Obama and Redistributive Change
by Victor Davis Hanson on National Review Online
Shared via AddThis
When I read this article, I realized that I hadn't even considered some of the bigger issues: Health care reform, Cap and Trade, the Stimulus Bill, Cash for Clunkers are just the byproducts of a larger agenda.
Think about it. The only people who aren't 'paying their fair share' (according to the liberals) are the CEO's, the BIG BANKERS, the WEALTHY. Capital letters for those evil Capitalists!
So what is the answer to all this obscene wealth? Redistribute it! Higher taxes on the wealthy - cap bonuses and salaries (never mind the education and hard work it took to get there) - higher taxes on those big, impersonal corporations that are obviously holding the little man down! viva la REVOLUTION!
Geez. Take from the rich and give to the poor. Equality for all - not in rights, but in wealth - whether they deserve it or not. Not a helping hand, but a hand out.
I hope you take the time to read the article. Then think about your kids. Mine are working hard to earn degrees, in order to earn a decent living - maybe even to someday be well off. And both of them voted for Obama. I wonder if they realize that if he has his way, they won't be rewarded for their hard work, but forced to carry the citizens without the drive to succeed around on their backs.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Sunday, August 23, 2009
A Late Summer Weekend
Both of my sons, Joe and Keith, were born in August, 2 weeks and 3 years apart. This year they are 25 and 22, respectively. We have always celebrated their birthdays together the weekend in between. This weekend.
Being that both are in college and don't live at home, planning and implementation of family get togethers can be a lesson in strategic planning. First, they have to get off work, not have any plans with friends (those are most important) and be able to get here. Second, we have to be off work, have no other plans and get the house clean.
This weekend, it all worked out fine. I usually give the boys an option on a birthday dinner: Go somewhere or I'll cook a favorite meal. This usually means we stay home and I cook. This year was no exception.
The meal chosen was homemade lasagna - a favorite of all the men in my family. I don't do it often as it's an all day affair, so it is considered "special" at our house. I usually make enough sauce that' I'll have plenty for a few extra spaghetti dinners and at least 2 extra pans of lasagna put together and frozen to be baked at a later date. Add some nice garlic bread, Angel Food cake with strawberries and cream (for Joe) and chocolate brownies (for Keith) and dinner is a hit.
There were eight of us around the table - good noisy conversation, laughing and stories - just the way it should be. After dinner, the boys (er, men) had plans to meet up with some friends for a "Suit Up!" night (a la Barney from 'How I Met Your Mother'). Both got dressed up in suits with ties (!) and went to a cigar bar/restaurant where Keith sampled some fine Scotch. Neither smoke and Joe doesn't drink, but the atmosphere and friends were the chief attractions.
The next evening, Keith made dinner for us. He's always been interested in cooking, but when he got to college and realized he couldn't live on fast food and stay healthy, he took his skills to a new level. He made chicken with prosciutto in a white wine & sage sauce, homemade risotto (I didn't know he had even heard of clam stock) with Romano. I made fresh green beans with onion and garlic as the side. It was fun being HIS helper for a change!
At dinner with us was the young lady Keith has been seeing this summer; a bright, lovely girl named Chelsey. She will be moving to Chicago soon to pursue her masters at Univ of Chicago. Whether a long distance relationship is at all feasible remains to be seen. Joe is currently single having dissolved his relationship of 3 years early last spring. And if I know my son, he's got both eyes open.
Today, they are back to school prep for fall: Keith starts Band pre-season rehearsals on Monday at MSU and Joe is finishing up his prep for the freshman English class he'll be teaching this fall while continuing work on his Masters at WMU. This is Keith's last year in the Spartan Marching Band and our last year for season tickets (we think). Joe is hoping to have his 'Zodiac' plays from his 'Leap Year' project produced at the Whole Art Studio...they were originally chosen, but the Studio has new management and he's not sure of the status. If produced, they will be his sixth.
This weekend is in many ways, my official end of summer. In two weeks, we'll be tailgating at the football games and the theater 'season' will start. Joe and Keith will be back to school and that always meant 'Fall' to me.
This is my favorite weekend of the year.
Being that both are in college and don't live at home, planning and implementation of family get togethers can be a lesson in strategic planning. First, they have to get off work, not have any plans with friends (those are most important) and be able to get here. Second, we have to be off work, have no other plans and get the house clean.
This weekend, it all worked out fine. I usually give the boys an option on a birthday dinner: Go somewhere or I'll cook a favorite meal. This usually means we stay home and I cook. This year was no exception.
The meal chosen was homemade lasagna - a favorite of all the men in my family. I don't do it often as it's an all day affair, so it is considered "special" at our house. I usually make enough sauce that' I'll have plenty for a few extra spaghetti dinners and at least 2 extra pans of lasagna put together and frozen to be baked at a later date. Add some nice garlic bread, Angel Food cake with strawberries and cream (for Joe) and chocolate brownies (for Keith) and dinner is a hit.
There were eight of us around the table - good noisy conversation, laughing and stories - just the way it should be. After dinner, the boys (er, men) had plans to meet up with some friends for a "Suit Up!" night (a la Barney from 'How I Met Your Mother'). Both got dressed up in suits with ties (!) and went to a cigar bar/restaurant where Keith sampled some fine Scotch. Neither smoke and Joe doesn't drink, but the atmosphere and friends were the chief attractions.
The next evening, Keith made dinner for us. He's always been interested in cooking, but when he got to college and realized he couldn't live on fast food and stay healthy, he took his skills to a new level. He made chicken with prosciutto in a white wine & sage sauce, homemade risotto (I didn't know he had even heard of clam stock) with Romano. I made fresh green beans with onion and garlic as the side. It was fun being HIS helper for a change!
At dinner with us was the young lady Keith has been seeing this summer; a bright, lovely girl named Chelsey. She will be moving to Chicago soon to pursue her masters at Univ of Chicago. Whether a long distance relationship is at all feasible remains to be seen. Joe is currently single having dissolved his relationship of 3 years early last spring. And if I know my son, he's got both eyes open.
Today, they are back to school prep for fall: Keith starts Band pre-season rehearsals on Monday at MSU and Joe is finishing up his prep for the freshman English class he'll be teaching this fall while continuing work on his Masters at WMU. This is Keith's last year in the Spartan Marching Band and our last year for season tickets (we think). Joe is hoping to have his 'Zodiac' plays from his 'Leap Year' project produced at the Whole Art Studio...they were originally chosen, but the Studio has new management and he's not sure of the status. If produced, they will be his sixth.
This weekend is in many ways, my official end of summer. In two weeks, we'll be tailgating at the football games and the theater 'season' will start. Joe and Keith will be back to school and that always meant 'Fall' to me.
This is my favorite weekend of the year.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Another Blast From the Past - March 2004
Just over 5 years ago, voters wanted smaller government and decreases in government spending. I'm not at all convinced that that has changed.
"64% of Americans prefer smaller government with fewer services and lower taxes"
Kinda opposite of what we're getting, huh?
On occasion, I like to use the 'Wayback Machine' - a really cool website that lets you go back in time and gather information that may not otherwise be available. Being able to compare numbers from as little as 5.5 years ago to today, or to read what someone said then and what they are saying now is usually an education in itself.
Many times, I have told people - 'Do your own research - don't just believe what they say on TV, etc.' Sometimes, someone like me finds something that should make you think that doing your own fact finding and making your own decisions is vitally necessary.
I encourage all opinions, but you have to be able to back them up.
"64% of Americans prefer smaller government with fewer services and lower taxes"
Kinda opposite of what we're getting, huh?
On occasion, I like to use the 'Wayback Machine' - a really cool website that lets you go back in time and gather information that may not otherwise be available. Being able to compare numbers from as little as 5.5 years ago to today, or to read what someone said then and what they are saying now is usually an education in itself.
Many times, I have told people - 'Do your own research - don't just believe what they say on TV, etc.' Sometimes, someone like me finds something that should make you think that doing your own fact finding and making your own decisions is vitally necessary.
I encourage all opinions, but you have to be able to back them up.
March 27, 2004--For
* Most dramatically, 64% of 64% of Americans prefer smaller government with fewer services and
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Friday, August 21, 2009
The Health Care Cost Saving Myth
Please read the entire article... it is well written with solid arguments.
There is no way for any health care reform to be 'deficit neutral' and even the 'Gang of Six' has been quoted giving a figure of 'only' $900 billion estimated over 10 years.
There is no way for any health care reform to be 'deficit neutral' and even the 'Gang of Six' has been quoted giving a figure of 'only' $900 billion estimated over 10 years.
Obama has repeatedly pledged, with the same assurance as his campaign pledge on spending, that the health care bill would be "deficit neutral." The Congressional Budget Office, typically a liberal redoubt, has repeatedly thrown cold water on the claim that any of the proposals on the table would be deficit-neutral. Clearly, to get there, cost savings would need to be found somewhere to completely offset outlays. less care less money to caregivers less use of intermediaries less cost in using intermediaries
|
The Smell Of Change
Fog.....
There's an old sea story in the Navy about a ship's Captain who inspected his sailors, and afterward told the Chief Boson's Mate that his men smelled bad.
The Captain suggested perhaps it would help if the sailors would change underwear occasionally.
The Chief responded, "Aye, aye sir, I'll see to it immediately!"
The Chief went straight to the sailors berth deck and announced, "The Captain thinks you guys smell bad and wants you to change your underwear.
"Pittman, you change with Jones; McCarthy, you change with Witkowski; and Brown, you change with Schultz. Now get to it!!!"
THE MORAL:
Someone may be promising "Change" in Washington; but don't count on things smelling any better!
Pelosi vs Obama
Per Obama, public option is still optional. Per Pelsoi, there is no option to leave it out.
Let's face it, Pelosi wants what she wants and woe to any who get in her way - Republicans OR Democrats.
When will California get rid of this wanna be ruler?
Let's face it, Pelosi wants what she wants and woe to any who get in her way - Republicans OR Democrats.
When will California get rid of this wanna be ruler?
|
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
US Debt Clocks......
My dear husband ran across this web site. The numbers are so huge that they seem nearly impossible. I'll follow up... I have some research to do.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Democracy vs Republic - Is There Really A Difference
I found this on the internet and just had to post it in it's entirety. If you click on the title, it will take you to the web page where I found the article. What I found interesting is that I remembered some of this from school, but over the years it had become muddled and 'common usage' of the words 'Democracy' and 'Republic' have been adulterated. I like the question at the end - please think carefully and then comment with your answer.
Thank you.
Jennifer
Posted by Britcom (Profile)
Monday, August 3rd at 4:30AM EDT
It seems like every American should already know this, but just in case there were any questions left…
Democrats are people who believe that the United States of America is, and should be, governed as a Democracy.
Republicans are people who believe that the United States of America is, and should be, governed as a Republic.
That sounds pretty simple doesn’t it? But what does it really mean?
Lets start with defining the terms. Webster defines them thusly:
Democracy -
a: a government by the people ; especially : rule of the majority
b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections. (underscoring added)
Republic -
a (1): a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2): a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
b (1): a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law. (underscoring added)
Let us notice some seemingly subtle, but quite profound differences between the two.
Democracy:
1. “The people”. Who are “the people”? They are exactly what it says, “the people”, everyone; not a people, not some people, not our people, it means ALL of the people on the land. Generally that definition includes illegal aliens, resident aliens, temporary foreign workers, felons, prisoners, traitors, children, the insane, the severely mentally handicapped, and any enemy invader. It means everyone.
2. How are decisions made in a democracy? By majority, period.
3. Does the minority get a say in anything? No. the majority rules supremely and absolutely.
4. Is the majority constrained by law? No.
5. Is the majority constrained by the separation of powers? No.
6. Is the majority constrained by ethics or morality? No.
7. Is the majority required to recognize the rights or needs of the minority? No.
8. Can the majority change any rule or law or constitution or right or tradition? Yes.
9. Can the majority completely change the form of government to anything they want? Yes.
Republic:
1. “A body of citizens entitled to vote”. Who are they? They are, first of all, citizens. Non-citizens have no say in the way a republic is governed. Second, they are citizens who have been entitled to vote.
2. Are there citizens who are not entitled to vote? Yes there are. Illegal aliens, resident aliens, temporary foreign workers, felons, prisoners, traitors, children, the insane, the severely mentally handicapped, and enemy invaders are examples of people not entitled to vote.
3. Are there any rules that govern who can vote and who cannot? Yes, the law governs who can vote and who cannot vote; not the “majority”.
4. Who makes the law? The legislature.
5. Is the legislature constrained by the law? Yes. The Law written in the Constitution.
6. Is the legislature constrained by separation of powers? Yes.
7. Does the legislature make decisions democratically? Contrary to popular belief, No they don’t. They vote on them, but the minority gets to voice their opinions and ideas and may add amendments to bills and block legislation by procedures and filibusters.
8. And after a bill passes in the legislature, is it then law? No. It must pass both houses (if a two house system) and it must be signed by the elected head of state, then it becomes law; but if challenged in court, it must be held constitutionally sound, lawfully enacted, and jurisdictionally operable and functionally possible and not in conflict with existing superior law. If it doesn’t hold up in court, according to the law, then it is not law.
9. Is the legislature constrained by ethics and morality? If either or both are existing in the law, then yes.
10. Is the majority in the legislature required to recognize the rights and the needs of the minority? Yes.
11. Can the majority in the legislature change any rule or law or constitution or right or tradition? No. The majority may only change the law when both houses agree and the head of state consents, or if the head of state does not consent, then a super majority is required to over-ride the head of state. Even then it may still be challenged in court and found unconstitutional, inoperable, impossible, or in conflict with existing superior law.
12. Can the legislature change the constitution on its own? No. The legislature may begin the process, but it cannot act alone. The constitution may only be changed by a super majority of the States, or a super majority of the people acting in convention. The head of state has no role in this process.
13. Can the legislature or the head of state, or the courts or all of them together, eliminate, or suspend, the constraints of the constitution, or the whole constitution itself and thereby change the form of government to something else? No, they may not. To do so would be treason and the penalty for treason under the law is death.
Now, after considering all of the above, and looking at my own beliefs, conviction, positions on legislation, opinions expressed, voting patterns and desires for the future of my nation. I conclude that I fall solidly into the Republican camp.
How about you; and how about the people you know? Where do they fall?
Let’s be honest here. If you were to be on trial using the above as the litmus test, and after weighing all the evidence, do you think a jury of your peers would hand down a verdict of Democrat, or Republican for you? And what is your confidence level on that? If your confidence level is not high, or very high, then perhaps you should study on the subject some more. (the below video may help)
So, why do I ask this question?
Because being a Republican or a Democrat is not just a party name, or the equivalent of a home team sports loyalty, or a family tradition. Being a Republican or a Democrat means something, and that something has consequences if you don’t understand what is at stake or what is “in play”.
This nation was founded by some very intelligent and learned men and they did their best to give us a nation that would remain strong and vital for us, their children, and for those who would come here and desire to stand beside us in maintaining that great gift.
So the next time you hear someone throwing around the word “democracy”, a red flag should go up and you would do well to judge carefully what may lie beneath the surface of that the person’s agenda.
What did the founders have to say about it?
Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, entitled “Republican government” states:
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”
All of the other sections of the US Constitution describe a republican form of government for our national government as well, and the word “democracy” never appears, nor does any variation of it. The founders didn’t approve of democracy and feared it. We would be wise to do the same.
James Madison said:
“Such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.“
Thomas Jefferson said:
“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.“
And on this subject I now offer you this excellent but brief video presentation entitled:
.
“The American Form of Government”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmzldNFgD40
-
Thank you.
Jennifer
Posted by Britcom (Profile)
Monday, August 3rd at 4:30AM EDT
It seems like every American should already know this, but just in case there were any questions left…
Democrats are people who believe that the United States of America is, and should be, governed as a Democracy.
Republicans are people who believe that the United States of America is, and should be, governed as a Republic.
That sounds pretty simple doesn’t it? But what does it really mean?
Lets start with defining the terms. Webster defines them thusly:
Democracy -
a: a government by the people ; especially : rule of the majority
b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections. (underscoring added)
Republic -
a (1): a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2): a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
b (1): a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law. (underscoring added)
Let us notice some seemingly subtle, but quite profound differences between the two.
Democracy:
1. “The people”. Who are “the people”? They are exactly what it says, “the people”, everyone; not a people, not some people, not our people, it means ALL of the people on the land. Generally that definition includes illegal aliens, resident aliens, temporary foreign workers, felons, prisoners, traitors, children, the insane, the severely mentally handicapped, and any enemy invader. It means everyone.
2. How are decisions made in a democracy? By majority, period.
3. Does the minority get a say in anything? No. the majority rules supremely and absolutely.
4. Is the majority constrained by law? No.
5. Is the majority constrained by the separation of powers? No.
6. Is the majority constrained by ethics or morality? No.
7. Is the majority required to recognize the rights or needs of the minority? No.
8. Can the majority change any rule or law or constitution or right or tradition? Yes.
9. Can the majority completely change the form of government to anything they want? Yes.
Republic:
1. “A body of citizens entitled to vote”. Who are they? They are, first of all, citizens. Non-citizens have no say in the way a republic is governed. Second, they are citizens who have been entitled to vote.
2. Are there citizens who are not entitled to vote? Yes there are. Illegal aliens, resident aliens, temporary foreign workers, felons, prisoners, traitors, children, the insane, the severely mentally handicapped, and enemy invaders are examples of people not entitled to vote.
3. Are there any rules that govern who can vote and who cannot? Yes, the law governs who can vote and who cannot vote; not the “majority”.
4. Who makes the law? The legislature.
5. Is the legislature constrained by the law? Yes. The Law written in the Constitution.
6. Is the legislature constrained by separation of powers? Yes.
7. Does the legislature make decisions democratically? Contrary to popular belief, No they don’t. They vote on them, but the minority gets to voice their opinions and ideas and may add amendments to bills and block legislation by procedures and filibusters.
8. And after a bill passes in the legislature, is it then law? No. It must pass both houses (if a two house system) and it must be signed by the elected head of state, then it becomes law; but if challenged in court, it must be held constitutionally sound, lawfully enacted, and jurisdictionally operable and functionally possible and not in conflict with existing superior law. If it doesn’t hold up in court, according to the law, then it is not law.
9. Is the legislature constrained by ethics and morality? If either or both are existing in the law, then yes.
10. Is the majority in the legislature required to recognize the rights and the needs of the minority? Yes.
11. Can the majority in the legislature change any rule or law or constitution or right or tradition? No. The majority may only change the law when both houses agree and the head of state consents, or if the head of state does not consent, then a super majority is required to over-ride the head of state. Even then it may still be challenged in court and found unconstitutional, inoperable, impossible, or in conflict with existing superior law.
12. Can the legislature change the constitution on its own? No. The legislature may begin the process, but it cannot act alone. The constitution may only be changed by a super majority of the States, or a super majority of the people acting in convention. The head of state has no role in this process.
13. Can the legislature or the head of state, or the courts or all of them together, eliminate, or suspend, the constraints of the constitution, or the whole constitution itself and thereby change the form of government to something else? No, they may not. To do so would be treason and the penalty for treason under the law is death.
Now, after considering all of the above, and looking at my own beliefs, conviction, positions on legislation, opinions expressed, voting patterns and desires for the future of my nation. I conclude that I fall solidly into the Republican camp.
How about you; and how about the people you know? Where do they fall?
Let’s be honest here. If you were to be on trial using the above as the litmus test, and after weighing all the evidence, do you think a jury of your peers would hand down a verdict of Democrat, or Republican for you? And what is your confidence level on that? If your confidence level is not high, or very high, then perhaps you should study on the subject some more. (the below video may help)
So, why do I ask this question?
Because being a Republican or a Democrat is not just a party name, or the equivalent of a home team sports loyalty, or a family tradition. Being a Republican or a Democrat means something, and that something has consequences if you don’t understand what is at stake or what is “in play”.
This nation was founded by some very intelligent and learned men and they did their best to give us a nation that would remain strong and vital for us, their children, and for those who would come here and desire to stand beside us in maintaining that great gift.
So the next time you hear someone throwing around the word “democracy”, a red flag should go up and you would do well to judge carefully what may lie beneath the surface of that the person’s agenda.
What did the founders have to say about it?
Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, entitled “Republican government” states:
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”
All of the other sections of the US Constitution describe a republican form of government for our national government as well, and the word “democracy” never appears, nor does any variation of it. The founders didn’t approve of democracy and feared it. We would be wise to do the same.
James Madison said:
“Such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.“
Thomas Jefferson said:
“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.“
And on this subject I now offer you this excellent but brief video presentation entitled:
.
“The American Form of Government”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmzldNFgD40
-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
