the meantime, those of us who are already grown up can work on getting those republicans out of office who still have designs on our freedom.
Good riddance, Arlen!
Is it government-run schools, the media, or maybe just that their parents are republicans and they want to rebel? Whatever the cause, the bottom line is that this mindset can only come from ignorance- of world and American history, economics, politics, and a lack of the experience of self-sufficiency.
My aim is not to insult anyone, ignorance is not stupidity, it's the lack of knowledge and experience. I speak from experience as I've been registered as a democrat myself, then as an independent, then a libertarian, and now as a republican. I guess it can be said that you live and you learn.
At the age of 21, I received my wake up call on 9/11. That is when the idealism of my youth was shaken, I began to realize that we can't all just get along. I started studying history and politics, which led into economics and the picture became clear.
I do not see how anyone who truly has a grasp of these subjects and thinks with reason rather than emotion would not move to the right. I can understand how these people become independents or libertarians rather than republicans though. That happens to be the point of my blog, see post #1.
Parents need to teach their children at a younger age because we know that their school is not going to. Make them work for what they want so that they learn independence. Explain to them that in a left-leaning country they will never truly grow up, the government will always be there to play the role of parent.
I think this is an effective lesson, democrat equals more authority over your life, republican equals less. In the meantime, those of us who are already grown up can work on getting those republicans out of office who still have designs on our freedom.
Good riddance, Arlen!
4.14.2009
Time for some action
If you're not in the Tampa area, find one close to you here: http://taxdayteaparty.com/guide/
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent"
- Thomas Jefferson
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent"
- Thomas Jefferson
4.13.2009
4.03.2009
8. Communicate the message effectively
All of the other points I have made do not matter without this one. Most “leaders” of the Republican party deserve to be replaced as soon as possible. If you're wondering, despite making some mistakes, I actually applaud Michael Steele for bringing something new to the table as the RNC Chairman. It’s a wonder to me the party has any support right now. There is a message and it can be explained, but there seems to be no one to explain it. If I have to do it myself I will, no scripts, no teleprompter needed. Common sense and truth are the best weapons available in this war.
7. The Abortion Debate / Gay Marriage
This won’t be long because there is no hope of convincing one side to see it from the other’s point of view on this topic. I understand the moral dilemma this puts one in that believes in life at conception, I really do. The fact is, no scientific conclusion can ever fundamentally prove when exactly a human life becomes a human life. It is a never-ending argument that will never do anything except for repel otherwise intelligent voters from the party. If you feel that strongly about it, do your best to reach out to people in these tough situations to reduce the number of abortions and use rational arguments in your discussions about it.
I believe marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman because that is traditionally the way it has always been and children are best raised with their biological parents. However, I am not anti-gay, I believe that for the most part it is not a choice. I do not see a problem with Civil Unions to create advantages that married couples are entitled to. It should be left up to the individual state to decide the legality. There are many gay individuals in this country with libertarian ideals that are pushed away from the party solely by this issue.
I believe marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman because that is traditionally the way it has always been and children are best raised with their biological parents. However, I am not anti-gay, I believe that for the most part it is not a choice. I do not see a problem with Civil Unions to create advantages that married couples are entitled to. It should be left up to the individual state to decide the legality. There are many gay individuals in this country with libertarian ideals that are pushed away from the party solely by this issue.
6. Legal system reform / punishment should fit crime / loser pays system
Stopping the War on Drugs would do a lot to further this goal but more needs to be done. We all have heard stories of murderers, molesters and rapists getting the equivalent of slaps on the wrist while the likes of Campeon and Ramos and Scooter Libby have their once promising lives all but ruined. The court system is also a mess, burdened with frivolous lawsuits. Let’s talk about a loser pays system to discourage this nonsense. Let’s also look at what the police force is becoming. Writing tickets for rolling stops, ridiculously low speed limits (speed traps), seat belt violations, etc. They're glorified IRS agents, ask any cop you know if he'd rather stop actual crime or collect taxes. On a personal note, I had to take two full days off from being productive at work to go to court in order to beat a ticket that I had gotten. After all of that inconvenience, and winning my case, I still had to pay $121 in court costs. Seems like they should have been paying me.
"Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy". Oscar Wilde
"Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy". Oscar Wilde
5. Defense of freedom around the globe (Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, etc.)
Democrats are all about helping the poor and oppressed when there is no danger involved. Save Darfur and Free Tibet are big liberal supported campaigns that have lasted for years with no effectiveness while thousands continue to die. It is time to call these people out. Ask them, does it make you feel good about yourself to wear that t-shirt at the very moment that a black african is being raped and murdered by an Islamic terrorist because of your cowardice? Many people died in Iraq and Afghanistan, some innocent, some brave, many more terrorists. The brave and the innocent at least died for a better future, the terrorists deserved to die. Without the US, Iraq and Afghanistan would be little different from Sudan today. With the US they are developing into free countries. We cannot free the entire world alone, however, we need allies. Tough and forceful talk of defense of freedom around the world will make that happen, or at least separate friends of liberty from enemies.
4. Legal immigration reform / enforce illegal immigration laws
Most in the Republican party already share these views but it needs to become more coherent. At the same time illegal immigrants are being deported, we need a complete overhaul of our legal immigration procedures. Let’s make it easy for needed workers with clean backgrounds to come. We truly are the beacon of hope for so many of the oppressed in the world. Let’s also talk more about why so many choose to come here and back it up with even more of a reason to.
3. Stop the War on Drugs
How is the severe punishment of a victimless crime consistent with our core ideal of individual liberty? I do not condone or condemn drug use but I can say with certainty that marijuana use is no worse than alcohol use. Does it encourage crime like robbery? What does that mean? I am under the impression that Man is supposed to live under His own free will. If a crime is committed, a crime is committed. Does it really matter why it was committed? Are Republicans in favor of Hate Crime legislation? No, because we don’t believe in thought crimes. This is no different. Whether one murders another for a gold chain or for a bag of drugs, the crime is still murder. Is drug use bad for people? Maybe, but so are fast food and smoking. If you want to continue regulating our freedom join the Democrat Party. Do you want the Mexican Drug War to continue to spill over into the streets of the United States? We're headed straight into a higher caliber repeat of the 20's alcohol prohibition, how did that work out for us?
2. Tax code simplification / FairTax
I’m personally a big believer in the FairTax, no need to cover it here because plenty has already been written. The point is Republicans need to make a debate on some kind of tax reform job number one.
1. Focus on freedom of religion, not one specific religion
Let me start by saying there is nothing wrong with being religious, there’s nothing wrong with being a Christian and being vocal about it and there’s nothing wrong with the so-called ‘religious right’ but there is also more to being ‘right’ than that. I’m not particularly religious myself but I am not threatened in any way by those who are. The fact of the matter is that the Left has created an effective stereotype of all Republicans as fundamentalist Christian xenophobes and now that needs to be overcome. The party cannot expand in a country with a continually decreasing percentage of Christians if it’s focus, whether real or perceived, is on Christians only. It is the focus on the freedom of all religion or even no religion that makes this country great. Even (gasp!) atheists and agnostics can find common sense reasons for having values very similar to the Judeo-Christian value system this country was founded on.
Intro / The Two Party System
Most of my life I’ve been in favor of expanding our political spectrum into a multi-party system. I thought it would be great to attempt to build up the Libertarian Party into prominence and not have to give in to some of the strict social conservatives of the Republican Party. Of course the Libertarians are dead wrong on most international issues so I even have a problem fitting in there. Perhaps the biggest flaw in this view is the fact that without a similar split off of the Democrat Party, we’re doomed to years of liberal government which in turn would only lead to the destruction of the Republican Party and we would return to a two party system anyways. And the damage caused by those years would probably be irreparable.
When it comes down to it, there are really only two substantive categories that everyone can fit into: those who believe in expanding the role of government and those who believe in limiting the role government. Within the context of these two ideals there is plenty of room for diversity of thought. Many cringe when they hear the line about the party needing a “bigger tent” but that doesn’t necessarily mean that our ideals would be weakened, as long as individual liberty remains the unifying factor. We can have differing opinions on foreign affairs, abortion, the war on drugs, etc. That is why we hold primaries; the people’s wishes will determine the best candidate. And while we’re on that topic, primary opponents should even be encouraged to run against incumbents; Washington definitely has a way of corrupting.
In essence I believe the problems we are facing can be solved by a revitalization of debate within the Republican Party. We can expand our voting base by realizing that the solution is not to be more like democrats. An expanding base of views can also help to overcome the successful stereotyping of us that democrats have perpetuated amongst the American people. We need to show that we do not fit the characterization of “angry white men” or “Uncle Toms” that the ignorant perceive us as, for even the ignorant can be reached with the right message.
The point of this blog is to explore ways to attract voters to the Republican Party without sacrificing the most important of ideals, liberty. We’re approaching the point where less than fifty percent of us will be paying any taxes; at that point the democratic majority will be sealed for good. Bickering amongst ourselves, forming new parties or trying to be more like democrats will not prevent that. The Republican Renaissance must happen soon.
I’ll follow up on this with short posts about what I believe needs to be done to achieve this. Please add your feedback and I will expand on each of these in the future.
When it comes down to it, there are really only two substantive categories that everyone can fit into: those who believe in expanding the role of government and those who believe in limiting the role government. Within the context of these two ideals there is plenty of room for diversity of thought. Many cringe when they hear the line about the party needing a “bigger tent” but that doesn’t necessarily mean that our ideals would be weakened, as long as individual liberty remains the unifying factor. We can have differing opinions on foreign affairs, abortion, the war on drugs, etc. That is why we hold primaries; the people’s wishes will determine the best candidate. And while we’re on that topic, primary opponents should even be encouraged to run against incumbents; Washington definitely has a way of corrupting.
In essence I believe the problems we are facing can be solved by a revitalization of debate within the Republican Party. We can expand our voting base by realizing that the solution is not to be more like democrats. An expanding base of views can also help to overcome the successful stereotyping of us that democrats have perpetuated amongst the American people. We need to show that we do not fit the characterization of “angry white men” or “Uncle Toms” that the ignorant perceive us as, for even the ignorant can be reached with the right message.
The point of this blog is to explore ways to attract voters to the Republican Party without sacrificing the most important of ideals, liberty. We’re approaching the point where less than fifty percent of us will be paying any taxes; at that point the democratic majority will be sealed for good. Bickering amongst ourselves, forming new parties or trying to be more like democrats will not prevent that. The Republican Renaissance must happen soon.
I’ll follow up on this with short posts about what I believe needs to be done to achieve this. Please add your feedback and I will expand on each of these in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
