Well, it's four days into President Obama's administration and (thankfully) there has been no push by his party on abortion. This brings up a topic which I have been pondering all this week, due (among other things) to the inauguration, Martin Luther King Jr Day, and a talk given by Dr. Niel Nielson, President of Covenant College. This topic is that of conservative narrowness.
Abortion has rightfully been compared to slavery by its opponents and so I think it would be good to look at how slavery ended in Britain to see how we should go about defeating abortion. In studying the life of William Wilberforce, I discovered that not only did he focus his energies on ending slavery, but he connected the issue with others such as the war with France, social justice in Britain, and liberal reforms to the government. In short, William Wilberforce was not a single-issue politician as many have made him out to be.
This, then is what we who oppose abortion ought to be doing: connecting our stance against abortion with other issues. What I would like to call for is a comprehensive social agenda that would address, among other things, abortion, social justice, racism, particularly against blacks and hispanics, environmental issues, prison reform, AIDS, and sex trafficking. These are all issues that the Bible speaks to and therefore Christians ought to care about them.
Now, many of my conservative friends will say about, say, social justice, "But that should be up to private charities." That's well and good--but before you say it, put your money where your mouth is. I don't want to hear how unnecessary government involvement is until I see how many deductions you have for charitable causes. It's good and right for the church to have this responsibility, but frankly we've done a poor job of late.
At the beginning of the Twentieth Century, a new form of conservatism arose under Theodore Roosevelt called progressivism. Progressivism called for social and political reform with solid moral foundations as opposed to the pragmatic populism of politicians like Woodrow Wilson. If we as Christians want to bring our faith into the political arena, we have to bring it to bear on all areas and not just abortion. Is abortion crucial? Absolutely, but until we make it a critical and connected part of a wider set of policies in society like AIDS, sex trafficking, and racism, our pleas for life will go unheard.
In short I am calling for radical conservatism: a new progressive conservatism rooted in faith that God does care about more issues than just abortion and gay marriage. With a new administration, the time is now. It's time for change, yes: change in the right direction.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Monday, December 8, 2008
December 7th, 1941 and the "We will NEVER Forget" Slogan
[Author's Comment: I wrote this yesterday to post on my personal blog, sorry for the delay.]
Pop Quiz: What happened this day 1941?
Answer: The day all Americans began waiting for VJ day, i.e., the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. We were thrown into a war to the west of us, along with the war we were already fighting to the east in Europe.
67 years ago, Americans didn't want yet another war, but they saw how clearly we didn't have a choice. In the Japanese we found an enemy more imminent even that Hitler at the time. Hitler was attacking our allies, while Japan had attacked American soil. We had to fight, even with all the rationing that was already happening, all the hardship, all the death. We entered yet another theatre of war where thousands of our sons, brothers and fathers died in a single battle.
We enjoy the freedom that they died for. We appreciate the families all over America who skimped, saved, and went without in order to allow our troops to have what they needed in order to gain freedom for Europe, and for us... the same freedom we now enjoy. Thanks, to all WWII Veterans, and all Veterans throughout our country's history.
But, what about today? Birdie announced to me what day it was as soon as I got up. Then, I checked email real quick, and found the Rasmussen Reports Daily Update waiting for me. I skimmed their headlines, and found something most disconcerting. "Confidence in War on Terror Declines" read the headline, and my stomach realized I hadn't eaten yet. Read the stats, or just know that only 47% of those polled believe that the U.S. and its allies are winning the War on Terror.
This of course, brings us to the connection I want to make between December 7th, 1941, and December 7th, 2008. In 1941, America was outraged and reeling from having suffered an attack on our own soil. If you can remember, in 2001 we were also reeling from an attack on our soil. Four of them. There might have been more planned.
No American wants war, but we knew, and more importantly, President Bush knew, that if we were to keep our country from suffering another similar attack, we had to take the fight to the terrorists. We did. Congress supported it. President Bush ordered it. We did go to war. Now, because the political winds are so apt to change, it is proclaimed political suicide if a Democrat or Moderate should DARE to support the War on Terror that our brave military men and woman have sacrificed s0 much for. Republicans are war-mongers because we want to keep America, and other free countries, from yet another devastating attack like we had on September 11th, 2001.
In 1941, we didn't forget what Japan had done. We fought. We won. That's how wars are supposed to go: they attack, we protect ourselves, and the attackers don't do it again.
In 2001, it seemed America had covered herself in bumper stickers, window clings and flags with pictures of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and that spot in Pennsylvania, proclaiming, "We will NEVER forget".
America: we have forgotten. It is shameful, wrong, and it brings tears for me to think that the American People could so easily forget such an awful time. I must echo the song by Darryl Worley, "Have you forgotten/how it felt that day/to see your homeland under fire/and her people blown away/have you forgotten when those towers fell...?" We have, and we now need to remember.
Pop Quiz: What happened this day 1941?
Answer: The day all Americans began waiting for VJ day, i.e., the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. We were thrown into a war to the west of us, along with the war we were already fighting to the east in Europe.
67 years ago, Americans didn't want yet another war, but they saw how clearly we didn't have a choice. In the Japanese we found an enemy more imminent even that Hitler at the time. Hitler was attacking our allies, while Japan had attacked American soil. We had to fight, even with all the rationing that was already happening, all the hardship, all the death. We entered yet another theatre of war where thousands of our sons, brothers and fathers died in a single battle.
We enjoy the freedom that they died for. We appreciate the families all over America who skimped, saved, and went without in order to allow our troops to have what they needed in order to gain freedom for Europe, and for us... the same freedom we now enjoy. Thanks, to all WWII Veterans, and all Veterans throughout our country's history.
But, what about today? Birdie announced to me what day it was as soon as I got up. Then, I checked email real quick, and found the Rasmussen Reports Daily Update waiting for me. I skimmed their headlines, and found something most disconcerting. "Confidence in War on Terror Declines" read the headline, and my stomach realized I hadn't eaten yet. Read the stats, or just know that only 47% of those polled believe that the U.S. and its allies are winning the War on Terror.
This is blatantly false, for one thing. We continue to turn over more and more sections of Iraq to the Iraqi military forces. Just this single statement implies so many other significant facts. In order to turn it over, we had to:
- Have control over those area's in the first place
- Have quelled things enough in that area that we and the Iraqi forces were comfortable having a less experienced force control them
- Train the Iraqi forces to the point that they could take over
- Build an infrastructure for them to operate in
The list continues. Can you imagine how much it must take to first have an Iraqi military to put in place, and then be able to put them there?
All that, along with the myriad of other things that the Main-Stream Media refuses to tell us, doesn't spell W-I-N-N-I-N-G? We haven't had another terrorist attack on our soil since the war began, that doesn't spell W-I-N-N-I-N-G?
This of course, brings us to the connection I want to make between December 7th, 1941, and December 7th, 2008. In 1941, America was outraged and reeling from having suffered an attack on our own soil. If you can remember, in 2001 we were also reeling from an attack on our soil. Four of them. There might have been more planned.
No American wants war, but we knew, and more importantly, President Bush knew, that if we were to keep our country from suffering another similar attack, we had to take the fight to the terrorists. We did. Congress supported it. President Bush ordered it. We did go to war. Now, because the political winds are so apt to change, it is proclaimed political suicide if a Democrat or Moderate should DARE to support the War on Terror that our brave military men and woman have sacrificed s0 much for. Republicans are war-mongers because we want to keep America, and other free countries, from yet another devastating attack like we had on September 11th, 2001.
In 1941, we didn't forget what Japan had done. We fought. We won. That's how wars are supposed to go: they attack, we protect ourselves, and the attackers don't do it again.
In 2001, it seemed America had covered herself in bumper stickers, window clings and flags with pictures of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and that spot in Pennsylvania, proclaiming, "We will NEVER forget".
America: we have forgotten. It is shameful, wrong, and it brings tears for me to think that the American People could so easily forget such an awful time. I must echo the song by Darryl Worley, "Have you forgotten/how it felt that day/to see your homeland under fire/and her people blown away/have you forgotten when those towers fell...?" We have, and we now need to remember.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
There is nothing new under the sun.
The elections are over, and most people are returning to their normal lives. Except for a few races that are still up in the air, the dust has pretty much settled, and people are generally rejoicing or resigned, but are still going on with life, realizing that the will of the majority must prevail.
But not in California.
Proposition 8, which defined marriage as being between one man and one woman, passed 52-48 in California. While it was the thirtieth such amendment in the United States, it was the first that overturned a court ruling. The Supreme Court of California had ruled that, unless a Constitutional amendment were to pass, the rights of homosexuals to marry would be considered default. So the voters, on November 4th, chose to define marriage in the traditional sense.
Now, there are open riots in California, vandalism, death threats to pastors, attacks on Christians, massive protests outside Churches and Mormon temples, and racial epithets being hurled at blacks, 69% of whom voted for the amendment.
Seen this before?
It happened, to a lesser extent, in the book of Genesis. Lot was righteous, and lived in Sodom. When he provided shelter for two travelers, the men of Sodom demanded satisfaction, and mobbed the house, threatening violence if they did not get their way. Even when struck blind, the Sodomites continued to try to force their way.
Today, in California, homosexuals are again getting violent because those who are righteous are denying them what they think is rightfully theirs. Where will it lead? Be prepared for a second Roe vs Wade, but this time with the issue of homosexuality instead of abortion.
I would note that historically, a civilization has decayed when sexual perversion became accepted. Sodom was destroyed for the sin of the inhabitants, and only Lot and two of his daughters survived. The tribe of Benjamin was reduced to 600 men, after they accepted homosexuality as normal. The Roman empire became decadent and was overrun by the barbarians when orgies became prevalent, and homosexuality became rampant. This was after the Romans had crushed the Greeks, who had accepted homosexuality.
Many European nations have accepted homosexuality, and they are slowly collapsing before our eyes, facing both economic collapse and subversion from the inside by Arabs. If America accepts homosexuality as normal, how long can we survive?
Sexual perversion and false religions seems to go hand in hand in the Bible. Both are aberrations from what is obviously evident to be right. Both involve a perversion of what was supposed to be a sacred relationship between two people. And both ultimately lead to divine justice being meted out.
When a nation allows stealing, it can still survive, although it cannot be competitive economically. When a nation allows murder, (abortion,) it can survive, although the population will shift to those who do not participate. When a nation allows even fornication, it can survive, though the family structure will be somewhat weakened, because good can be brought out of these situations. (Shotgun weddings.)
But when a nation embraces homosexuality and other forms of total perversion of God's design for natural human relations, decay sets in, and it is only a matter of time before judgment falls upon that nation.
History and the Bible show this to be true. Let us hope that such a fate never befalls America.
But not in California.
Proposition 8, which defined marriage as being between one man and one woman, passed 52-48 in California. While it was the thirtieth such amendment in the United States, it was the first that overturned a court ruling. The Supreme Court of California had ruled that, unless a Constitutional amendment were to pass, the rights of homosexuals to marry would be considered default. So the voters, on November 4th, chose to define marriage in the traditional sense.
Now, there are open riots in California, vandalism, death threats to pastors, attacks on Christians, massive protests outside Churches and Mormon temples, and racial epithets being hurled at blacks, 69% of whom voted for the amendment.
Seen this before?
It happened, to a lesser extent, in the book of Genesis. Lot was righteous, and lived in Sodom. When he provided shelter for two travelers, the men of Sodom demanded satisfaction, and mobbed the house, threatening violence if they did not get their way. Even when struck blind, the Sodomites continued to try to force their way.
Today, in California, homosexuals are again getting violent because those who are righteous are denying them what they think is rightfully theirs. Where will it lead? Be prepared for a second Roe vs Wade, but this time with the issue of homosexuality instead of abortion.
I would note that historically, a civilization has decayed when sexual perversion became accepted. Sodom was destroyed for the sin of the inhabitants, and only Lot and two of his daughters survived. The tribe of Benjamin was reduced to 600 men, after they accepted homosexuality as normal. The Roman empire became decadent and was overrun by the barbarians when orgies became prevalent, and homosexuality became rampant. This was after the Romans had crushed the Greeks, who had accepted homosexuality.
Many European nations have accepted homosexuality, and they are slowly collapsing before our eyes, facing both economic collapse and subversion from the inside by Arabs. If America accepts homosexuality as normal, how long can we survive?
Sexual perversion and false religions seems to go hand in hand in the Bible. Both are aberrations from what is obviously evident to be right. Both involve a perversion of what was supposed to be a sacred relationship between two people. And both ultimately lead to divine justice being meted out.
When a nation allows stealing, it can still survive, although it cannot be competitive economically. When a nation allows murder, (abortion,) it can survive, although the population will shift to those who do not participate. When a nation allows even fornication, it can survive, though the family structure will be somewhat weakened, because good can be brought out of these situations. (Shotgun weddings.)
But when a nation embraces homosexuality and other forms of total perversion of God's design for natural human relations, decay sets in, and it is only a matter of time before judgment falls upon that nation.
History and the Bible show this to be true. Let us hope that such a fate never befalls America.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Obama: Proof that Reaganism is Not Dead
With all the "centrists" working to bring the Republican party away from the Conservative values enshrined by President Ronald Reagan, it is easy to start believing that Reaganism is dead.
Want solid proof that it isn't?
Of course you do...
Here it is.... the long awaited proof....
Barack Obama.
Why?
He used Reagan's (i.e. the Conservative) platform.
Don't believe it? Here's a very well thought out article written by Scott Rasmussen, arguing (in my opinion empirically) that Reaganism Is Not Dead. Read the article, and then tell me that we need to appeal to the liberal "centrists".
Want solid proof that it isn't?
Of course you do...
Here it is.... the long awaited proof....
Barack Obama.
Why?
He used Reagan's (i.e. the Conservative) platform.
Don't believe it? Here's a very well thought out article written by Scott Rasmussen, arguing (in my opinion empirically) that Reaganism Is Not Dead. Read the article, and then tell me that we need to appeal to the liberal "centrists".
Friday, November 7, 2008
Dark days ahead
A democratic majority in the house and senate. A democratic president. Right after an unpopular president.
Sound familiar?
1976. Nixon had been elected in '72. He was relatively well-liked. Though he was not the most conservative choice, he had won reelection easily. Then, after the Watergate scandal and cover-up, he had been forced to resign. His Vice-president served out the term, but the tide had turned against republicans. Huge gains in both houses of congress. A relatively inexperienced Jimmy Carter got elected handily. His socialistic fiscal policies and weak stance on foreign policy crippled America. Iran took great advantage, taking hostages, and not releasing them, as Carter wrung his hands.
Then came Reagan.
Ronald Reagan was an actor-turned-governor. He reformed California. Then he ran for president. He was derided as a light-weight. How could an actor run Washington? But his conservative principals and good speaking abilities rang true with the majority of Americans. People knew a leader when they saw one. And Reagan was a leader.
Reagan was strong. Congress was still controlled by Democrats, but Reagan still got his tax cuts through. He still got the Soviet Union to disarm. He became the greatest president of the 20th century.
Now we are in 1976 all over again. We can prepare to be made fools of on the foreign scene. Don't bet that the 2010 mid-term elections will go our way, unless we get new Republican leadership, like Newt Gingrich. We will have to wait until 2012 for new strength.
During the election season, we saw Sarah Palin brought into the spotlight. Though McCain still lost the election, Palin taught Republicans that conservatism is not dead. If a true conservative is on the top of the ticket in 2012, we will have a good chance of winning the White House.
But it must be a true consistent conservative. In today's atmosphere, a "compassionate conservative" like George Bush can't really cut it. Nor can a moderate like John McCain. Current candidates I am looking at are Bobby Jindal and Sarah Palin. The two of them on a ticket would energize the base like nothing else.
But what do we do in the next four years? If we just wait, a lot of damage can be done. We need to get active.
First things first: RIGHT NOW, before inauguration day 2009, we need to contact our congressmen repeatedly telling them not even to think about the Fairness doctrine, gun control, wealth redistribution, or other leftist ideas to take away our rights. If we wait a couple of months, it will be too late, the democrats will be going full steam ahead with their agenda.
Secondly: Keep your eyes open. In some states, like Virginia, there will be elections next year. State-wide elections matter too. If you live in or near a state that has elections this year, consider getting involved in grassroots efforts.
If you do not live near a state like that, then watch for elections coming up in your state in 2010. Many Democrats ran unopposed this year. If you see no one stepping up to the plate, try to get someone involved. It does no one any good to allow the other side to go unchecked. Just the presence of opposition makes candidates think twice about their moves.
Lastly, be prepared. You don't know the future. A conservative agenda can be pushed even with the current congress. If you can write letters to the editor and change minds today, you have had an impact on the elections of tomorrow.
Sound familiar?
1976. Nixon had been elected in '72. He was relatively well-liked. Though he was not the most conservative choice, he had won reelection easily. Then, after the Watergate scandal and cover-up, he had been forced to resign. His Vice-president served out the term, but the tide had turned against republicans. Huge gains in both houses of congress. A relatively inexperienced Jimmy Carter got elected handily. His socialistic fiscal policies and weak stance on foreign policy crippled America. Iran took great advantage, taking hostages, and not releasing them, as Carter wrung his hands.
Then came Reagan.
Ronald Reagan was an actor-turned-governor. He reformed California. Then he ran for president. He was derided as a light-weight. How could an actor run Washington? But his conservative principals and good speaking abilities rang true with the majority of Americans. People knew a leader when they saw one. And Reagan was a leader.
Reagan was strong. Congress was still controlled by Democrats, but Reagan still got his tax cuts through. He still got the Soviet Union to disarm. He became the greatest president of the 20th century.
Now we are in 1976 all over again. We can prepare to be made fools of on the foreign scene. Don't bet that the 2010 mid-term elections will go our way, unless we get new Republican leadership, like Newt Gingrich. We will have to wait until 2012 for new strength.
During the election season, we saw Sarah Palin brought into the spotlight. Though McCain still lost the election, Palin taught Republicans that conservatism is not dead. If a true conservative is on the top of the ticket in 2012, we will have a good chance of winning the White House.
But it must be a true consistent conservative. In today's atmosphere, a "compassionate conservative" like George Bush can't really cut it. Nor can a moderate like John McCain. Current candidates I am looking at are Bobby Jindal and Sarah Palin. The two of them on a ticket would energize the base like nothing else.
But what do we do in the next four years? If we just wait, a lot of damage can be done. We need to get active.
First things first: RIGHT NOW, before inauguration day 2009, we need to contact our congressmen repeatedly telling them not even to think about the Fairness doctrine, gun control, wealth redistribution, or other leftist ideas to take away our rights. If we wait a couple of months, it will be too late, the democrats will be going full steam ahead with their agenda.
Secondly: Keep your eyes open. In some states, like Virginia, there will be elections next year. State-wide elections matter too. If you live in or near a state that has elections this year, consider getting involved in grassroots efforts.
If you do not live near a state like that, then watch for elections coming up in your state in 2010. Many Democrats ran unopposed this year. If you see no one stepping up to the plate, try to get someone involved. It does no one any good to allow the other side to go unchecked. Just the presence of opposition makes candidates think twice about their moves.
Lastly, be prepared. You don't know the future. A conservative agenda can be pushed even with the current congress. If you can write letters to the editor and change minds today, you have had an impact on the elections of tomorrow.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Polls vs. Us
Worried about the polls? Well, before I explain why not to be, here's a quick primer on polling:
Let's say there's a poll of 11 people to see whether the color blue is generally better liked than the color red. If you have 5 people in the room who always like blue better than red, and you have 4 people in the room who always like red better than blue, and 2 people that cant seem to make up their mind, than you have to fudge the numbers to reflect the way those people's tastes are.
It's the same in a political poll. If a higher percentage of voters usually vote democratic, than the numbers must be able to reflect the actual make-up of the American population.
The Problem: Because the numbers do have to be manipulated in this way, and most people don't know how the math is actually done, often a poll can be manipulated by simply changing the demographic numbers that are imputed into the raw data. Also, even if the current demographics are imputed correctly, those are not necessarily the demographics that are actually going to show up to vote.
The Point: Polls are not exactly trustworthy, as they often are based on a person's perception of how the demographics are actually going to be ON ELECTION DAY.
With that said, here's a BIG encouragement that you can change the reality of the demographics on election day:
So, GO VOTE PEOPLE!!! This race is so much closer than you will ever hear in the media. They want you to think that it is all sewn up for Obama... if you believe that, look at this: a bi-partisan poll that is widely accepted in the political realm (not that you'll hear about it anyplace but on Rush Limbaugh). This poll puts us at a one point race in battleground states (they're calling them swing states this year, but anyhow).
Get out, pray for this tight election, and be strong!
Let's say there's a poll of 11 people to see whether the color blue is generally better liked than the color red. If you have 5 people in the room who always like blue better than red, and you have 4 people in the room who always like red better than blue, and 2 people that cant seem to make up their mind, than you have to fudge the numbers to reflect the way those people's tastes are.
It's the same in a political poll. If a higher percentage of voters usually vote democratic, than the numbers must be able to reflect the actual make-up of the American population.
The Problem: Because the numbers do have to be manipulated in this way, and most people don't know how the math is actually done, often a poll can be manipulated by simply changing the demographic numbers that are imputed into the raw data. Also, even if the current demographics are imputed correctly, those are not necessarily the demographics that are actually going to show up to vote.
The Point: Polls are not exactly trustworthy, as they often are based on a person's perception of how the demographics are actually going to be ON ELECTION DAY.
With that said, here's a BIG encouragement that you can change the reality of the demographics on election day:
So, GO VOTE PEOPLE!!! This race is so much closer than you will ever hear in the media. They want you to think that it is all sewn up for Obama... if you believe that, look at this: a bi-partisan poll that is widely accepted in the political realm (not that you'll hear about it anyplace but on Rush Limbaugh). This poll puts us at a one point race in battleground states (they're calling them swing states this year, but anyhow).
Get out, pray for this tight election, and be strong!
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Bailing on Our Principles
Written by former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee:
Frankly, I’m disappointed and disgusted with my own Republican party as I watch them attempt to strong-arm a bailout of some of America’s biggest corporations by asking the taxpayers to suck up the staggering results of the hubris, greed, and arrogance of those who sought to make a quick buck by throwing the dice. They lost, but want the rest of us to cover their bets so they won’t be effected in their lavish lifestyles as they figure out how to spend their tens of millions and in some cases, hundreds of millions in bonuses and compensation which was their reward for not only sinking their companies, but basically doing the same to the entire American economy.
It’s especially disconcerting to see the very people who pilloried me during the Presidential campaign for being a “populist” and not “understanding Wall Street” to now line up like thirsty dogs at the Washington, D. C. water dish, otherwise known as Congress, and plead for help. I thought these guys were the smartest people in America! I thought that taxpayers like you and I were similar to the people at the U. N. who have no translator speaking into their headset - that we just needed to trust those that I called the power bunch in the “Wall Street to Washington axis of power.”
The idea of a government bailout in which we’d entrust $700 billion to one man without Congressional oversight or accountability is absurd. My party or not, that is insanity and I believe unconstitutional.
Will there be far-reaching consequences without some intervention? Probably, but we honestly don’t know since we’ve really never seen this level of greed and stupidity all rolled into one massive move. But may I suggest that letting “Uncle Sugar” step in and bail out the billionaires who made the mess will be far worse and will start a long line of companies and individuals who will demand the same of the government---which last time I checked means that they will be demanding it out of YOU and ME. This is not money that Congress is risking from THEIR pockets or future, but ours. Many if not most of us have already experienced lost value on our homes, retirement accounts, and pensions. Now they’d like for us to assume some further risks so they won’t have to.
What happened to the “free market” idea? Is that only our view when we WIN and when we LOSE, we ask the government to come in and take away the pain?
If you are a small business owner, is this the way it works at your place? When you have a bad month, a bad year, or face having to close, can you go up to Congress and get them to write YOU a fat check to take away your risk?
Some of what contributed to this disaster is too much government in the form of Sarbanes/Oxley. Some is due to the tax structure that created the hunger for companies to “game” the system. Some is the common sense that was ignored like loaning money to people who can’t pay it back.
Wall Street has become Las Vegas east, but at least in Vegas, people KNOW they are gambling and they don’t expect the government to cover their losses at the tables. In Wall Street, they do. And the American taxpayer burdens the responsibility.
If Congress wants to do something, here are some suggestions:
1. Eliminate ALL capital gains taxes and taxes on savings and dividends right now. Free up the capital and encourage investment. This is the kind of economic stimulus the Fair Tax would bring and if Congress is going to lose money, let them lose it with lower taxes, not with public dollar bailouts of private market mistakes.
2. Repeal Sarbanes/Oxley. It has failed. It was supposed to prevent this. It didn’t. Kill it.
3. Demand that the executives who steered their ships into the ground be forced to pay back the losses of their companies. Of course, they can’t, so let them work and give back to the government and they can live like the people they put on the streets or kept there. It makes no sense to put them in jail—that’s just more they will cost you and me. I’d rather them go out and earn money—just not get to keep so much of it this time. I’m not talking about limiting CEO salaries---just those of the people who now are up in Washington begging for help because they ruined their companies.
Attempts by Democrats and Republicans to blame each other is nonsense. They are both guilty and ought to own up and admit it. They all lived off big campaign contributions and the swill of the lobbyists who strong armed them into permission to steal. Enough of blame. Fix it!
This would be a start. If we don’t hold these guys responsible, we are all finished.
Frankly, I’m disappointed and disgusted with my own Republican party as I watch them attempt to strong-arm a bailout of some of America’s biggest corporations by asking the taxpayers to suck up the staggering results of the hubris, greed, and arrogance of those who sought to make a quick buck by throwing the dice. They lost, but want the rest of us to cover their bets so they won’t be effected in their lavish lifestyles as they figure out how to spend their tens of millions and in some cases, hundreds of millions in bonuses and compensation which was their reward for not only sinking their companies, but basically doing the same to the entire American economy.
It’s especially disconcerting to see the very people who pilloried me during the Presidential campaign for being a “populist” and not “understanding Wall Street” to now line up like thirsty dogs at the Washington, D. C. water dish, otherwise known as Congress, and plead for help. I thought these guys were the smartest people in America! I thought that taxpayers like you and I were similar to the people at the U. N. who have no translator speaking into their headset - that we just needed to trust those that I called the power bunch in the “Wall Street to Washington axis of power.”
The idea of a government bailout in which we’d entrust $700 billion to one man without Congressional oversight or accountability is absurd. My party or not, that is insanity and I believe unconstitutional.
Will there be far-reaching consequences without some intervention? Probably, but we honestly don’t know since we’ve really never seen this level of greed and stupidity all rolled into one massive move. But may I suggest that letting “Uncle Sugar” step in and bail out the billionaires who made the mess will be far worse and will start a long line of companies and individuals who will demand the same of the government---which last time I checked means that they will be demanding it out of YOU and ME. This is not money that Congress is risking from THEIR pockets or future, but ours. Many if not most of us have already experienced lost value on our homes, retirement accounts, and pensions. Now they’d like for us to assume some further risks so they won’t have to.
What happened to the “free market” idea? Is that only our view when we WIN and when we LOSE, we ask the government to come in and take away the pain?
If you are a small business owner, is this the way it works at your place? When you have a bad month, a bad year, or face having to close, can you go up to Congress and get them to write YOU a fat check to take away your risk?
Some of what contributed to this disaster is too much government in the form of Sarbanes/Oxley. Some is due to the tax structure that created the hunger for companies to “game” the system. Some is the common sense that was ignored like loaning money to people who can’t pay it back.
Wall Street has become Las Vegas east, but at least in Vegas, people KNOW they are gambling and they don’t expect the government to cover their losses at the tables. In Wall Street, they do. And the American taxpayer burdens the responsibility.
If Congress wants to do something, here are some suggestions:
1. Eliminate ALL capital gains taxes and taxes on savings and dividends right now. Free up the capital and encourage investment. This is the kind of economic stimulus the Fair Tax would bring and if Congress is going to lose money, let them lose it with lower taxes, not with public dollar bailouts of private market mistakes.
2. Repeal Sarbanes/Oxley. It has failed. It was supposed to prevent this. It didn’t. Kill it.
3. Demand that the executives who steered their ships into the ground be forced to pay back the losses of their companies. Of course, they can’t, so let them work and give back to the government and they can live like the people they put on the streets or kept there. It makes no sense to put them in jail—that’s just more they will cost you and me. I’d rather them go out and earn money—just not get to keep so much of it this time. I’m not talking about limiting CEO salaries---just those of the people who now are up in Washington begging for help because they ruined their companies.
Attempts by Democrats and Republicans to blame each other is nonsense. They are both guilty and ought to own up and admit it. They all lived off big campaign contributions and the swill of the lobbyists who strong armed them into permission to steal. Enough of blame. Fix it!
This would be a start. If we don’t hold these guys responsible, we are all finished.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Obama's [Shocking] Views
I have been concerned about Obama - very concerned. I have also been particularly concerned about the conservative grass-roots and just how enlivened they may get, or more precisely, how enlivened McCain can get them. At this time, though, I am praising God that Obama is the Democratic candidate - he is the ultimate way that I see to get the conservative grass-roots very pumped and ready to vote.
That said, these short videos from [Focus on the Family] CitizenLink's "Turn Signal" news reports will make you want to go vote in November, and get the word out as much as possible until then.
That said, these short videos from [Focus on the Family] CitizenLink's "Turn Signal" news reports will make you want to go vote in November, and get the word out as much as possible until then.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
In the midst of a presidential battle
I heard a great quote from a sports talk guy: "Abraham Lincoln used to celebrate John McCain's birthday."
Happy Presidents' Day!
Happy Presidents' Day!
Monday, February 11, 2008
The McCain Dilemma: Why He'll Win
Since the race on the Democratic side is still too close to call, I thought I'd continue to comment on McCain and his prospects for the election in November.
First of all, I'm going to come right out and say that I'm a Huckabee supporter. I think he'd be a good president, but the fact of the matter is, he probably won't win in 2008: he's the Republican version of Jimmy Carter in terms of political experience.
On the other hand, McCain has all the experience in national politics that Huckabee doesn't and he would also have a good base among moderates as well as conservatives. He's got the swing voters who don't want Hillary.
Now, earlier someone said that McCain is a liar and little better than Hillary however, consider that he's been consistently pro-life and while he has little problem with embryonic stem-cell research, the practice has become obselete due to new discoveries. Also consider that the practice has never been illegal and the debate is merely over funding (which I believe he opposes).
Fiscally, he's been moderate and his position has always been unclear. While he didn't vote for tax cuts, it is true that they were not paired with spending cuts. Tax cuts are going to be absolutely useless without them, except for increasing the national debt (a fact which Reagan learned all too well).
As for his foreign policy, he's great on things like the war in Iraq and fighting terrorism. Thanks to current media silence on this issue, I think we can be sure that it will go unnoticed since the war is going well and the situation is stabilizing.
In short, McCain, while undoubtedly a maverick, is a much better choice than Hillary or Obama, whose healthcare plans would be disastrous financially.
Now, if Obama were to win the Democratic Nomination, the moderates would go to McCain just because they would be uncomfortable with someone that liberal. On the other hand, if Hillary were to win the nomination, the moderates would still go to McCain (at least a lot would) because she would bring with her Bill and all his baggage.
In short, don't listen to the rabid right when they talk about supporting Hillary over McCain. All that that sentiment does is to marginalize the one who says it. Seriously, McCain would still be a fine choice, especially if Huckabee is his running mate (since that would put Huck on the path to becoming president in his own right).
~Philip
First of all, I'm going to come right out and say that I'm a Huckabee supporter. I think he'd be a good president, but the fact of the matter is, he probably won't win in 2008: he's the Republican version of Jimmy Carter in terms of political experience.
On the other hand, McCain has all the experience in national politics that Huckabee doesn't and he would also have a good base among moderates as well as conservatives. He's got the swing voters who don't want Hillary.
Now, earlier someone said that McCain is a liar and little better than Hillary however, consider that he's been consistently pro-life and while he has little problem with embryonic stem-cell research, the practice has become obselete due to new discoveries. Also consider that the practice has never been illegal and the debate is merely over funding (which I believe he opposes).
Fiscally, he's been moderate and his position has always been unclear. While he didn't vote for tax cuts, it is true that they were not paired with spending cuts. Tax cuts are going to be absolutely useless without them, except for increasing the national debt (a fact which Reagan learned all too well).
As for his foreign policy, he's great on things like the war in Iraq and fighting terrorism. Thanks to current media silence on this issue, I think we can be sure that it will go unnoticed since the war is going well and the situation is stabilizing.
In short, McCain, while undoubtedly a maverick, is a much better choice than Hillary or Obama, whose healthcare plans would be disastrous financially.
Now, if Obama were to win the Democratic Nomination, the moderates would go to McCain just because they would be uncomfortable with someone that liberal. On the other hand, if Hillary were to win the nomination, the moderates would still go to McCain (at least a lot would) because she would bring with her Bill and all his baggage.
In short, don't listen to the rabid right when they talk about supporting Hillary over McCain. All that that sentiment does is to marginalize the one who says it. Seriously, McCain would still be a fine choice, especially if Huckabee is his running mate (since that would put Huck on the path to becoming president in his own right).
~Philip
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)