John McCain, George Bush and Huge Reasons To Fear a President Barack Obama And A Democrat Congress
Posted by Larry Perrault at 3:52 PM 1 comments
Labels: abortion, cap. Obama, defense, economy, education, Foreign, freedom, judge, judiciary, marriage, McCain, Pelosi, Reid, Security, social, speech
John McCain, George Bush and Huge Reasons to Fear a President Barack Obama and a Democrat Congress
I’m trying to make this catalog of casualties as succinct as possible. But perhaps more important is the comparison of Bush and McCain. Barack Obama has chained McCain to Bush. But, that’s a political lie of a man who has been a detestable posturer and manipulator. Perhaps the only way that McCain has resembled Bush is in his failure to crystallize the striking difference in the American mind. Peggy Noonan commented on the Obama hope of getting a huge turnout of new young voters: “These 18, 19 and 20 year old voters not only have not met a payroll, many have never been on a payroll. They live a lovely abstraction from reality.”
Hey, let’s be honest: in 2000, the only one of 14 Republican candidates whom I favored less than Bush was McCain. But now, I think the biggest difference may be the assertiveness that earned McCain the “maverick” label. I thought he was ambiguous about conservative principle and noisy about it. Bush on the other hand was ambiguous and quiet about it. Bush was cooperative with advice, but ineffective in making a case. Exhibit A) Bush proposed a plan to save Social Security and Medicare, which everyone knows (and now imminently) is in for crisis. Democrats predictably howled a scare about the venerable third-rail of politics. Bush couldn’t sell the problem, hung his head and went back into his hole. Bush weakly expressed his “preference” for life relative to the abortion issue. He couldn’t sell it (big surprise), hung his head and went back into his hole. A few years ago, Bush was apprised of potential problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and home mortgages. He presented a solution. Democrats denied the problem. Bush couldn’t sell it, hung his head and went back into his hole. These are just notable examples, but the consequence of the mortgage problem that became a crisis is the biggest reason the environment is so difficult for McCain and other Republicans today.
McCain has not been able to crystallize to the country what is the biggest and most consequential difference between him and Bush. Obama and Biden have hammered that there is little difference between them; even explicitly challenging that McCain could name one difference on economic policy. I think McCain should say that he respects Bush’s intentions for the country and his resolve in the Middle East (though he sometimes differed on tactics) but, the biggest difference IS on economic policy and it isn’t a small but a colossal one. Bush’s ineffectiveness in confronting the decades-old drift of government saw him and a Republican Congress to expand government at a rate not seen since Lyndon Johnson and a Democrat Congress, over forty years ago. Simply put, under McCain that wouldn’t have happened, nor probably the recent economic crisis. If he hasn’t sold that primarily, he has taken his eye off of the campaign ball.
But though hey were untethered by principle clarity, I also respect Bush’s intentions (I told you so’s aside), I never voted for Bush in either 2000 or 2004, and the aforementioned weaknesses were no surprise to me, a citizen of Texas where he was governor. But, philosophical difference notwithstanding, I’m voting (already have, actually) for McCain and with gusto and tearful prayer. His lifelong battle against unnecessary spending is a big reason. His character is another. I don’t have time to try to prioritize them, but they are all important. Here are ten reasons that Obama and a Democrat Congress would be a disaster:
1) A large reason is the recent massive insertion of the federal government into private commerce, administered by the Secretary of the Treasury? Bush’s Secretary of Treasury is bad enough. But O’bama’s Secretary of Treasury?” My blood runs cold. Even bigger, the federal government has just bought interest in the nation’s largest banks, not only insuring their accounts but insuring their businesses against failure, thus inviting reckless business practices. But even letting the federal nose in the door of the banking system is like leaving your children with a pedophile baby-sitter. Congress people with the ultimate source of
money under their noses? Democrats? Forget about it. They won’t even need to raise taxes for the money. After all, we are part OWNERS! As George Will said last week, “The assumption of all of this government injection into these industries is that it will be temporary and apolitical. Apolitical? Of course not!
There will be an irresistible urge to engage in industrial policy: for the government to pick winners….”
2) Economic Growth and Dynamism – Those who work for the largest corporations that can curry favor with the government will survive. But over 80% of Americans work for small and medium-sized businesses. Increased taxation and spending will mean unemployment (jobs lost or never materialized), inflation, and rising interest rates. Obama campaigns for poor and middle-class Americans. But ironically, those are exactly the ones who will be denied with the stagnation of smaller businesses and decreased potential for new ones. The very wealthy will be fine. They will be government’s pals. We have subsidized mega-businesses for a long time. The government has bailed out America’s largest insurance company and is a shareholder in its largest banks. On the horizon?: Under Democrats, I expect partial government ownership of auto makers and airlines, for starters. What will they do for smaller businesses? Zip. Many will be fried like ants under the government magnifying glass.
3) Freedom of Speech - The Fairness Doctrine, Political Speech and Union Card Check - Democrats in Congress are itching to regulate talk-radio. It’s the only forum they want to regulate and the only one that liberals don’t dominate. If you think that’s a coincidence, you might as well believe in the tooth fairy. Making talk radio stations equalize their time with liberal broadcasting that listeners won’t support, will just drive stations to change formats, killing talk radio. For
Liberals that would be victory. I would expect liberals to sanction what they would see as “politically incorrect speech, in the worst case even in churches and other religious forums. They are also waiting to remove the secret ballot from union votes, so workers are coerced to vote with union leaders.
4) Education – Greater Intrusion into the conduct and content of schools and Guaranteed Universal (Liberal) College Education. In the big picture, outside mathematics and the hard sciences, college education would be as blinkered as public grade schools, which may be a huge reason why Obama can mesmerize crowds with his extreme, dishonest and irresponsible rhetoric. And soon enough, college education would be similarly inadequate generally. A college graduate will be less literate than a high-school graduate 100 years ago.
5) Naive and Unprincipled Foreign Policy – Joe Biden said Obama would be tested. He will also be exploited by foreign agents. In the best case, that means little or no advancement in the world for the American values of liberty, equality, and human rights. In the worst case, it means physical danger for Americans and others.
6) Health Care – Barack Obama has been pretty vocal about universal health care for at least two years, as Democrats generally have been for many years. If Obama wins, they will have near total control, restrained only by the potential of Republicans to maintain a Senate filibuster. If they can’t, it’s coming. The reflexive response of a lot of people would be that universal health care would be a good thing. But, there are 2 VERY BIG problems. A) It poses another massive cost for an already overburdened country. And however that cost is paid; it will only continue to rise. As P.J. O’Rourke long ago said, “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it becomes “free.” But EVEN MORE IMPORTANT THAN THAT, is the fact that if America follows other industrial nations in socializing medicine, the engine of medical progress will be doused. Today, other countries get the advantage of medical advances birthed in America.
When the incentive of private medical pharmaceutical and technological is removed, medical advances will be substantially slowed. There will be new drug and technological advances that never materialize. Personally with MS, that bodes poorly for new treatments. But, I’m only one guy with one problem.
Obviously, millions would suffer more than they otherwise might. The resources for research and development would be dramatically narrowed to beneficiaries of the National Institute for Health government bureaucracy that will itself absorb substantial resources.
7) Judges, Judges, Judges – In an interview recently published, Obama expressed his dissatisfaction with judicial failure to advance values beyond their constitutional duties. A court system populated with Obama nominees will impose all manner of contrived restrictions on all areas of society. The right to life will be dead for the balance of my lifetime and maybe permanently eviscerated. As I always say, that poses a fading of basic civility and consideration of others in all of American society.
8) ENDA/Gay Marriage – I don’t favor a Constitutional Amendment, but an Obama stacked judiciary will try to leverage the performance and recognition of homosexual marriage onto the entire country via the “full faith and credit” clause of The Constitution and that would be wrong. States should make and live with their own laws. And, homosexual marriage has failed on every ballot it has been tested, even in the most liberal states. In a few states, courts have defied the people’s will. An Obama-appointed Court would do that to the whole country.
9) Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid- A Democratic Congress – These people and their Congressional cohorts would legislatively ride roughshod over American society. If you think Barack Obama would stand in their way, you are deluded. John McCain would.
10) Abolih the Electoral College? - This is a wish that is occasionally voiced by liberals and posed in schools as a matter of voter equality. It would require a Constitutional amendment, so I don’t know if it could be pushed pat enough states to vote away their power. But it, as most other things, is being
Showing posts with label social. Show all posts
Showing posts with label social. Show all posts
Sunday, November 2, 2008
John McCain, George Bush and Huge Reasons to Fear a President Barack Obama and a Democrat Congress
I’m trying to make this catalog of casualties as succinct as possible. But perhaps more important is the comparison of Bush and McCain. Barack Obama has chained McCain to Bush. But, that’s a political lie of a man who has been a detestable posturer and manipulator. Perhaps the only way that McCain has resembled Bush is in his failure to crystallize the striking difference in the American mind. Peggy Noonan commented on the Obama hope of getting a huge turnout of new young voters: “These 18, 19 and 20 year old voters not only have not met a payroll, many have never been on a payroll. They live a lovely abstraction from reality.”
Hey, let’s be honest: in 2000, the only one of 14 Republican candidates whom I favored less than Bush was McCain. But now, I think the biggest difference may be the assertiveness that earned McCain the “maverick” label. I thought he was ambiguous about conservative principle and noisy about it. Bush on the other hand was ambiguous and quiet about it. Bush was cooperative with advice, but ineffective in making a case. Exhibit A) Bush proposed a plan to save Social Security and Medicare, which everyone knows (and now imminently) is in for crisis. Democrats predictably howled a scare about the venerable third-rail of politics. Bush couldn’t sell the problem, hung his head and went back into his hole. Bush weakly expressed his “preference” for life relative to the abortion issue. He couldn’t sell it (big surprise), hung his head and went back into his hole. A few years ago, Bush was apprised of potential problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and home mortgages. He presented a solution. Democrats denied the problem. Bush couldn’t sell it, hung his head and went back into his hole. These are just notable examples, but the consequence of the mortgage problem that became a crisis is the biggest reason the environment is so difficult for McCain and other Republicans today.
McCain has not been able to crystallize to the country what is the biggest and most consequential difference between him and Bush. Obama and Biden have hammered that there is little difference between them; even explicitly challenging that McCain could name one difference on economic policy. I think McCain should say that he respects Bush’s intentions for the country and his resolve in the Middle East (though he sometimes differed on tactics) but, the biggest difference IS on economic policy and it isn’t a small but a colossal one. Bush’s ineffectiveness in confronting the decades-old drift of government saw him and a Republican Congress to expand government at a rate not seen since Lyndon Johnson and a Democrat Congress, over forty years ago. Simply put, under McCain that wouldn’t have happened, nor probably the recent economic crisis. If he hasn’t sold that primarily, he has taken his eye off of the campaign ball.
But though hey were untethered by principle clarity, I also respect Bush’s intentions (I told you so’s aside), I never voted for Bush in either 2000 or 2004, and the aforementioned weaknesses were no surprise to me, a citizen of Texas where he was governor. But, philosophical difference notwithstanding, I’m voting (already have, actually) for McCain and with gusto and tearful prayer. His lifelong battle against unnecessary spending is a big reason. His character is another. I don’t have time to try to prioritize them, but they are all important. Here are ten reasons that Obama and a Democrat Congress would be a disaster:
1) A large reason is the recent massive insertion of the federal government into private commerce, administered by the Secretary of the Treasury? Bush’s Secretary of Treasury is bad enough. But O’bama’s Secretary of Treasury?” My blood runs cold. Even bigger, the federal government has just bought interest in the nation’s largest banks, not only insuring their accounts but insuring their businesses against failure, thus inviting reckless business practices. But even letting the federal nose in the door of the banking system is like leaving your children with a pedophile baby-sitter. Congress people with the ultimate source of
money under their noses? Democrats? Forget about it. They won’t even need to raise taxes for the money. After all, we are part OWNERS! As George Will said last week, “The assumption of all of this government injection into these industries is that it will be temporary and apolitical. Apolitical? Of course not!
There will be an irresistible urge to engage in industrial policy: for the government to pick winners….”
2) Economic Growth and Dynamism – Those who work for the largest corporations that can curry favor with the government will survive. But over 80% of Americans work for small and medium-sized businesses. Increased taxation and spending will mean unemployment (jobs lost or never materialized), inflation, and rising interest rates. Obama campaigns for poor and middle-class Americans. But ironically, those are exactly the ones who will be denied with the stagnation of smaller businesses and decreased potential for new ones. The very wealthy will be fine. They will be government’s pals. We have subsidized mega-businesses for a long time. The government has bailed out America’s largest insurance company and is a shareholder in its largest banks. On the horizon?: Under Democrats, I expect partial government ownership of auto makers and airlines, for starters. What will they do for smaller businesses? Zip. Many will be fried like ants under the government magnifying glass.
3) Freedom of Speech - The Fairness Doctrine, Political Speech and Union Card Check - Democrats in Congress are itching to regulate talk-radio. It’s the only forum they want to regulate and the only one that liberals don’t dominate. If you think that’s a coincidence, you might as well believe in the tooth fairy. Making talk radio stations equalize their time with liberal broadcasting that listeners won’t support, will just drive stations to change formats, killing talk radio. For
Liberals that would be victory. I would expect liberals to sanction what they would see as “politically incorrect speech, in the worst case even in churches and other religious forums. They are also waiting to remove the secret ballot from union votes, so workers are coerced to vote with union leaders.
4) Education – Greater Intrusion into the conduct and content of schools and Guaranteed Universal (Liberal) College Education. In the big picture, outside mathematics and the hard sciences, college education would be as blinkered as public grade schools, which may be a huge reason why Obama can mesmerize crowds with his extreme, dishonest and irresponsible rhetoric. And soon enough, college education would be similarly inadequate generally. A college graduate will be less literate than a high-school graduate 100 years ago.
5) Naive and Unprincipled Foreign Policy – Joe Biden said Obama would be tested. He will also be exploited by foreign agents. In the best case, that means little or no advancement in the world for the American values of liberty, equality, and human rights. In the worst case, it means physical danger for Americans and others.
6) Health Care – Barack Obama has been pretty vocal about universal health care for at least two years, as Democrats generally have been for many years. If Obama wins, they will have near total control, restrained only by the potential of Republicans to maintain a Senate filibuster. If they can’t, it’s coming. The reflexive response of a lot of people would be that universal health care would be a good thing. But, there are 2 VERY BIG problems. A) It poses another massive cost for an already overburdened country. And however that cost is paid; it will only continue to rise. As P.J. O’Rourke long ago said, “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it becomes “free.” But EVEN MORE IMPORTANT THAN THAT, is the fact that if America follows other industrial nations in socializing medicine, the engine of medical progress will be doused. Today, other countries get the advantage of medical advances birthed in America.
When the incentive of private medical pharmaceutical and technological is removed, medical advances will be substantially slowed. There will be new drug and technological advances that never materialize. Personally with MS, that bodes poorly for new treatments. But, I’m only one guy with one problem.
Obviously, millions would suffer more than they otherwise might. The resources for research and development would be dramatically narrowed to beneficiaries of the National Institute for Health government bureaucracy that will itself absorb substantial resources. Judges, Judges, Judges – In an interview recently published, Obama expressed his dissatisfaction with judicial failure to advance values beyond their constitutional duties. A court system populated with Obama nominees will impose all manner of contrived restrictions on all areas of society. The right to life will be dead for the balance of my lifetime and maybe permanently eviscerated. As I always say, that poses a fading of basic civility and consideration of others in all of American society.
7) ENDA/Gay Marriage – I don’t favor a Constitutional Amendment, but an Obama stacked judiciary will try to leverage the performance and recognition of homosexual marriage onto the entire country via the “full faith and credit” clause of The Constitution and that would be wrong. States should make and live with their own laws. And, homosexual marriage has failed on every ballot it has been tested, even in the most liberal states. In a few states, courts have defied the people’s will. An Obama-appointed Court would do that to the whole country.
8) Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid- A Democratic Congress – These people and their Congressional cohorts would legislatively ride roughshod over American society. If you think Barack Obama would stand in their way, you are deluded. John McCain would.
9) Abolih the Electoral College? - This is a wish that is occasionally voiced by liberals and posed in schools as a matter of voter equality. It would require a Constitutional amendment, so I don’t know if it could be pushed pat enough states to vote away their power. But it, as most other things, is being
I’m trying to make this catalog of casualties as succinct as possible. But perhaps more important is the comparison of Bush and McCain. Barack Obama has chained McCain to Bush. But, that’s a political lie of a man who has been a detestable posturer and manipulator. Perhaps the only way that McCain has resembled Bush is in his failure to crystallize the striking difference in the American mind. Peggy Noonan commented on the Obama hope of getting a huge turnout of new young voters: “These 18, 19 and 20 year old voters not only have not met a payroll, many have never been on a payroll. They live a lovely abstraction from reality.”
Hey, let’s be honest: in 2000, the only one of 14 Republican candidates whom I favored less than Bush was McCain. But now, I think the biggest difference may be the assertiveness that earned McCain the “maverick” label. I thought he was ambiguous about conservative principle and noisy about it. Bush on the other hand was ambiguous and quiet about it. Bush was cooperative with advice, but ineffective in making a case. Exhibit A) Bush proposed a plan to save Social Security and Medicare, which everyone knows (and now imminently) is in for crisis. Democrats predictably howled a scare about the venerable third-rail of politics. Bush couldn’t sell the problem, hung his head and went back into his hole. Bush weakly expressed his “preference” for life relative to the abortion issue. He couldn’t sell it (big surprise), hung his head and went back into his hole. A few years ago, Bush was apprised of potential problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and home mortgages. He presented a solution. Democrats denied the problem. Bush couldn’t sell it, hung his head and went back into his hole. These are just notable examples, but the consequence of the mortgage problem that became a crisis is the biggest reason the environment is so difficult for McCain and other Republicans today.
McCain has not been able to crystallize to the country what is the biggest and most consequential difference between him and Bush. Obama and Biden have hammered that there is little difference between them; even explicitly challenging that McCain could name one difference on economic policy. I think McCain should say that he respects Bush’s intentions for the country and his resolve in the Middle East (though he sometimes differed on tactics) but, the biggest difference IS on economic policy and it isn’t a small but a colossal one. Bush’s ineffectiveness in confronting the decades-old drift of government saw him and a Republican Congress to expand government at a rate not seen since Lyndon Johnson and a Democrat Congress, over forty years ago. Simply put, under McCain that wouldn’t have happened, nor probably the recent economic crisis. If he hasn’t sold that primarily, he has taken his eye off of the campaign ball.
But though hey were untethered by principle clarity, I also respect Bush’s intentions (I told you so’s aside), I never voted for Bush in either 2000 or 2004, and the aforementioned weaknesses were no surprise to me, a citizen of Texas where he was governor. But, philosophical difference notwithstanding, I’m voting (already have, actually) for McCain and with gusto and tearful prayer. His lifelong battle against unnecessary spending is a big reason. His character is another. I don’t have time to try to prioritize them, but they are all important. Here are ten reasons that Obama and a Democrat Congress would be a disaster:
1) A large reason is the recent massive insertion of the federal government into private commerce, administered by the Secretary of the Treasury? Bush’s Secretary of Treasury is bad enough. But O’bama’s Secretary of Treasury?” My blood runs cold. Even bigger, the federal government has just bought interest in the nation’s largest banks, not only insuring their accounts but insuring their businesses against failure, thus inviting reckless business practices. But even letting the federal nose in the door of the banking system is like leaving your children with a pedophile baby-sitter. Congress people with the ultimate source of
money under their noses? Democrats? Forget about it. They won’t even need to raise taxes for the money. After all, we are part OWNERS! As George Will said last week, “The assumption of all of this government injection into these industries is that it will be temporary and apolitical. Apolitical? Of course not!
There will be an irresistible urge to engage in industrial policy: for the government to pick winners….”
2) Economic Growth and Dynamism – Those who work for the largest corporations that can curry favor with the government will survive. But over 80% of Americans work for small and medium-sized businesses. Increased taxation and spending will mean unemployment (jobs lost or never materialized), inflation, and rising interest rates. Obama campaigns for poor and middle-class Americans. But ironically, those are exactly the ones who will be denied with the stagnation of smaller businesses and decreased potential for new ones. The very wealthy will be fine. They will be government’s pals. We have subsidized mega-businesses for a long time. The government has bailed out America’s largest insurance company and is a shareholder in its largest banks. On the horizon?: Under Democrats, I expect partial government ownership of auto makers and airlines, for starters. What will they do for smaller businesses? Zip. Many will be fried like ants under the government magnifying glass.
3) Freedom of Speech - The Fairness Doctrine, Political Speech and Union Card Check - Democrats in Congress are itching to regulate talk-radio. It’s the only forum they want to regulate and the only one that liberals don’t dominate. If you think that’s a coincidence, you might as well believe in the tooth fairy. Making talk radio stations equalize their time with liberal broadcasting that listeners won’t support, will just drive stations to change formats, killing talk radio. For
Liberals that would be victory. I would expect liberals to sanction what they would see as “politically incorrect speech, in the worst case even in churches and other religious forums. They are also waiting to remove the secret ballot from union votes, so workers are coerced to vote with union leaders.
4) Education – Greater Intrusion into the conduct and content of schools and Guaranteed Universal (Liberal) College Education. In the big picture, outside mathematics and the hard sciences, college education would be as blinkered as public grade schools, which may be a huge reason why Obama can mesmerize crowds with his extreme, dishonest and irresponsible rhetoric. And soon enough, college education would be similarly inadequate generally. A college graduate will be less literate than a high-school graduate 100 years ago.
5) Naive and Unprincipled Foreign Policy – Joe Biden said Obama would be tested. He will also be exploited by foreign agents. In the best case, that means little or no advancement in the world for the American values of liberty, equality, and human rights. In the worst case, it means physical danger for Americans and others.
6) Health Care – Barack Obama has been pretty vocal about universal health care for at least two years, as Democrats generally have been for many years. If Obama wins, they will have near total control, restrained only by the potential of Republicans to maintain a Senate filibuster. If they can’t, it’s coming. The reflexive response of a lot of people would be that universal health care would be a good thing. But, there are 2 VERY BIG problems. A) It poses another massive cost for an already overburdened country. And however that cost is paid; it will only continue to rise. As P.J. O’Rourke long ago said, “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it becomes “free.” But EVEN MORE IMPORTANT THAN THAT, is the fact that if America follows other industrial nations in socializing medicine, the engine of medical progress will be doused. Today, other countries get the advantage of medical advances birthed in America.
When the incentive of private medical pharmaceutical and technological is removed, medical advances will be substantially slowed. There will be new drug and technological advances that never materialize. Personally with MS, that bodes poorly for new treatments. But, I’m only one guy with one problem.
Obviously, millions would suffer more than they otherwise might. The resources for research and development would be dramatically narrowed to beneficiaries of the National Institute for Health government bureaucracy that will itself absorb substantial resources. Judges, Judges, Judges – In an interview recently published, Obama expressed his dissatisfaction with judicial failure to advance values beyond their constitutional duties. A court system populated with Obama nominees will impose all manner of contrived restrictions on all areas of society. The right to life will be dead for the balance of my lifetime and maybe permanently eviscerated. As I always say, that poses a fading of basic civility and consideration of others in all of American society.
7) ENDA/Gay Marriage – I don’t favor a Constitutional Amendment, but an Obama stacked judiciary will try to leverage the performance and recognition of homosexual marriage onto the entire country via the “full faith and credit” clause of The Constitution and that would be wrong. States should make and live with their own laws. And, homosexual marriage has failed on every ballot it has been tested, even in the most liberal states. In a few states, courts have defied the people’s will. An Obama-appointed Court would do that to the whole country.
8) Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid- A Democratic Congress – These people and their Congressional cohorts would legislatively ride roughshod over American society. If you think Barack Obama would stand in their way, you are deluded. John McCain would.
9) Abolih the Electoral College? - This is a wish that is occasionally voiced by liberals and posed in schools as a matter of voter equality. It would require a Constitutional amendment, so I don’t know if it could be pushed pat enough states to vote away their power. But it, as most other things, is being
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Distressing Stories, The Polls, And A Typically Misleading TV Report
I completed the comments below on Monday, which related my distress at reports from people of whom I would expect differently, who affirm or even dabble with the intention to support Obama and/or oppose McCain. At the bottom, I report current national polls which show McCain having moved into a lead over Obama, while acknowledging that they still suggest a definite Obama lead from an Electoral College standpoint. Monday, even the Rasmussen poll which Sunday showed a tie in its daily tracking poll shows McCain to have nudged into a 1% lead, which they conceded is statistically insignificant. But more notably, in Rasmussen’s current Electoral College breakdown, McCain is shown to have moved within ten points of Obama. And further, with some awareness of the status of these states, I would conjecture that McCain will take at least two of the three states listed as toss-ups which would imply a narrow victory. In every analysis I have looked at, that third state is the most clearly and evenly divided and up-in-the-air: Virginia. I will say that relative to Virginia, Obama needs to maintain the emotional magic that has driven much of his support, because I think those emotionally stoked in Virginia about McCain-Palin will reliably turn out. Further, among the states listed as “leaning” Republican, I would at this point agree that McCain will win them all, while among those listed as “leaning” Democrat, I would consider 3 or 4 of them still in play. In short, for the first time (and this could still change with a dramatic event or report), I would project that McCain would win were the election held today.
But because it relates directly to what I have written below, I want to (briefly, I hope) discuss a typically misleading report that I saw on CNN, today. The report listed the supposed benefit that taxpayers could expect to see under McCain's and Obama’s respective tax plans, listed by income level. Unsurprisingly, the figures showed those in the lowest income group benefiting the most under Obama’s plan relative to McCain’s (never mind the fact that much of this group are not taxpayers at all)., while as the income level rises that benefit in raw dollars moves increasingly toward McCain’s plan. Now, this is neither new nor surprising in its suggestion that such reports represent an actual benefit to Americans. They don’t. Not because they don’t reflect projections about how different income-levels would be affected on a dollar basis. The problem is that it is entirely opaque about how different tax plans will affect what peoples’ income level WILL BE.
For example, perhaps someone in the second-to-lowest income level will fall into the category that supposedly most plainly benefits lower income people. Why is this? Because they may very well drop from the second-lowest to the lowest income level. Therefore, they would get the highest relative benefit BECAUSE THEIR INCOME DROPPED! When taxes on investors and commercial enterprises are increased, the revenue to income-distributing entities is restricted. When that income is insufficient, employess will either be dropped or new positions OR PROMOTIONS not created. This will apply in any manner of endeavor. If your work is construction, business will have fewer dollars to invest in new projects and contractors will have less work for construction workers. If you sell cosmetics in a department store, women will have fewer dollars with which to purchase cosmetics. If you work in a church, the members will have fewer dollars with which to build the church’s budget. And on and on and on…
One would like to think that those responsible for broadcasting such a report on CNN, for example, would not have given such consideration a thought., and most probably haven’t. But, however man y have (and surely some have), they are willfully participating in a misinformation of the public. Anywway, how your income is taxed is only a fragment of the relevant consideration of tax policy. Much more important is WHAT YOUR INCOME MIGHT BE!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My fellow Texan friend pondered the potential benefit to him of supporting Obama, though he disagrees with him on social issues about which he is not assured about McCain, anyway. Other friends reported other Christians who support Obama. Frankly its another discussion, but the thought makes my head swim. It is correct that if McCain does not safely win Texas, he is toast in the rest of the country. But, your discussion heaped on one I had this afternoon of reports of other very evangelical people seemingly hypnotized by Obama, leaves me rather disturbed and disconsolate, not because of Texas but because that sort of thinking around the country could actually elect this man who is either a huckster or UTTERLY deluded.
Be certain to understand: I know you have legitimate issues to consider and others do as well. But, the belief that Obama or anyone else can repair their concerns is a short-sighted delusion of people who are not considering how human nature operates in a society.
First of all, it isn't strong enough to say that I don't BELIEVE that that Obama's plan is going to put more dollars in pockets. I KNOW that that's pure horsepucky. If he has only a cosseted Ivy League education to work with, maybe he's in fantasyland. But frankly, I incline to believe that politicians of his sort are primarily interested in manipulating others to aggrandize themselves. As Sarah Palin put it, “some men use change to advance their careers, while other men use their careers to advance change.”
I know that you can look at me and believe me. I haven’t the least interest in helping rich men who don’t need my help. But, the idea that you can take from the richest and help “95% of taxpayers” in Obama’s case is complete fancy that is worthy of a traveling medicine show. A rich man is rich: you can take half his income and he is still rich. He won’t miss a thing. When all of the wealthiest men in a large country like ours have more or less money it only means that there is more or less to spend or invest, either of which activities create work and income for people who are not so rich. Work doesn’t come from nowhere. If resources aren’t investyed into new projects, there is no work.
Be sure to understand what socialism is: it isn’t just taxing “the rich” to help everyone else. Oh, no! Socialism is an alliance between government and large established businesses. While scamming the people with taxes on big companies with one hand, they reward them with the other with subsides and/or regulation of markets to restrict or eliminate their competition. A corporation will happily shell out a few billion in taxes in order to more effectively dominate their market: better to pay higher taxes on much more market share than lower taxes on a smaller percentage of the market. The long-term effect of this is to retard innovation and technological progress. But, it’s a good run while it lasts: business and government leaders tip toasts on the same parties and trips.
Ultimately, that’s why communism failed. As Marx said, “From each according to his ability. To each according to his need.” Sounds great doesn’t it? Millions and millions of working class peons around the world thought so. But, the subsidized poor remained poor while government leaders and their business benefactors coasted. But over time, the lack of advancement couldn’t keep pace with progress around the world in less socialist places.
But, this also explains why Obama can boast of taxing big corporations and specifically vilify oil companies with one hand while on the other hand voting with the rest of the government opportunists to grant oil companies large corporate welfare subsidies. John McCain by the way, as in so many other cases, voted against this. Sarah Palin in Alaska let oil companies pursue larger profits while taxing them to fund Alaska according to their increased profitability: You make it profitable for them to earn another dollar while paying another penny to the state. But you never make it unprofitable for them to invest another dollar, in which case no one would get anything. Anyway, if Obama is elected with a Democratic Congress they will squeeze the vitality out of the economy. Prices will rise. Interest rates will rise. Unemployment will rise. Opportunity will dwindle. AND, they will blame it on Republicans: “Bush left even a bigger mess than we thought.” Why not? People bought the other stuff.
By the way, you say “I do disagree with Obama on social issues, at least, on the ones that get talked about the most. But having been frustrated by the almost casual lack of attention paid to them during the Bush administration, after anticipating action…” I never anticipated anything. Bush’s statements alone were so soggy and limp that I knew he either could not or would not (or both) inspire any change in the culture. As I’ve said before, Bush’s pathetic statement, “I prefer life,” was a flashing red sign that he had nothing productive to say. As I’ve often said, “I prefer chocolate.” SO WHAT?!
As I also have often said, when Bush was elected in 2000 I said, “Leviathan gets a night manager.” And, it did exactly that. With Bush and a Republican Congress, federal spending increased at a rate not seen since Johnson in the 60’s. The federal education department (neither a federal responsibility or capacity) increase hugely. Entitlement liability and spending increased as it hadn’t since Johnson too, and in a way that Al Gore could never have achieved with a Republican Congress, which went to Disneyland with Bush. By the way, McCain voted against those things, too. I’m not mad at Bush, and I appreciate his foreign policy resolve (if not always his method) in the face of fierce pop-culture headwinds. But, I never voted for him and wouldn’t still.
Irrespective of all of this; even if I believed that Obama could do the magic that his words and lackeys suggest, I would NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, support a man who voted at ever opportunity for as far a “pro-choice” (of what, again?) position as one could take. He voted against a partial-birth abortion ban, which I in fact never advocated. A) I don’t believe it saves a single life. Men who do that for a living aren’t going to be concerned about a little law. But b) the even verbal restriction of one abortion procedure implies the legitimacy of all of the others. But, Obama also voted alone and TWICE in the Illinois state Senate, against a bill to protect infants born alive after botched abortions from being left to die. No type or no amount of candy, even if I believed in it which I don’t, could bring me to vote for such an empty soul.
Particularly in his late years, I think McCain is sincere in his anti-abortion posture. By the way, if Obama appoints 2 to 4 Supreme Court justices, that extends a calamitous court and society through the rest of our lives. Do you really doubt that Palin is serious? I know she is. I want her there in line. Anyway, all of that Christian dalliance with Obama left me in a state. I said it might give me nightmares at night. I might curl up in fetal position with my thumb in my mouth. At least, some polls out today show McCain-Palin having moved into a lead, even though electoral maps still decidedly favor Obama.
But because it relates directly to what I have written below, I want to (briefly, I hope) discuss a typically misleading report that I saw on CNN, today. The report listed the supposed benefit that taxpayers could expect to see under McCain's and Obama’s respective tax plans, listed by income level. Unsurprisingly, the figures showed those in the lowest income group benefiting the most under Obama’s plan relative to McCain’s (never mind the fact that much of this group are not taxpayers at all)., while as the income level rises that benefit in raw dollars moves increasingly toward McCain’s plan. Now, this is neither new nor surprising in its suggestion that such reports represent an actual benefit to Americans. They don’t. Not because they don’t reflect projections about how different income-levels would be affected on a dollar basis. The problem is that it is entirely opaque about how different tax plans will affect what peoples’ income level WILL BE.
For example, perhaps someone in the second-to-lowest income level will fall into the category that supposedly most plainly benefits lower income people. Why is this? Because they may very well drop from the second-lowest to the lowest income level. Therefore, they would get the highest relative benefit BECAUSE THEIR INCOME DROPPED! When taxes on investors and commercial enterprises are increased, the revenue to income-distributing entities is restricted. When that income is insufficient, employess will either be dropped or new positions OR PROMOTIONS not created. This will apply in any manner of endeavor. If your work is construction, business will have fewer dollars to invest in new projects and contractors will have less work for construction workers. If you sell cosmetics in a department store, women will have fewer dollars with which to purchase cosmetics. If you work in a church, the members will have fewer dollars with which to build the church’s budget. And on and on and on…
One would like to think that those responsible for broadcasting such a report on CNN, for example, would not have given such consideration a thought., and most probably haven’t. But, however man y have (and surely some have), they are willfully participating in a misinformation of the public. Anywway, how your income is taxed is only a fragment of the relevant consideration of tax policy. Much more important is WHAT YOUR INCOME MIGHT BE!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My fellow Texan friend pondered the potential benefit to him of supporting Obama, though he disagrees with him on social issues about which he is not assured about McCain, anyway. Other friends reported other Christians who support Obama. Frankly its another discussion, but the thought makes my head swim. It is correct that if McCain does not safely win Texas, he is toast in the rest of the country. But, your discussion heaped on one I had this afternoon of reports of other very evangelical people seemingly hypnotized by Obama, leaves me rather disturbed and disconsolate, not because of Texas but because that sort of thinking around the country could actually elect this man who is either a huckster or UTTERLY deluded.
Be certain to understand: I know you have legitimate issues to consider and others do as well. But, the belief that Obama or anyone else can repair their concerns is a short-sighted delusion of people who are not considering how human nature operates in a society.
First of all, it isn't strong enough to say that I don't BELIEVE that that Obama's plan is going to put more dollars in pockets. I KNOW that that's pure horsepucky. If he has only a cosseted Ivy League education to work with, maybe he's in fantasyland. But frankly, I incline to believe that politicians of his sort are primarily interested in manipulating others to aggrandize themselves. As Sarah Palin put it, “some men use change to advance their careers, while other men use their careers to advance change.”
I know that you can look at me and believe me. I haven’t the least interest in helping rich men who don’t need my help. But, the idea that you can take from the richest and help “95% of taxpayers” in Obama’s case is complete fancy that is worthy of a traveling medicine show. A rich man is rich: you can take half his income and he is still rich. He won’t miss a thing. When all of the wealthiest men in a large country like ours have more or less money it only means that there is more or less to spend or invest, either of which activities create work and income for people who are not so rich. Work doesn’t come from nowhere. If resources aren’t investyed into new projects, there is no work.
Be sure to understand what socialism is: it isn’t just taxing “the rich” to help everyone else. Oh, no! Socialism is an alliance between government and large established businesses. While scamming the people with taxes on big companies with one hand, they reward them with the other with subsides and/or regulation of markets to restrict or eliminate their competition. A corporation will happily shell out a few billion in taxes in order to more effectively dominate their market: better to pay higher taxes on much more market share than lower taxes on a smaller percentage of the market. The long-term effect of this is to retard innovation and technological progress. But, it’s a good run while it lasts: business and government leaders tip toasts on the same parties and trips.
Ultimately, that’s why communism failed. As Marx said, “From each according to his ability. To each according to his need.” Sounds great doesn’t it? Millions and millions of working class peons around the world thought so. But, the subsidized poor remained poor while government leaders and their business benefactors coasted. But over time, the lack of advancement couldn’t keep pace with progress around the world in less socialist places.
But, this also explains why Obama can boast of taxing big corporations and specifically vilify oil companies with one hand while on the other hand voting with the rest of the government opportunists to grant oil companies large corporate welfare subsidies. John McCain by the way, as in so many other cases, voted against this. Sarah Palin in Alaska let oil companies pursue larger profits while taxing them to fund Alaska according to their increased profitability: You make it profitable for them to earn another dollar while paying another penny to the state. But you never make it unprofitable for them to invest another dollar, in which case no one would get anything. Anyway, if Obama is elected with a Democratic Congress they will squeeze the vitality out of the economy. Prices will rise. Interest rates will rise. Unemployment will rise. Opportunity will dwindle. AND, they will blame it on Republicans: “Bush left even a bigger mess than we thought.” Why not? People bought the other stuff.
By the way, you say “I do disagree with Obama on social issues, at least, on the ones that get talked about the most. But having been frustrated by the almost casual lack of attention paid to them during the Bush administration, after anticipating action…” I never anticipated anything. Bush’s statements alone were so soggy and limp that I knew he either could not or would not (or both) inspire any change in the culture. As I’ve said before, Bush’s pathetic statement, “I prefer life,” was a flashing red sign that he had nothing productive to say. As I’ve often said, “I prefer chocolate.” SO WHAT?!
As I also have often said, when Bush was elected in 2000 I said, “Leviathan gets a night manager.” And, it did exactly that. With Bush and a Republican Congress, federal spending increased at a rate not seen since Johnson in the 60’s. The federal education department (neither a federal responsibility or capacity) increase hugely. Entitlement liability and spending increased as it hadn’t since Johnson too, and in a way that Al Gore could never have achieved with a Republican Congress, which went to Disneyland with Bush. By the way, McCain voted against those things, too. I’m not mad at Bush, and I appreciate his foreign policy resolve (if not always his method) in the face of fierce pop-culture headwinds. But, I never voted for him and wouldn’t still.
Irrespective of all of this; even if I believed that Obama could do the magic that his words and lackeys suggest, I would NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, support a man who voted at ever opportunity for as far a “pro-choice” (of what, again?) position as one could take. He voted against a partial-birth abortion ban, which I in fact never advocated. A) I don’t believe it saves a single life. Men who do that for a living aren’t going to be concerned about a little law. But b) the even verbal restriction of one abortion procedure implies the legitimacy of all of the others. But, Obama also voted alone and TWICE in the Illinois state Senate, against a bill to protect infants born alive after botched abortions from being left to die. No type or no amount of candy, even if I believed in it which I don’t, could bring me to vote for such an empty soul.
Particularly in his late years, I think McCain is sincere in his anti-abortion posture. By the way, if Obama appoints 2 to 4 Supreme Court justices, that extends a calamitous court and society through the rest of our lives. Do you really doubt that Palin is serious? I know she is. I want her there in line. Anyway, all of that Christian dalliance with Obama left me in a state. I said it might give me nightmares at night. I might curl up in fetal position with my thumb in my mouth. At least, some polls out today show McCain-Palin having moved into a lead, even though electoral maps still decidedly favor Obama.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Social Security, Obama and McCain
See the promises made and broken in the introduction and history of FICA (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid), below.
For you young people: Social Security payments today, are 12.4% of the first $90,000 an individual earns. 6.2% is deducted from the employee paycheck by the government. And, 6.2% is paid by the employer. However, that 6.2% is part of the employer’s cost of an employee. So, that is really their cost that cannot be paid to the employee. Thus, the 12.4% cost is ALL born by the employee. The employee “cost” is just more hidden taxation to deceive the average American, just like business taxes that are part of the cost of producing a product or service, which go onto the spreadsheet when calculating the profit that will justify the investment, in order to set the price. The self-employed or contract worker pays the full 12.4% straight out. Again, it is the consumer or end-user that bears the cost of the tax.
Barack Obama proposes to lift the $90,000 cap on FICA tax eligible earnings. Thus if we acknowledge that the worker bears the entire cost, someone who earns $150,000, will see a 12.4% FICA tax increase on the $60,000, or $7440 in additional taxes under Obama’s proposal. And, even adding this 12.4% to what EVERYONE in America earns over $90,000, the most optimistic liberals say that this additional revenue would almost cover (for a short period of time) the FICA shortfall that is now perched on America’s front porch. Other tax increases, benefit restrictions, and monetary inflation would still be needed to confront the established liabilities.
That is why it is so important that John McCain, who will work stronger than most to contain spending (certainly a great deal more than Bush has) is elected, and Barack Obama , who has promised many billions of dollars in new spending, is not. This urgent need for fiscal sobriety is why a strict conservative like OK Senator Tom Coburn is strongly supporting McCain, even though he has often disagreed with McCain, as many of us have: he knows that McCain is uncommonly strong against profligate spending. An Obama presidency with a Democrat-controlled Congress could make the economic woes of the Jimmy Carter years look like a picnic. Add to that thr damage of an activist judiciary generally and Supreme Court, spefically, and the potential danger to humanity and American security of an imprudent foreign policy. Vote McCain!
-------------------
Franklin Delano. Roosevelt
32nd. President, Democrat
Terms of Office March 4, 1933, to April 12, 1945
Franklin Delano. Roosevelt
introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program.
He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put Into the Program would be deductible from Their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would Only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxe d< span class="Apple-converted-space"> on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to < SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: red">'Put Away' -- you may be interested in the following:
Lyndon Baines Johnson 36th.President, Democrat
Term Of Office: November 22, 1963 to January 20, 1969
Question: Which Political Party took Social Security from the Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the General Fund so thatCongress could spend it?
Answer: It was Lyndon B. Johnson
and the democratically Controlled House and Senate.
Question: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax Deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
Answer: The Democratic Party.
William Jefferson Clinton
(Bill Clinton)
42nd. President
Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1993to January 20, 2001
Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.
(Al Gore)
45th. Vice President
Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1993to January 20, 2001
Question: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
Answer: The Democratic Party, with Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (Al Gore) [Vice President
Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001] casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US .
James Earl Carter, Jr
(Jimmy Carter)
39th. President, Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981 Question:
Which Political Party decided to start giving Annuity payments toimmigrants?
AND MY FAVORITE:
Answer: That's right!
James Earl Carter, Jr. (Jimmy Carter) and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments!
The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of Awareness will be planted and maybe changes will Evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully Sure of what isn't so.
But it's worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to?
Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.
AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!
Thomas Jefferson
3rd. President, Democrat
Term of Office: March 4, 1801 to March 4, 1809
'A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.'
- Thomas Jefferson
For you young people: Social Security payments today, are 12.4% of the first $90,000 an individual earns. 6.2% is deducted from the employee paycheck by the government. And, 6.2% is paid by the employer. However, that 6.2% is part of the employer’s cost of an employee. So, that is really their cost that cannot be paid to the employee. Thus, the 12.4% cost is ALL born by the employee. The employee “cost” is just more hidden taxation to deceive the average American, just like business taxes that are part of the cost of producing a product or service, which go onto the spreadsheet when calculating the profit that will justify the investment, in order to set the price. The self-employed or contract worker pays the full 12.4% straight out. Again, it is the consumer or end-user that bears the cost of the tax.
Barack Obama proposes to lift the $90,000 cap on FICA tax eligible earnings. Thus if we acknowledge that the worker bears the entire cost, someone who earns $150,000, will see a 12.4% FICA tax increase on the $60,000, or $7440 in additional taxes under Obama’s proposal. And, even adding this 12.4% to what EVERYONE in America earns over $90,000, the most optimistic liberals say that this additional revenue would almost cover (for a short period of time) the FICA shortfall that is now perched on America’s front porch. Other tax increases, benefit restrictions, and monetary inflation would still be needed to confront the established liabilities.
That is why it is so important that John McCain, who will work stronger than most to contain spending (certainly a great deal more than Bush has) is elected, and Barack Obama , who has promised many billions of dollars in new spending, is not. This urgent need for fiscal sobriety is why a strict conservative like OK Senator Tom Coburn is strongly supporting McCain, even though he has often disagreed with McCain, as many of us have: he knows that McCain is uncommonly strong against profligate spending. An Obama presidency with a Democrat-controlled Congress could make the economic woes of the Jimmy Carter years look like a picnic. Add to that thr damage of an activist judiciary generally and Supreme Court, spefically, and the potential danger to humanity and American security of an imprudent foreign policy. Vote McCain!
-------------------
Franklin Delano. Roosevelt
32nd. President, Democrat
Terms of Office March 4, 1933, to April 12, 1945
Franklin Delano. Roosevelt
introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program.
He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put Into the Program would be deductible from Their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would Only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxe d< span class="Apple-converted-space"> on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to < SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: red">'Put Away' -- you may be interested in the following:
Lyndon Baines Johnson 36th.President, Democrat
Term Of Office: November 22, 1963 to January 20, 1969
Question: Which Political Party took Social Security from the Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the General Fund so thatCongress could spend it?
Answer: It was Lyndon B. Johnson
and the democratically Controlled House and Senate.
Question: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax Deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
Answer: The Democratic Party.
William Jefferson Clinton
(Bill Clinton)
42nd. President
Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1993to January 20, 2001
Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.
(Al Gore)
45th. Vice President
Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1993to January 20, 2001
Question: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
Answer: The Democratic Party, with Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (Al Gore) [Vice President
Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001] casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US .
James Earl Carter, Jr
(Jimmy Carter)
39th. President, Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981 Question:
Which Political Party decided to start giving Annuity payments toimmigrants?
AND MY FAVORITE:
Answer: That's right!
James Earl Carter, Jr. (Jimmy Carter) and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments!
The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of Awareness will be planted and maybe changes will Evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully Sure of what isn't so.
But it's worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to?
Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.
AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!
Thomas Jefferson
3rd. President, Democrat
Term of Office: March 4, 1801 to March 4, 1809
'A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.'
- Thomas Jefferson
Social Security, Obama and McCain
See the promises made and broken in the introduction and history of FICA (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid), below.
For you young people: Social Security payments today, are 12.4% of the first $90,000 an individual earns. 6.2% is deducted from the employee paycheck by the government. And, 6.2% is paid by the employer. However, that 6.2% is part of the employer’s cost of an employee. So, that is really their cost that cannot be paid to the employee. Thus, the 12.4% cost is ALL born by the employee. The employee “cost” is just more hidden taxation to deceive the average American, just like business taxes that are part of the cost of producing a product or service, which go onto the spreadsheet when calculating the profit that will justify the investment, in order to set the price. The self-employed or contract worker pays the full 12.4% straight out. Again, it is the consumer or end-user that bears the cost of the tax.
Barack Obama proposes to lift the $90,000 cap on FICA tax eligible earnings. Thus if we acknowledge that the worker bears the entire cost, someone who earns $150,000, will see a 12.4% FICA tax increase on the $60,000, or $7440 in additional taxes under Obama’s proposal. And, even adding this 12.4% to what EVERYONE in America earns over $90,000, the most optimistic liberals say that this additional revenue would almost cover (for a short period of time) the FICA shortfall that is now perched on America’s front porch. Other tax increases, benefit restrictions, and monetary inflation would still be needed to confront the established liabilities.
That is why it is so important that John McCain, who will work stronger than most to contain spending (certainly a great deal more than Bush has) is elected, and Barack Obama , who has promised many billions of dollars in new spending, is not. This urgent need for fiscal sobriety is why a strict conservative like OK Senator Tom Coburn is strongly supporting McCain, even though he has often disagreed with McCain, as many of us have: he knows that McCain is uncommonly strong against profligate spending. An Obama presidency with a Democrat-controlled Congress could make the economic woes of the Jimmy Carter years look like a picnic. Add to that thr damage of an activist judiciary generally and Supreme Court, spefically, and the potential danger to humanity and American security of an imprudent foreign policy. Vote McCain!
-------------------
Franklin Delano. Roosevelt
32nd. President, Democrat
Terms of Office March 4, 1933, to April 12, 1945
Franklin Delano. Roosevelt
introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program.
He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put Into the Program would be deductible from Their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would Only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxe d< span class="Apple-converted-space"> on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to < SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: red">'Put Away' -- you may be interested in the following:
Lyndon Baines Johnson 36th.President, Democrat
Term Of Office: November 22, 1963 to January 20, 1969
Question: Which Political Party took Social Security from the Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the General Fund so thatCongress could spend it?
Answer: It was Lyndon B. Johnson
and the democratically Controlled House and Senate.
Question: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax Deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
Answer: The Democratic Party.
William Jefferson Clinton
(Bill Clinton)
42nd. President
Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1993to January 20, 2001
Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.
(Al Gore)
45th. Vice President
Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1993to January 20, 2001
Question: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
Answer: The Democratic Party, with Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (Al Gore) [Vice President
Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001] casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US .
James Earl Carter, Jr
(Jimmy Carter)
39th. President, Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981 Question:
Which Political Party decided to start giving Annuity payments toimmigrants?
AND MY FAVORITE:
Answer: That's right!
James Earl Carter, Jr. (Jimmy Carter) and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments!
The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of Awareness will be planted and maybe changes will Evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully Sure of what isn't so.
But it's worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to?
Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.
AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!
Thomas Jefferson
3rd. President, Democrat
Term of Office: March 4, 1801 to March 4, 1809
'A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.'
- Thomas Jefferson
For you young people: Social Security payments today, are 12.4% of the first $90,000 an individual earns. 6.2% is deducted from the employee paycheck by the government. And, 6.2% is paid by the employer. However, that 6.2% is part of the employer’s cost of an employee. So, that is really their cost that cannot be paid to the employee. Thus, the 12.4% cost is ALL born by the employee. The employee “cost” is just more hidden taxation to deceive the average American, just like business taxes that are part of the cost of producing a product or service, which go onto the spreadsheet when calculating the profit that will justify the investment, in order to set the price. The self-employed or contract worker pays the full 12.4% straight out. Again, it is the consumer or end-user that bears the cost of the tax.
Barack Obama proposes to lift the $90,000 cap on FICA tax eligible earnings. Thus if we acknowledge that the worker bears the entire cost, someone who earns $150,000, will see a 12.4% FICA tax increase on the $60,000, or $7440 in additional taxes under Obama’s proposal. And, even adding this 12.4% to what EVERYONE in America earns over $90,000, the most optimistic liberals say that this additional revenue would almost cover (for a short period of time) the FICA shortfall that is now perched on America’s front porch. Other tax increases, benefit restrictions, and monetary inflation would still be needed to confront the established liabilities.
That is why it is so important that John McCain, who will work stronger than most to contain spending (certainly a great deal more than Bush has) is elected, and Barack Obama , who has promised many billions of dollars in new spending, is not. This urgent need for fiscal sobriety is why a strict conservative like OK Senator Tom Coburn is strongly supporting McCain, even though he has often disagreed with McCain, as many of us have: he knows that McCain is uncommonly strong against profligate spending. An Obama presidency with a Democrat-controlled Congress could make the economic woes of the Jimmy Carter years look like a picnic. Add to that thr damage of an activist judiciary generally and Supreme Court, spefically, and the potential danger to humanity and American security of an imprudent foreign policy. Vote McCain!
-------------------
Franklin Delano. Roosevelt
32nd. President, Democrat
Terms of Office March 4, 1933, to April 12, 1945
Franklin Delano. Roosevelt
introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program.
He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put Into the Program would be deductible from Their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would Only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxe d< span class="Apple-converted-space"> on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to < SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: red">'Put Away' -- you may be interested in the following:
Lyndon Baines Johnson 36th.President, Democrat
Term Of Office: November 22, 1963 to January 20, 1969
Question: Which Political Party took Social Security from the Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the General Fund so thatCongress could spend it?
Answer: It was Lyndon B. Johnson
and the democratically Controlled House and Senate.
Question: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax Deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
Answer: The Democratic Party.
William Jefferson Clinton
(Bill Clinton)
42nd. President
Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1993to January 20, 2001
Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.
(Al Gore)
45th. Vice President
Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1993to January 20, 2001
Question: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
Answer: The Democratic Party, with Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (Al Gore) [Vice President
Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001] casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US .
James Earl Carter, Jr
(Jimmy Carter)
39th. President, Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981 Question:
Which Political Party decided to start giving Annuity payments toimmigrants?
AND MY FAVORITE:
Answer: That's right!
James Earl Carter, Jr. (Jimmy Carter) and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments!
The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of Awareness will be planted and maybe changes will Evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully Sure of what isn't so.
But it's worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to?
Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.
AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!
Thomas Jefferson
3rd. President, Democrat
Term of Office: March 4, 1801 to March 4, 1809
'A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.'
- Thomas Jefferson
Friday, June 27, 2008
Gay Marriage And Considering Nuance
I wrote most of this last week, but was distracted with other things. I have intended for weeks and really months, now, to change the approach of the discussion on my Blog, on which I have been VERY inactive recently. Of course, I spent most of the last year advocating for Mike Huckabee’s presidential campaign and defending him against what I’m certain were ill-founded and often disingenuous criticisms. I think I have been to a great extent letting the air out and recuperating from the campaign, occasionally posting on why it is critical for America’s future in almost all respects, for conservatives to support John McCain despite his occasional philosophical infidelities.
And, in the past few weeks I have begun a program of physical and occupational therapy to deal with the weaknesses and impediments that have accrued over my 15 years with multiple sclerosis. But, I want to write about the matter of the “legalization” in California of gay marriage beginning last week, Tuesday June 17. I enclose “legalization” in quotes because judges don’t make law; they interpret them and all too often MISinterpret them. This situation was foisted upon the California people via a capricious and presumptuous ruling by the California Supreme Court, defying the expressed will of the people, EVEN IN CALIFORNIA!
I think it is apt for me to write about this for a few reasons which are paradigmatic of some overall concerns of mine:
1) In fact, I do think homosexual marriage is a bad idea, for the health of both the society and the homosexual individuals themselves, but that is not my primary concern or frankly not even in play in this question.
2) Of serious concern is the judicial presumption over the will of the people that was expressed in the political process, when there is no issue of basic constitutional principle. And actually, the passivity of the people in rolling over and accepting it for no better reason that I can discern than that some very foolish people in media tell them that they are obligated to, may be an even greater concern.
3) This is also an issue like some others on which I do not have the conventional reflex of many people who consider themselves “conservative.” In fact, I was and am an enthusiastic supporter of Mike Huckabee who himself, quite expectedly supports a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. I DO NOT. Oh, I understand that a legal case can and undoubtedly will be pressed for other states to recognize these marriages under the “full faith and credit” clause of The Constitution. That would be a misapplication of that provision. And, the proper course to confront it would not be an amendment to the US Constitution, but for an unwilling state to simply refuse to submit to any such ruling: as someone once said, “Just say ‘No!’”. Frankly, after over 34 years of quivering under a contrived judicial edict that supposedly commands national accession to unrestricted abortion, it’s long past time for a state to stand up and say, “Enough! The Constitution is not an all-purpose medium for any outrageous dictum, and The United States has no kings, certainly not incognito as judges!”
Addressing this last matter first, consider two things: a) the federal government and certainly the US Constitution have no jurisdiction over marriage and should not. And to introduce such a matter to the US Constitution would severely diminish the integrity of that document. And b) to cede the authority of amending the US Constitutional to define marriage the way you like it, today, is to cede the authority of a US Constitutional amendment to define it any other way, tomorrow. Take a step back: Do you really dismiss the possibility that popular consensus might change?
The US Constitution should have nothing to say about what constitutes a marriage. Honestly, I’m anything but enthusiastic about even a state government establishment of marriage. We see marriage as an institution before God, not the state. And that confusion diminishes marriage. The worst part of our marriage convention as when a minister says, “And now, by the authority vested in me by the state of…” WAIT A MINUTE! The state? If a marriage is an oath only before a state, it could be no surprise that people might take it lightly. Breaking your vows won’t even earn you a citation! And, who knows how a changing and sliding people might one day define marriage?
But, I do grant the authority of a sovereign state to determine its own social practices how it chooses…by a democratic political process, NOT by the arbitrary impulse of judges. So, it is for Californians to decide if they will amend their constitution. And, in my state, I would not support gay marriage. As things stand, the preferred route would be to impeach some judges.
When I launch into this new effort I will in addition to describing my experience and contemplation of MS for the consideration of sufferers and their friends and families also discuss my thoughts on many social, political, philosophical, and theological aspects of life. I have an atypical inclination to engage such abstract thoughts. And I often consider such fine distinctions as those expressed above. I am quite aware that most discussions, particularly political ones do not and cannot engage such nuance.
For example, when Huckabee says he supports constitutional amendments on marriage and human life, I consider that that the shorthand is that he supports a TRADITIONAL definition of marriage and thinks abortion is unconstitutional and I agree. I WOULD support a constitutional amendment clarifying the sanctity of human life. But, the amendment process is such that if it could genuinely be accomplished, the social problem would have already been solved. If such a majority was so explicit in its opposition to abortion, they would probably have already acted to stop it. As of today, many will record their opposition to abortion. But, few will pause to do very much about it.
But, often the nuances of issues merit consideration, short attention spans and sound-byte mass-communications, notwithstanding. To break them down to a more bite-sized offering presents a daunting task. But, it is my great fortune and privilege that I haven’t too much more pressing to do.
And, in the past few weeks I have begun a program of physical and occupational therapy to deal with the weaknesses and impediments that have accrued over my 15 years with multiple sclerosis. But, I want to write about the matter of the “legalization” in California of gay marriage beginning last week, Tuesday June 17. I enclose “legalization” in quotes because judges don’t make law; they interpret them and all too often MISinterpret them. This situation was foisted upon the California people via a capricious and presumptuous ruling by the California Supreme Court, defying the expressed will of the people, EVEN IN CALIFORNIA!
I think it is apt for me to write about this for a few reasons which are paradigmatic of some overall concerns of mine:
1) In fact, I do think homosexual marriage is a bad idea, for the health of both the society and the homosexual individuals themselves, but that is not my primary concern or frankly not even in play in this question.
2) Of serious concern is the judicial presumption over the will of the people that was expressed in the political process, when there is no issue of basic constitutional principle. And actually, the passivity of the people in rolling over and accepting it for no better reason that I can discern than that some very foolish people in media tell them that they are obligated to, may be an even greater concern.
3) This is also an issue like some others on which I do not have the conventional reflex of many people who consider themselves “conservative.” In fact, I was and am an enthusiastic supporter of Mike Huckabee who himself, quite expectedly supports a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. I DO NOT. Oh, I understand that a legal case can and undoubtedly will be pressed for other states to recognize these marriages under the “full faith and credit” clause of The Constitution. That would be a misapplication of that provision. And, the proper course to confront it would not be an amendment to the US Constitution, but for an unwilling state to simply refuse to submit to any such ruling: as someone once said, “Just say ‘No!’”. Frankly, after over 34 years of quivering under a contrived judicial edict that supposedly commands national accession to unrestricted abortion, it’s long past time for a state to stand up and say, “Enough! The Constitution is not an all-purpose medium for any outrageous dictum, and The United States has no kings, certainly not incognito as judges!”
Addressing this last matter first, consider two things: a) the federal government and certainly the US Constitution have no jurisdiction over marriage and should not. And to introduce such a matter to the US Constitution would severely diminish the integrity of that document. And b) to cede the authority of amending the US Constitutional to define marriage the way you like it, today, is to cede the authority of a US Constitutional amendment to define it any other way, tomorrow. Take a step back: Do you really dismiss the possibility that popular consensus might change?
The US Constitution should have nothing to say about what constitutes a marriage. Honestly, I’m anything but enthusiastic about even a state government establishment of marriage. We see marriage as an institution before God, not the state. And that confusion diminishes marriage. The worst part of our marriage convention as when a minister says, “And now, by the authority vested in me by the state of…” WAIT A MINUTE! The state? If a marriage is an oath only before a state, it could be no surprise that people might take it lightly. Breaking your vows won’t even earn you a citation! And, who knows how a changing and sliding people might one day define marriage?
But, I do grant the authority of a sovereign state to determine its own social practices how it chooses…by a democratic political process, NOT by the arbitrary impulse of judges. So, it is for Californians to decide if they will amend their constitution. And, in my state, I would not support gay marriage. As things stand, the preferred route would be to impeach some judges.
When I launch into this new effort I will in addition to describing my experience and contemplation of MS for the consideration of sufferers and their friends and families also discuss my thoughts on many social, political, philosophical, and theological aspects of life. I have an atypical inclination to engage such abstract thoughts. And I often consider such fine distinctions as those expressed above. I am quite aware that most discussions, particularly political ones do not and cannot engage such nuance.
For example, when Huckabee says he supports constitutional amendments on marriage and human life, I consider that that the shorthand is that he supports a TRADITIONAL definition of marriage and thinks abortion is unconstitutional and I agree. I WOULD support a constitutional amendment clarifying the sanctity of human life. But, the amendment process is such that if it could genuinely be accomplished, the social problem would have already been solved. If such a majority was so explicit in its opposition to abortion, they would probably have already acted to stop it. As of today, many will record their opposition to abortion. But, few will pause to do very much about it.
But, often the nuances of issues merit consideration, short attention spans and sound-byte mass-communications, notwithstanding. To break them down to a more bite-sized offering presents a daunting task. But, it is my great fortune and privilege that I haven’t too much more pressing to do.
I wrote most of this last week, but was distracted with other things. I have intended for weeks and really months, now, to change the approach of the discussion on my Blog, on which I have been VERY inactive recently. Of course, I spent most of the last year advocating for Mike Huckabee’s presidential campaign and defending him against what I’m certain were ill-founded and often disingenuous criticisms. I think I have been to a great extent letting the air out and recuperating from the campaign, occasionally posting on why it is critical for America’s future in almost all respects, for conservatives to support John McCain despite his occasional philosophical infidelities.
And, in the past few weeks I have begun a program of physical and occupational therapy to deal with the weaknesses and impediments that have accrued over my 15 years with multiple sclerosis. But, I want to write about the matter of the “legalization” in California of gay marriage beginning last week, Tuesday June 17. I enclose “legalization” in quotes because judges don’t make law; they interpret them and all too often MISinterpret them. This situation was foisted upon the California people via a capricious and presumptuous ruling by the California Supreme Court, defying the expressed will of the people, EVEN IN CALIFORNIA!
I think it is apt for me to write about this for a few reasons which are paradigmatic of some overall concerns of mine:
1) In fact, I do think homosexual marriage is a bad idea, for the health of both the society and the homosexual individuals themselves, but that is not my primary concern or frankly not even in play in this question.
2) Of serious concern is the judicial presumption over the will of the people that was expressed in the political process, when there is no issue of basic constitutional principle. And actually, the passivity of the people in rolling over and accepting it for no better reason that I can discern than that some very foolish people in media tell them that they are obligated to, may be an even greater concern.
3) This is also an issue like some others on which I do not have the conventional reflex of many people who consider themselves “conservative.” In fact, I was and am an enthusiastic supporter of Mike Huckabee who himself, quite expectedly supports a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. I DO NOT. Oh, I understand that a legal case can and undoubtedly will be pressed for other states to recognize these marriages under the “full faith and credit” clause of The Constitution. That would be a misapplication of that provision. And, the proper course to confront it would not be an amendment to the US Constitution, but for an unwilling state to simply refuse to submit to any such ruling: as someone once said, “Just say ‘No!’”. Frankly, after over 34 years of quivering under a contrived judicial edict that supposedly commands national accession to unrestricted abortion, it’s long past time for a state to stand up and say, “Enough! The Constitution is not an all-purpose medium for any outrageous dictum, and The United States has no kings, certainly not incognito as judges!”
Addressing this last matter first, consider two things: a) the federal government and certainly the US Constitution have no jurisdiction over marriage and should not. And to introduce such a matter to the US Constitution would severely diminish the integrity of that document. And b) to cede the authority of amending the US Constitutional to define marriage the way you like it, today, is to cede the authority of a US Constitutional amendment to define it any other way, tomorrow. Take a step back: Do you really dismiss the possibility that popular consensus might change?
The US Constitution should have nothing to say about what constitutes a marriage. Honestly, I’m anything but enthusiastic about even a state government establishment of marriage. We see marriage as an institution before God, not the state. And that confusion diminishes marriage. The worst part of our marriage convention as when a minister says, “And now, by the authority vested in me by the state of…” WAIT A MINUTE! The state? If a marriage is an oath only before a state, it could be no surprise that people might take it lightly. Breaking your vows won’t even earn you a citation! And, who knows how a changing and sliding people might one day define marriage?
But, I do grant the authority of a sovereign state to determine its own social practices how it chooses…by a democratic political process, NOT by the arbitrary impulse of judges. So, it is for Californians to decide if they will amend their constitution. And, in my state, I would not support gay marriage. As things stand, the preferred route would be to impeach some judges.
When I launch into this new effort I will in addition to describing my experience and contemplation of MS for the consideration of sufferers and their friends and families also discuss my thoughts on many social, political, philosophical, and theological aspects of life. I have an atypical inclination to engage such abstract thoughts. And I often consider such fine distinctions as those expressed above. I am quite aware that most discussions, particularly political ones do not and cannot engage such nuance.
For example, when Huckabee says he supports constitutional amendments on marriage and human life, I consider that that the shorthand is that he supports a TRADITIONAL definition of marriage and thinks abortion is unconstitutional and I agree. I WOULD support a constitutional amendment clarifying the sanctity of human life. But, the amendment process is such that if it could genuinely be accomplished, the social problem would have already been solved. If such a majority was so explicit in its opposition to abortion, they would probably have already acted to stop it. As of today, many will record their opposition to abortion. But, few will pause to do very much about it.
But, often the nuances of issues merit consideration, short attention spans and sound-byte mass-communications, notwithstanding. To break them down to a more bite-sized offering presents a daunting task. But, it is my great fortune and privilege that I haven’t too much more pressing to do.
And, in the past few weeks I have begun a program of physical and occupational therapy to deal with the weaknesses and impediments that have accrued over my 15 years with multiple sclerosis. But, I want to write about the matter of the “legalization” in California of gay marriage beginning last week, Tuesday June 17. I enclose “legalization” in quotes because judges don’t make law; they interpret them and all too often MISinterpret them. This situation was foisted upon the California people via a capricious and presumptuous ruling by the California Supreme Court, defying the expressed will of the people, EVEN IN CALIFORNIA!
I think it is apt for me to write about this for a few reasons which are paradigmatic of some overall concerns of mine:
1) In fact, I do think homosexual marriage is a bad idea, for the health of both the society and the homosexual individuals themselves, but that is not my primary concern or frankly not even in play in this question.
2) Of serious concern is the judicial presumption over the will of the people that was expressed in the political process, when there is no issue of basic constitutional principle. And actually, the passivity of the people in rolling over and accepting it for no better reason that I can discern than that some very foolish people in media tell them that they are obligated to, may be an even greater concern.
3) This is also an issue like some others on which I do not have the conventional reflex of many people who consider themselves “conservative.” In fact, I was and am an enthusiastic supporter of Mike Huckabee who himself, quite expectedly supports a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. I DO NOT. Oh, I understand that a legal case can and undoubtedly will be pressed for other states to recognize these marriages under the “full faith and credit” clause of The Constitution. That would be a misapplication of that provision. And, the proper course to confront it would not be an amendment to the US Constitution, but for an unwilling state to simply refuse to submit to any such ruling: as someone once said, “Just say ‘No!’”. Frankly, after over 34 years of quivering under a contrived judicial edict that supposedly commands national accession to unrestricted abortion, it’s long past time for a state to stand up and say, “Enough! The Constitution is not an all-purpose medium for any outrageous dictum, and The United States has no kings, certainly not incognito as judges!”
Addressing this last matter first, consider two things: a) the federal government and certainly the US Constitution have no jurisdiction over marriage and should not. And to introduce such a matter to the US Constitution would severely diminish the integrity of that document. And b) to cede the authority of amending the US Constitutional to define marriage the way you like it, today, is to cede the authority of a US Constitutional amendment to define it any other way, tomorrow. Take a step back: Do you really dismiss the possibility that popular consensus might change?
The US Constitution should have nothing to say about what constitutes a marriage. Honestly, I’m anything but enthusiastic about even a state government establishment of marriage. We see marriage as an institution before God, not the state. And that confusion diminishes marriage. The worst part of our marriage convention as when a minister says, “And now, by the authority vested in me by the state of…” WAIT A MINUTE! The state? If a marriage is an oath only before a state, it could be no surprise that people might take it lightly. Breaking your vows won’t even earn you a citation! And, who knows how a changing and sliding people might one day define marriage?
But, I do grant the authority of a sovereign state to determine its own social practices how it chooses…by a democratic political process, NOT by the arbitrary impulse of judges. So, it is for Californians to decide if they will amend their constitution. And, in my state, I would not support gay marriage. As things stand, the preferred route would be to impeach some judges.
When I launch into this new effort I will in addition to describing my experience and contemplation of MS for the consideration of sufferers and their friends and families also discuss my thoughts on many social, political, philosophical, and theological aspects of life. I have an atypical inclination to engage such abstract thoughts. And I often consider such fine distinctions as those expressed above. I am quite aware that most discussions, particularly political ones do not and cannot engage such nuance.
For example, when Huckabee says he supports constitutional amendments on marriage and human life, I consider that that the shorthand is that he supports a TRADITIONAL definition of marriage and thinks abortion is unconstitutional and I agree. I WOULD support a constitutional amendment clarifying the sanctity of human life. But, the amendment process is such that if it could genuinely be accomplished, the social problem would have already been solved. If such a majority was so explicit in its opposition to abortion, they would probably have already acted to stop it. As of today, many will record their opposition to abortion. But, few will pause to do very much about it.
But, often the nuances of issues merit consideration, short attention spans and sound-byte mass-communications, notwithstanding. To break them down to a more bite-sized offering presents a daunting task. But, it is my great fortune and privilege that I haven’t too much more pressing to do.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
The Pros And Cons Of John McCain
I’m anxious to hang it up for today, but I wanted to say at least a little about John McCain. Understand: Tuesday is the Texas primary, I already voted early for Mike Huckabee, and will promote Huckabee and his ideas in the Texas convention process. Today, I was cited polls supposedly showing a poll margin of twenty or more percentage points for John McCain over Mike Huckabee. But, that will not happen. One direction or another, I think the difference will be single digits. I have a number of reasons to say that, but time will soon tell. As an example, Texas Governor Rick Perry has endorsed John McCain. And depending on turnout, that should prove a net (additional) negative for John McCain. A large turnout of relatively casual observers may favor McCain. But, the greater percentage of the vote that is more activist Republicans, the better it will bode for Mike Huckabee. Though it is March in Texas, I wish it would snow.
I have been critical of John McCain for over a decade. In 2000 when asked whether I liked McCain I said, “I loved my grandfather, but I wouldn’t recommend him for president.” It has become only plainer to me that, especially as he has aged, John McCain is a sober and well-intentioned human being with a substantially undefined philosophical compass. It is ironic that his philosophically brutish and constitutionally audacious lunge at tamping the influence of money in Washington, the infamous McCain-Feingold, is now nipping at his posterior as a presidential candidate. And that is hardly the beginning of his infidelities to The Constitution and misunderstanding of some basic inclinations of human nature.
But all of that said, should Republicans fail to deliver the miracle of fidelity of principle that give the nomination to Mike Huckabee and McCain is the nominee, barring an outrageous act that surely he would be warned away from , I would support McCain as I never did George W. Bush’s presidential bids. And by the way, in case you haven’t read it before in the past several years, I’m not mad at George Bush. I just think he is ill-equipped to lead or steer America out of the aimless ideological drift in which the Reagan administration was a hiccup.
When Bush was elected in 2000, I said, “Leviathan gets a night manager,” and history has shown that to be an accurate assessment. I have also said that with a Republican Congress, Al Gore could not have succeeded in expanding the federal government and its expenditures as Bush has, and I sincerely believe that. But though hardly perfectly, Bush has succeeded in giving us marginally better federal judges and has been resolute about the primary federal government responsibility of defending America and basic humanity. And in the face of strong pop-cultural headwinds, I must say.
I think that John McCain will be equally or more resolute and apt, in that regard, and will do an starkly superior job of restraining federal spending that in fact now threatens economic calamity. I also think that as an older man, he will be more sober about reckless judicial possibilities and the social pathologies that have settled into American culture.
Of course, it will make a great difference to me if McCain should choose a more philosophically meticulous running-mate to provide counsel to his administration. Though he is advised against it on left and right, I would be greatly more animated about a McCain ticket if Mike Huckabee were on it. And I believe it is true that this way or another, McCain would need to animate the social conservatives who inject the legwork and elbow grease that drives Republican campaigns and pulled the Republican Party out of the congressional shadows almost 30 years ago. Huckabee is the obvious choice in that regard. He understands the drift of American principle. And, it would be revolutionary and unprecedented productive if Huckabee could sell McCain on the virtues and prospects of The Fair Tax. That’s my two cents worth.
But today, I still hope and pray for a Huckabee victory in Texas on Tuesday, and that “miracle” of a brokered convention. It seems to me, that McCain and Huckabee could distinguish two factions of the Republican Party and in the spirit that they have exercised all along, unite them and the country to successes that neither the party or the country have seen in a long time.
I have been critical of John McCain for over a decade. In 2000 when asked whether I liked McCain I said, “I loved my grandfather, but I wouldn’t recommend him for president.” It has become only plainer to me that, especially as he has aged, John McCain is a sober and well-intentioned human being with a substantially undefined philosophical compass. It is ironic that his philosophically brutish and constitutionally audacious lunge at tamping the influence of money in Washington, the infamous McCain-Feingold, is now nipping at his posterior as a presidential candidate. And that is hardly the beginning of his infidelities to The Constitution and misunderstanding of some basic inclinations of human nature.
But all of that said, should Republicans fail to deliver the miracle of fidelity of principle that give the nomination to Mike Huckabee and McCain is the nominee, barring an outrageous act that surely he would be warned away from , I would support McCain as I never did George W. Bush’s presidential bids. And by the way, in case you haven’t read it before in the past several years, I’m not mad at George Bush. I just think he is ill-equipped to lead or steer America out of the aimless ideological drift in which the Reagan administration was a hiccup.
When Bush was elected in 2000, I said, “Leviathan gets a night manager,” and history has shown that to be an accurate assessment. I have also said that with a Republican Congress, Al Gore could not have succeeded in expanding the federal government and its expenditures as Bush has, and I sincerely believe that. But though hardly perfectly, Bush has succeeded in giving us marginally better federal judges and has been resolute about the primary federal government responsibility of defending America and basic humanity. And in the face of strong pop-cultural headwinds, I must say.
I think that John McCain will be equally or more resolute and apt, in that regard, and will do an starkly superior job of restraining federal spending that in fact now threatens economic calamity. I also think that as an older man, he will be more sober about reckless judicial possibilities and the social pathologies that have settled into American culture.
Of course, it will make a great difference to me if McCain should choose a more philosophically meticulous running-mate to provide counsel to his administration. Though he is advised against it on left and right, I would be greatly more animated about a McCain ticket if Mike Huckabee were on it. And I believe it is true that this way or another, McCain would need to animate the social conservatives who inject the legwork and elbow grease that drives Republican campaigns and pulled the Republican Party out of the congressional shadows almost 30 years ago. Huckabee is the obvious choice in that regard. He understands the drift of American principle. And, it would be revolutionary and unprecedented productive if Huckabee could sell McCain on the virtues and prospects of The Fair Tax. That’s my two cents worth.
But today, I still hope and pray for a Huckabee victory in Texas on Tuesday, and that “miracle” of a brokered convention. It seems to me, that McCain and Huckabee could distinguish two factions of the Republican Party and in the spirit that they have exercised all along, unite them and the country to successes that neither the party or the country have seen in a long time.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
What Crime Has He Committed? "Crucify Him!"
Below is a comment on my last post, which complained about my exasperation with “conservative” critics of Huckabee, and my response.
Some of these “conservatives,” I think may be serious, though misguided. But, some are certainly driven by anti-social conservative, anti-Fair Tax, or anti-humane motives. I say "anti-humane" because I feel some of these critics though probably a relatively small minority, are simply reactive to Mike Huckabee’s expressions of concern for people other than Wall Street and investment professionals. I say “reactive” because Huckabee has no record or intention of the kind of expansive and wasteful government that some conservatives instantly fear because they hear a certain tone of concern for the common man. And, he doesn’t have such a record or intention, not because the concern isn’t genuine. He just knows that this kind of activity is socially destructive: he’s conservative not in being dispassionate, but in principle.
And here is the great irony: Mike Huckabee believes that conservative approaches to governance really are the most productive way to help not just upper, but middle and lower income people as well. He just has the temerity to actually TELL people that he would like to help them that way, which jolts some conservatives to apoplexy. Not Fred Thompson, by the way. Heck, Fred Thompson is WAY more liberal than Mike Huckabee is. For example, unlike Thompson who advocated and supported it, Mike Huckabee wouldn’t have touched the 1st Amendment shattering McCain-Feingold “campaign finance reform” bill with a ten foot pole. Huckabee has said that contributions should be unlimited, with full and prompt disclosure on the Internet, which I have thought for years. No, Fred Thompson is no conservative or constitutional idealist. He’s just waving a red flag at those conservatives I was speaking of, who can be agitated. None of these critics are as philosophically conservative as I am.
And, speaking of the constitutional oblivion of McCain-Feingold, that’s just one of McCain’s many demonstrations of that disability. I have watched John McCain for a long time: I think he’s a decent and noble patriot. He just has no sense of what the federal government can and can’t do; either constitutionally or practically. Maybe he’s been swimming in the Washington water for so long that he’s gone native enough to really believe that they can do anything.
Anyway, Huckabee obviously can’t and shouldn’t back off on his expressions of concern for the middle and lower classes. Besides that being morally derelict, Huckabee is exactly right that Republicans can expect to lose a lot of elections if they don’t even want to speak to the concerns of the vast majority of Americans. And, that is something that sunk in with me a few years ago. Certainly I was at one point, one of those conservatives motivated primarily by annoyance at what runaway government had done to America. I still don’t like it. But, do we want to sit on the tack and whine or do we want to steer the country in a positive direction? Do we want America to improve or do we want to perpetually scream while it gets worse? If we choose the latter, we will be doing a lot of screaming, because it only will get worse. The model of aggressive combat doesn’t work. I decided that I’d rather discuss what is right with people with whom I disagreed, than work with people on either side who didn’t care what was right, but only cared about power or short-sighted benefit.
Then, last January, I saw a man who had served as a Republican governor in a Democrat state, who said, “I’m a conservative, but I’m not mad at anybody about it.” And, as a governor, he worked to actually improve the lives of the people in his state, more than to make political points. And, he did it as a conservative in a prudent and restrained way. Sure, Mike Huckabee is unhappy with the consequence of liberal government, but he isn’t angry at people. A long time ago, a man came to an evil-scarred world and mourned what men did, but he didn’t hate them. He came to serve a broken world, and in fact, they killed him. But, he still didn’t hate them. That’s the model: We should ask how we can serve our neighbors and society, speaking for what is right, but working with and for people who aren’t always right. Similar to how it was the religious people who hated Jesus and turned him over to be killed, it’s his fellow conservatives who hate Mike Huckabee and want his candidacy dead. And, if they succeed, we’ll all have to work not to hate them. But, though I’m a conservative too, I won’t see them as infinitely superior to Democrats.
Here’s a response to my irritation with the anti-Huckabee diatribes of Rush Limbaugh who is nether the neither first nor will he likely be the last to scorn in this way. Tonight I heard Mark Levin misguidedly snarling about Huckabee’s anti-conservatism. Huckabee is the punching bag to be knocked down going into Saturday’s South Carolina Primary. Fred Thompson’s been at smearing Huckabee for days, and Romney will join him is he remains determined to play in South Carolina. I don’t know what McCain will do. He may stay decent. But, if he goes after Huckabee as not conservative, it would be being called unfaithful by a practiced heretic. Anyway, the short comment is followed by my short response.
Family Mentors said...
Larry,
I would encourage as many people as possible to engage Rush and the NeoLib Commentocrats, issue-by-issue.
First, today he went out of his way to endorse a threatened boycott of the general election if one of his guys doesn't win (saying the GOP will be destroyed if McCain or Huck wins). Funny how the NeoLibs always tell social conservatives they'll hurt the party if they sit out like they did in 2006.
We may have to be willing to suffer through four years of HillBillary or Oprahbama in order to be heard. I hope not, but the NeoLibs are hell bent on preventing any social conservative from succeeding. Their opposition to McCain will evaporate if Rudy continues to fade. Flag this post and flog me if I'm wrong ;-)
Blessings,
Quiverdaddy
Larry:
I have remarked on the irony of the possibility of others being asked to suck it up and support a social conservative. I don’t know, in fact I tend to doubt, that that is the ground of Rush’s problem. Maybe he’s just a sentimental conservative who has inhaled the scuttlebutt and failed to do his homework. Anyway, I do think it’s true that social conservatives have to be prepared to watch Democrats win. If they watch a social conservative actively destroyed and turn in their votes, the message will be that it really doesn’t matter to them. Their leverage (and respect) in the party will be destroyed; and with it, much of the potential to heal American society. Believe me: I was an activist in the Republican Party and I’ve been saying that for years, and suffering scorn for it.
Some of these “conservatives,” I think may be serious, though misguided. But, some are certainly driven by anti-social conservative, anti-Fair Tax, or anti-humane motives. I say "anti-humane" because I feel some of these critics though probably a relatively small minority, are simply reactive to Mike Huckabee’s expressions of concern for people other than Wall Street and investment professionals. I say “reactive” because Huckabee has no record or intention of the kind of expansive and wasteful government that some conservatives instantly fear because they hear a certain tone of concern for the common man. And, he doesn’t have such a record or intention, not because the concern isn’t genuine. He just knows that this kind of activity is socially destructive: he’s conservative not in being dispassionate, but in principle.
And here is the great irony: Mike Huckabee believes that conservative approaches to governance really are the most productive way to help not just upper, but middle and lower income people as well. He just has the temerity to actually TELL people that he would like to help them that way, which jolts some conservatives to apoplexy. Not Fred Thompson, by the way. Heck, Fred Thompson is WAY more liberal than Mike Huckabee is. For example, unlike Thompson who advocated and supported it, Mike Huckabee wouldn’t have touched the 1st Amendment shattering McCain-Feingold “campaign finance reform” bill with a ten foot pole. Huckabee has said that contributions should be unlimited, with full and prompt disclosure on the Internet, which I have thought for years. No, Fred Thompson is no conservative or constitutional idealist. He’s just waving a red flag at those conservatives I was speaking of, who can be agitated. None of these critics are as philosophically conservative as I am.
And, speaking of the constitutional oblivion of McCain-Feingold, that’s just one of McCain’s many demonstrations of that disability. I have watched John McCain for a long time: I think he’s a decent and noble patriot. He just has no sense of what the federal government can and can’t do; either constitutionally or practically. Maybe he’s been swimming in the Washington water for so long that he’s gone native enough to really believe that they can do anything.
Anyway, Huckabee obviously can’t and shouldn’t back off on his expressions of concern for the middle and lower classes. Besides that being morally derelict, Huckabee is exactly right that Republicans can expect to lose a lot of elections if they don’t even want to speak to the concerns of the vast majority of Americans. And, that is something that sunk in with me a few years ago. Certainly I was at one point, one of those conservatives motivated primarily by annoyance at what runaway government had done to America. I still don’t like it. But, do we want to sit on the tack and whine or do we want to steer the country in a positive direction? Do we want America to improve or do we want to perpetually scream while it gets worse? If we choose the latter, we will be doing a lot of screaming, because it only will get worse. The model of aggressive combat doesn’t work. I decided that I’d rather discuss what is right with people with whom I disagreed, than work with people on either side who didn’t care what was right, but only cared about power or short-sighted benefit.
Then, last January, I saw a man who had served as a Republican governor in a Democrat state, who said, “I’m a conservative, but I’m not mad at anybody about it.” And, as a governor, he worked to actually improve the lives of the people in his state, more than to make political points. And, he did it as a conservative in a prudent and restrained way. Sure, Mike Huckabee is unhappy with the consequence of liberal government, but he isn’t angry at people. A long time ago, a man came to an evil-scarred world and mourned what men did, but he didn’t hate them. He came to serve a broken world, and in fact, they killed him. But, he still didn’t hate them. That’s the model: We should ask how we can serve our neighbors and society, speaking for what is right, but working with and for people who aren’t always right. Similar to how it was the religious people who hated Jesus and turned him over to be killed, it’s his fellow conservatives who hate Mike Huckabee and want his candidacy dead. And, if they succeed, we’ll all have to work not to hate them. But, though I’m a conservative too, I won’t see them as infinitely superior to Democrats.
Here’s a response to my irritation with the anti-Huckabee diatribes of Rush Limbaugh who is nether the neither first nor will he likely be the last to scorn in this way. Tonight I heard Mark Levin misguidedly snarling about Huckabee’s anti-conservatism. Huckabee is the punching bag to be knocked down going into Saturday’s South Carolina Primary. Fred Thompson’s been at smearing Huckabee for days, and Romney will join him is he remains determined to play in South Carolina. I don’t know what McCain will do. He may stay decent. But, if he goes after Huckabee as not conservative, it would be being called unfaithful by a practiced heretic. Anyway, the short comment is followed by my short response.
Family Mentors said...
Larry,
I would encourage as many people as possible to engage Rush and the NeoLib Commentocrats, issue-by-issue.
First, today he went out of his way to endorse a threatened boycott of the general election if one of his guys doesn't win (saying the GOP will be destroyed if McCain or Huck wins). Funny how the NeoLibs always tell social conservatives they'll hurt the party if they sit out like they did in 2006.
We may have to be willing to suffer through four years of HillBillary or Oprahbama in order to be heard. I hope not, but the NeoLibs are hell bent on preventing any social conservative from succeeding. Their opposition to McCain will evaporate if Rudy continues to fade. Flag this post and flog me if I'm wrong ;-)
Blessings,
Quiverdaddy
Larry:
I have remarked on the irony of the possibility of others being asked to suck it up and support a social conservative. I don’t know, in fact I tend to doubt, that that is the ground of Rush’s problem. Maybe he’s just a sentimental conservative who has inhaled the scuttlebutt and failed to do his homework. Anyway, I do think it’s true that social conservatives have to be prepared to watch Democrats win. If they watch a social conservative actively destroyed and turn in their votes, the message will be that it really doesn’t matter to them. Their leverage (and respect) in the party will be destroyed; and with it, much of the potential to heal American society. Believe me: I was an activist in the Republican Party and I’ve been saying that for years, and suffering scorn for it.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Mike Huckabee Is The Most Conservative Republican Candidate For President/Institute for Conservative Studies Founder Endorsement
Below is yesterday’s post with a comment and a response. But, I hadded a late-arriving message from a friend, noting a conservative endorsement of Huckabee. I am entirely exasperated with establishment Republicans that I could list for a few lines (that would include Rush Limbaugh, though he didn’t used to be considered establishment) howling that Mike Huckabee is not a conservative. The charge is ridiculous and only a brief look at his words and record shows it. These “conservative” critics are either outright deceitful or pathetically ill informed and demonstrably incompetent to be making a case.
That is particularly evident given the history of unconstitutional conservative infidelities of every other Republican candidate for President of the United States. If the party is going to chase the truest conservative candidate who also presents the best opportunity to undercut a Democrat, either out of cultural disdain for social conservatism, raw avarice (the Fair Tax is just that: fair – not an advantage for the wealthy – look it up), or just the simple animosity that is the Democrat caricature of a Republican that I have been denying as a Republican since I was a boy, they can take my vote and hang it in their ear. They will probably lose and they will definitely deserve it.
-------------------------------------
A longtime pro-life contact of mine (actually a founder of “Buy Pro-Life” in my sig) sent this message to Rush Limbaugh who, in case you hadn’t noticed, has been trashing Mike Huckabee as not a conservative. It seems that John Stemberger has switched his endorsement to Mike Huckabee. With the roster of supposedly “conservative experts” that have been hard about undermining Huckabee, this founder of The Institute for Conservative Studies, obviously doesn’t know what he’s doing?
Hi Rush,
Is your prestigious institute actually endorsing HUCKABEE???
I just caught this news post: Leading Social Conservative in Florida Switches From Thompson to Huckabee
According to the article, John Stemberger, the founder of the Institute for Conservative Studies, has endorsed Mike Huckabee, switching from Fred Thompson’s campaign. There are excerpts below. I assume this is not the same ICS from which you occupy the prestigious Attila the Hun Chair – OH WAIT! Yours is the Institute for ADVANCED Conservative Studies . If they had their hats on down in Florida, one must assume a Mayor from New York would be the only true conservative choice….
By the way: I take it from your comments in recent shows that if McCain or Huckabee beats the odds and becomes the nominee, you will support Michael Bloomberg? Or will you just stay home like the social conservatives will if one of the pro-abortion “establishment” guys gets the nod? I know you’re confident one of the establishment guys will win, but I am curious what you, Hannity, Laura and Bill Bennett will do after investing so much energy in insuring Huckabee’s defeat. Looking at McCain’s numbers, I think you all should have spent your efforts on defeating him; Huckabee isn’t a threat either way. Then again, as they say, that’s why you’re the host and I am not.
Blessings,
Tony Silva
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I found it on Family Mentors!" -- Family Safe Search & shop.
www.familymentors.com | www.curriculumfinder.com
"Governor Huckabee is without question the best candidate to breathe new life and fresh hope into a nation and its people who are fed up with scandal, corruption and big-money power politics. Mike Huckabee is a proven leader with executive experience and a solid record as a champion for pro-life and pro-family values," Stemberger said. "As a result, he has won the trust of more social conservative leaders across America than any other candidate. He has also proven that he is a viable candidate who can take us all the way home by winning both the primary and the general elections."
Stemberger is the founder of the Institute for Conservative Studies at Florida State University and has been one of the leading pro-life, pro-family advocates in Florida over the past 25 years. He was a lobbyist for Florida Right to Life and served as the Political Director for the Republican Party of Florida during the final campaign of former President George H.W. Bush.
"Like Ronald Reagan before him, Mike Huckabee can restore common sense conservative leadership to America both at home and abroad," Stemberger said. "He will re-envision us to once again become 'one nation, under God' while ensuring 'liberty and justice for all."
Mike Huckabee’s very important speech at the Detroit Economic Club broadcast by C-SPAN, which shows a lot of what Governor Huckabee is about and stands in contrast to the charges that have been lodged against him.
Also, Ken Connor’s important article about contesting elements of The Republican Party, “The View from the Back of the Bus”
posted by Larry Perrault at 6:43 PM on Jan 13, 2008
2 Comments
Fraud Examiner said...
Another item to inform because some are trying to mislead:
Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen stated on January 13 that he wants Gitmo shut down as stated in an Associated Press story dated January 14. It states in part…”he favors closing the prison here as soon as possible because he believes negative publicity worldwide about treatment of terrorist suspects has been “pretty damaging” to the image of the United States.”….and even though he is the top military officer…”He stressed that a closure decision was not his to make”…because it is in the hands of the President.
I saw the article on www.military.com as I have interest in this as one of my sons is in the Army National Guard as a Military Policeman and another son looks to be joining the United States Marines any day.
Mike Huckabee is on target in his position; unfortunately, he is receiving flak on it.
Rod Pitzer
Certified Fraud Examiner
January 14, 2008 6:06 AM
Larry said...
Thank you, Rod:
What is so terribly frustrating is that the most conservative, the most moral, and the most patriotic candidate will not be taken down by Democrats, but if he does not succeed, he will have been taken down by Republicans and supposed "conservatives," some of who are quite well meaning (some plainly aren't. These well-meaning conservatives have absorbed the flourish of mostly didingenuous claims by "conservative" deceeivers. Most of this deceit is in r5eality grounded in hostility to evangelical Christian culture: not evangelicals, per se (who are great if they remember to keep their place and faithfully deliver their votes for an "establishment Republican candidate) No, the problem is with an evangelical culture that not only confesses belief, but has the temerity to talk about it. And in the case of Huckabee, even to say things like, "My faith doesn't just inform me, it defines me," which causes "mainstream" Republicans to shudder: "Please, take this man from the table and back to the kitchen."
If the Republican establishment had embraced Huckabee, at least agfter his Iowa win, he might have easily wrapped up the nomination and won the general election, undermining the broadest and deepest emotional appeal of The Democratic Party that Republicans care only for the wealthy and privileged.
But, mere victory is not worth the cultural indignity of having what they consider a social hobo at the head table: better to be a decorous but still privileged minority.
The "Not a conservative" charges against Huckabere are bogus. Just do some study at his site and on the blogs, not about the scuttlebutt, but about the facts. To begin with and most simply, this man from a Democrat home, town, and state is a Republican for a reason: he's a conservative. And he's a conservative not merely out of some sentiments but out of principle, unlike the demonstrated conservative infidels against whom he competes. But, the Republican establishment prefers one who is an infidel to one they simply consider uncouth.
That is particularly evident given the history of unconstitutional conservative infidelities of every other Republican candidate for President of the United States. If the party is going to chase the truest conservative candidate who also presents the best opportunity to undercut a Democrat, either out of cultural disdain for social conservatism, raw avarice (the Fair Tax is just that: fair – not an advantage for the wealthy – look it up), or just the simple animosity that is the Democrat caricature of a Republican that I have been denying as a Republican since I was a boy, they can take my vote and hang it in their ear. They will probably lose and they will definitely deserve it.
-------------------------------------
A longtime pro-life contact of mine (actually a founder of “Buy Pro-Life” in my sig) sent this message to Rush Limbaugh who, in case you hadn’t noticed, has been trashing Mike Huckabee as not a conservative. It seems that John Stemberger has switched his endorsement to Mike Huckabee. With the roster of supposedly “conservative experts” that have been hard about undermining Huckabee, this founder of The Institute for Conservative Studies, obviously doesn’t know what he’s doing?
Hi Rush,
Is your prestigious institute actually endorsing HUCKABEE???
I just caught this news post: Leading Social Conservative in Florida Switches From Thompson to Huckabee
According to the article, John Stemberger, the founder of the Institute for Conservative Studies, has endorsed Mike Huckabee, switching from Fred Thompson’s campaign. There are excerpts below. I assume this is not the same ICS from which you occupy the prestigious Attila the Hun Chair – OH WAIT! Yours is the Institute for ADVANCED Conservative Studies . If they had their hats on down in Florida, one must assume a Mayor from New York would be the only true conservative choice….
By the way: I take it from your comments in recent shows that if McCain or Huckabee beats the odds and becomes the nominee, you will support Michael Bloomberg? Or will you just stay home like the social conservatives will if one of the pro-abortion “establishment” guys gets the nod? I know you’re confident one of the establishment guys will win, but I am curious what you, Hannity, Laura and Bill Bennett will do after investing so much energy in insuring Huckabee’s defeat. Looking at McCain’s numbers, I think you all should have spent your efforts on defeating him; Huckabee isn’t a threat either way. Then again, as they say, that’s why you’re the host and I am not.
Blessings,
Tony Silva
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I found it on Family Mentors!" -- Family Safe Search & shop.
www.familymentors.com | www.curriculumfinder.com
"Governor Huckabee is without question the best candidate to breathe new life and fresh hope into a nation and its people who are fed up with scandal, corruption and big-money power politics. Mike Huckabee is a proven leader with executive experience and a solid record as a champion for pro-life and pro-family values," Stemberger said. "As a result, he has won the trust of more social conservative leaders across America than any other candidate. He has also proven that he is a viable candidate who can take us all the way home by winning both the primary and the general elections."
Stemberger is the founder of the Institute for Conservative Studies at Florida State University and has been one of the leading pro-life, pro-family advocates in Florida over the past 25 years. He was a lobbyist for Florida Right to Life and served as the Political Director for the Republican Party of Florida during the final campaign of former President George H.W. Bush.
"Like Ronald Reagan before him, Mike Huckabee can restore common sense conservative leadership to America both at home and abroad," Stemberger said. "He will re-envision us to once again become 'one nation, under God' while ensuring 'liberty and justice for all."
Mike Huckabee’s very important speech at the Detroit Economic Club broadcast by C-SPAN, which shows a lot of what Governor Huckabee is about and stands in contrast to the charges that have been lodged against him.
Also, Ken Connor’s important article about contesting elements of The Republican Party, “The View from the Back of the Bus”
posted by Larry Perrault at 6:43 PM on Jan 13, 2008
2 Comments
Fraud Examiner said...
Another item to inform because some are trying to mislead:
Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen stated on January 13 that he wants Gitmo shut down as stated in an Associated Press story dated January 14. It states in part…”he favors closing the prison here as soon as possible because he believes negative publicity worldwide about treatment of terrorist suspects has been “pretty damaging” to the image of the United States.”….and even though he is the top military officer…”He stressed that a closure decision was not his to make”…because it is in the hands of the President.
I saw the article on www.military.com as I have interest in this as one of my sons is in the Army National Guard as a Military Policeman and another son looks to be joining the United States Marines any day.
Mike Huckabee is on target in his position; unfortunately, he is receiving flak on it.
Rod Pitzer
Certified Fraud Examiner
January 14, 2008 6:06 AM
Larry said...
Thank you, Rod:
What is so terribly frustrating is that the most conservative, the most moral, and the most patriotic candidate will not be taken down by Democrats, but if he does not succeed, he will have been taken down by Republicans and supposed "conservatives," some of who are quite well meaning (some plainly aren't. These well-meaning conservatives have absorbed the flourish of mostly didingenuous claims by "conservative" deceeivers. Most of this deceit is in r5eality grounded in hostility to evangelical Christian culture: not evangelicals, per se (who are great if they remember to keep their place and faithfully deliver their votes for an "establishment Republican candidate) No, the problem is with an evangelical culture that not only confesses belief, but has the temerity to talk about it. And in the case of Huckabee, even to say things like, "My faith doesn't just inform me, it defines me," which causes "mainstream" Republicans to shudder: "Please, take this man from the table and back to the kitchen."
If the Republican establishment had embraced Huckabee, at least agfter his Iowa win, he might have easily wrapped up the nomination and won the general election, undermining the broadest and deepest emotional appeal of The Democratic Party that Republicans care only for the wealthy and privileged.
But, mere victory is not worth the cultural indignity of having what they consider a social hobo at the head table: better to be a decorous but still privileged minority.
The "Not a conservative" charges against Huckabere are bogus. Just do some study at his site and on the blogs, not about the scuttlebutt, but about the facts. To begin with and most simply, this man from a Democrat home, town, and state is a Republican for a reason: he's a conservative. And he's a conservative not merely out of some sentiments but out of principle, unlike the demonstrated conservative infidels against whom he competes. But, the Republican establishment prefers one who is an infidel to one they simply consider uncouth.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Why Do "Conservatives" Hate Mike Huckabee?
On his radio program Thursday, Michael Medved asked people who dislike or hate Mike Huckabee to call and explain why:
Why Do "Conservatives" Hate Mike Huckabee?
I have been pondering this, for a month. Conservative regulars, people I have read for years, are almost apoplectic about Huckabee. And if he wins in Iowa, based on experience so far, I would predict that the howling will only get worse, probably accompanied by remarks about the foolishness of Iowa voters.
You understand that competitors will disparage him. But, EVERYONE is lining up: Robert Novak, George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Fred Barnes, John Fund, Rich Lowery, Ann Coulter, Phyllis Schlafly, Hugh Hewitt, Rush Limbaugh… I could go on. In fact, it’s WAY easier to name the noted conservatives who have not disparaged or complained of Huckabee than the ones who have. I wonder as you do…why is this?
Your callers are typical of the rank & file conservatives who have picked up pop-culture stories about him being “soft” on immigration, a taxer and spender. I have studied his record and his thoughts and words all year. These stories just aren’t true. Okay, you tell a lie long enough…etc.
But, what should we think about these writers, who can’t be so clueless and divorced from the facts? Understand first, that I am a lifelong conservative. I was a Republican activist who left the party and voted third-party for a few cycles (I know you hate that. I disagree, but set it aside for now). Novak, Will, Limbaugh, Coulter and others are quite explicit about what is often implied: that Huckabee is NOT a conservative. Honestly, it’s painfully difficult to believe that these sentiments are genuine.
But, NOT a conservative? Compared to WHOM? The Bushes? Bob Dole? Where were these critics with these guys? Dole claimed NO allegiance to the Republican platform. Bush Sr. raised FEDERAL (not state – Huckabee knows and frequently cites the 10th Amendment. Bush Jr. presided over a broader and deeper expansion of even DOMESTIC spending than Clinton had, and WITH A REPUBLICAN CONGRESS!
What about Huckabee’s competitors” McCain and Thompson not just voted for, but PROMOTED McCain-Feingold, an audacious defiance of the 1st Amendment. Romney and Giuliani both have defiled the 2nd Amendment. Giuliani endorsed Mario Cuomo, for Pete’s sake, and doesn’t understand the crucial relationship to American civility of the first assertions of The Declaration of Independence. Romney does…NOW…wait a minute, that isn’t the only thing he’s “changed on, is it? Whatever is driving his postures, it isn’t a well-seated moral and/or philosophical framework.
But, where is all of THAT noise among these “conservatives?” Huckabee would not have done ANY of these things. On campaign finance, he has already proposed what I have always believed: that contributions should be unconstrained, but fully disclosed, now almost immediately on the Internet. George Will hammered on McCain over McCain-Feingold before the 2000 election. But I surely sense that he’s rather see a president McCain than a president Huckabee. What the heck is going on?
Unable to believe that many of these complaints are genuine, I am left to speculate. With some, the animus may simply be reflected in Huckabee’s common statement that, “I’m a conservative, but I’m not mad at anybody about it” Maybe, these are just disconcerted by a supposed conservative who doesn’t emanate enough anger for them. Maybe they could say, “I’m a conservative, AND I’M AS MAD AS HELL AT A LOT OF PEOPLE! Ann Coulter, for instance, only likes Duncan Hunter. Actually, he isn’t an ugly guy and he’s very serious. But, he has enough appeal to put him around 1% ‘Nuff said.
Big money traders and managers may not like The Fair Tax: every luxury can be written off as a “business expense,” shifting the tax-burden downward. People accustomed to privilege may not be so hot for a system that is “fair,” taxing everything from jets to paper clips. It’s funny to hear these people despair that The Fair Tax is “regressive.” The wealth will maintain their privilege under Democrats. In fact, creeping socialism favors established business and money. It suppresses aspiring business and money. Will the establishment support the social conservative when the “go-along” shoe is on the other foot?
But with some people I think it may be a very visceral discomfort with an unshaded evangelical Christian faith. Sure, sit in your pews and recite your liturgies…even offer your personal prayer. But for God’s sakes, don’t TALK ABOUT IT! Eccch! How gauche! It’s so…well, unsophisticated!
Like I said, these people aren’t stupid, and their actual words lack credibility, in light of the available facts. So, I’m left to speculate.
Why Do "Conservatives" Hate Mike Huckabee?
I have been pondering this, for a month. Conservative regulars, people I have read for years, are almost apoplectic about Huckabee. And if he wins in Iowa, based on experience so far, I would predict that the howling will only get worse, probably accompanied by remarks about the foolishness of Iowa voters.
You understand that competitors will disparage him. But, EVERYONE is lining up: Robert Novak, George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Fred Barnes, John Fund, Rich Lowery, Ann Coulter, Phyllis Schlafly, Hugh Hewitt, Rush Limbaugh… I could go on. In fact, it’s WAY easier to name the noted conservatives who have not disparaged or complained of Huckabee than the ones who have. I wonder as you do…why is this?
Your callers are typical of the rank & file conservatives who have picked up pop-culture stories about him being “soft” on immigration, a taxer and spender. I have studied his record and his thoughts and words all year. These stories just aren’t true. Okay, you tell a lie long enough…etc.
But, what should we think about these writers, who can’t be so clueless and divorced from the facts? Understand first, that I am a lifelong conservative. I was a Republican activist who left the party and voted third-party for a few cycles (I know you hate that. I disagree, but set it aside for now). Novak, Will, Limbaugh, Coulter and others are quite explicit about what is often implied: that Huckabee is NOT a conservative. Honestly, it’s painfully difficult to believe that these sentiments are genuine.
But, NOT a conservative? Compared to WHOM? The Bushes? Bob Dole? Where were these critics with these guys? Dole claimed NO allegiance to the Republican platform. Bush Sr. raised FEDERAL (not state – Huckabee knows and frequently cites the 10th Amendment. Bush Jr. presided over a broader and deeper expansion of even DOMESTIC spending than Clinton had, and WITH A REPUBLICAN CONGRESS!
What about Huckabee’s competitors” McCain and Thompson not just voted for, but PROMOTED McCain-Feingold, an audacious defiance of the 1st Amendment. Romney and Giuliani both have defiled the 2nd Amendment. Giuliani endorsed Mario Cuomo, for Pete’s sake, and doesn’t understand the crucial relationship to American civility of the first assertions of The Declaration of Independence. Romney does…NOW…wait a minute, that isn’t the only thing he’s “changed on, is it? Whatever is driving his postures, it isn’t a well-seated moral and/or philosophical framework.
But, where is all of THAT noise among these “conservatives?” Huckabee would not have done ANY of these things. On campaign finance, he has already proposed what I have always believed: that contributions should be unconstrained, but fully disclosed, now almost immediately on the Internet. George Will hammered on McCain over McCain-Feingold before the 2000 election. But I surely sense that he’s rather see a president McCain than a president Huckabee. What the heck is going on?
Unable to believe that many of these complaints are genuine, I am left to speculate. With some, the animus may simply be reflected in Huckabee’s common statement that, “I’m a conservative, but I’m not mad at anybody about it” Maybe, these are just disconcerted by a supposed conservative who doesn’t emanate enough anger for them. Maybe they could say, “I’m a conservative, AND I’M AS MAD AS HELL AT A LOT OF PEOPLE! Ann Coulter, for instance, only likes Duncan Hunter. Actually, he isn’t an ugly guy and he’s very serious. But, he has enough appeal to put him around 1% ‘Nuff said.
Big money traders and managers may not like The Fair Tax: every luxury can be written off as a “business expense,” shifting the tax-burden downward. People accustomed to privilege may not be so hot for a system that is “fair,” taxing everything from jets to paper clips. It’s funny to hear these people despair that The Fair Tax is “regressive.” The wealth will maintain their privilege under Democrats. In fact, creeping socialism favors established business and money. It suppresses aspiring business and money. Will the establishment support the social conservative when the “go-along” shoe is on the other foot?
But with some people I think it may be a very visceral discomfort with an unshaded evangelical Christian faith. Sure, sit in your pews and recite your liturgies…even offer your personal prayer. But for God’s sakes, don’t TALK ABOUT IT! Eccch! How gauche! It’s so…well, unsophisticated!
Like I said, these people aren’t stupid, and their actual words lack credibility, in light of the available facts. So, I’m left to speculate.
Saturday, December 8, 2007
What's Driving Huckabee's Conservative Critics
I’ve wanted to discuss what Huckabee is actually “guilty” of, if you want to call it guilt. But, other natters have dominated the last few days, which have also served to clarify the question, and maybe the answer. But before I get to that, look at the Rasmussen poll results, which make consideration of this question more urgent.
If you hate Huckabee, read ‘em and weep: After attaining a tie with Giuliani on Tuesday, Huckabee moved a few more points into the lead in Rasmussen’s national presidential tracking poll of likely primary voters, on Wednesday. He maintained a 3% lead on Thursday, and on Friday has increased the lead to 4%. And, in other polls, he now leads in
As you can read at Rasmussen’s page,
But, I’ve discussed how Huckabee’s most strident adversaries (at least for the Republican nomination. Where will they be in the general, if Huckabee is the nominee? – as a Republican I was used to having social conservatives asked if they would support the nominee or stay home).
But, I have discussed how many conservative sources have criticized Huckabee on taxes, immigration, and the smoking ban clamor. I have explained with regard to the tax issue, Huckabee has only run a state with an 80% Democrat legislature and a constitutionally mandate balanced budget. Some of the largest expenditures were entirely legitimate and the only options regarding others were not whether to raise taxes, but which taxes to raise. Had the governor adamantly resisted. He would have 1) been overridden, and 2) NOT been reelected TWICE! But yes, Huckabee boosted the sales tax slightly for parks and fish and game. And, he had the audacity to boost Medicare eligibility for poor children. What self-respecting Scrooge Republican would do that? Diesel taxes? A rebuilt highway system that moved
In the last post, we discussed how the smoking controversy was created and misrepresented, and how the Arkansas smoking ban in public places, exempted businesses whose patrons are 21 or over. Huckabee believes that cultivating a culture that discourages chronic disease-inducing behavior will save a lot of both public and private money in the long-run, not to mention improving quality and longevity of life.
And the “weak on immigration” charge is constructed on one little fact: Huckabee calls for a sealed border, no amnesty, no sanctuaries (read his immigration prescription at http://mikehuckabee.com . In truth there is no problem except for the fact that Huckabee’s conservatism flows from principle, not hostile sentiment. BUT, his “sin” with respect to immigration is only having supported allowing the children of illegal aliens WHO HAD GONE THROUGH HIGH SCHOOL in
Huckabee is fiscally conservative not out of anger or avarice for himself or “rich friends,” as Democrats like to taunt. He’s fiscally conservative because 1) he respects private interests, 2) He knows that expanding government inclines toward waste and usually is counterproductive even to the interests it is ostensibly said to serve, and 3) (not coincidentally) it is usually unconstitutional. He favors government only as a necessary framework for the function of a healthy society.
I know that some people actually believe these criticisms. But, some of the criticizers are pretty transparently disingenuous. What is the real motivation? Before I offer an answer, let me say that some of the critics are clearly socially conservative. Chuck Baldwin is a Christian pastor and ideologically fastidious third-party campaigner, and Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum is a longtime social conservative, whose smile seems after decades of battle and much loss, to have worn into a grimace of overwhelmed paranoia.
And Republican blonde brigaders have also dismissed Huckabee. Ann Coulter has recoiled at Huckabee’s so called “populist” statements (which is a matter of interpretation) as well as statements inconsistent with “anyone even related to an illegal immigrant ought to dry up and blow away if they can’t be deported (the animosity stream). And today, Laura Ingraham railed that she’s tired of the Democrats’ coddling of illegal immigrants, and Mike Huckabee who thinks “our kids should compete with illegal immigrants for scholarships…” Again, there was no competition in the program: you qualified or you didn’t. But, now you’re not conservative enough if you don’t want to snuff the ambition of an accomplished high school graduate who wants to actually succeed in
Coulter and Ingraham are clearly pro-life social conservatives. But beyond these misguided people, the line is long and lengthening of traditional conservative entities that have taken aim at Huckabee. And, I think these people are too smart to believe and actually fear the horrors that they warn of. These are people I have read and usually appreciated for many years, probably because I am a fiscal, foreign policy (let’s put the Ron Paul-libertarian-paleo-conservative non-interventionism aside, for now), AND social conservative.
Frankly, I can’t help but suspect (the slight deceptions enhance this smell) that the underlying animus is the fact that though they are fiscally and often defense conservatives, they are not so much social conservatives. Even if they can remark on some of the barbaric aspects of abortion or even submit to a pro-life confession (what’s to lose if they can have social conservative votes? Most of these guys are 50 or 60 or beyond), they are a little queasy about these openly expressive Christians. They don’t want to be outright religious bigots, which is a particularly awkward prospect when most favor the Mormon investment manager Romney.
Perhaps it is a matter of an establishment decorum that is ill-at-ease with a freely confessed faith: “OK, I’m an Episcopal Christian but geez, you don’t have to TALK about it!” And, here we have this guy who says things like, “My faith not only influences my decisions, it defines me…” Ick! It’s just so CREEPY! And this guy wants to be the leader of OUR party? It’s presidential nominee? Something just isn’t RIGHT about THAT!
So, the traditional conservatives line up to take their whacks at Huckabee: The Wall Street Journal, The National Review, John Fund, George F. Will, Fred Barnes, Rich Lowry, Charles Krauthammer, Mark Steyn, talk show host Hugh Hewitt and other newer, smaller conservative luminaries who drink these peoples’ columns for breakfast: it’s an irony because even most of the old social conservative “leaders” have swallowed this gruel and either joined in the harping or endorsed other candidates, all of whom are now swooning. What was Richard Land, the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberties official, doing on an investor show with Larry Kudlow, playing stooge for his panel’s nods and “amens,” praising Romney’s speech and ignorantly criticizing the Fair Tax that Huckabee supports (Land said it’s “regressive.” Others call Huckabee a “populist.” Go figure) The way Huckabee’s polling keeps rising; it looks like social conservatives are telling these old leaders to go “lead” themselves.
The old establishment Republican journalist warhorse, Robert Novak was pretty barefaced about this cultural discomfort a few days ago in his criticism of Huckabee The False Conservative , in which he said,
“The rise of evangelical Christians as the force that blasted the GOP out of minority status during the past generation always contained an inherent danger: What if these new Republican acolytes supported not merely a conventional conservative but one of their own? That has happened with Huckabee, a former Baptist minister educated at
It’s funny, because I noted a while back, the irony it would be if these establishment conservatives were faced with the decision to support one of those guys, just like the social conservatives have always been asked to do. Believe me; I’ve lived it, both as a citizen and as a Republican activist in the past. Our state conventions, dominated by social conservatives who were thrown the bones of writing rules and platforms, only to have them ignored or outright violated. Many have heard me tell of a conservative leader friend who was slandered and mocked by the party establishment in order to blunt his influence.
So yes, it is rather a novelty and an irony to imagine the shoe on the other foot: “Are you going to deliver your support or let the Democrats run the country?” It’s an amusing prospect, until you consider the possibility that they might not support a social conservative. People with established business interests are not going to be the great sufferers when taxation and regulation expand. Rather, what is dampened is the potential new competition. Once you have a foothold in the market, the creative dynamism of the economy is not so important. Sure, they want to minimize their taxes and maximize their shelters (the Fair Tax that Huckabee advocates would chloroform that angle, by the way. Remember the old 3 martini meals, vehicles, and trips that were “business” write offs? Not anymore). But having power to control that, may not override the indignity of that gauche Christian running our party!
And by the way, Hillary Clinton is up to her neck in corporate subsidy and endorsement. What Democrats takes with one hand, she’ll give back double with the other to the moneyed establishment in market constriction. That’s what socialism is: corporate money, government power. With Novak’s article, I did also ask who was going to be the Bob Michel lackey minority leader in the new permanent Republican House of Representatives minority.
The good news so far is that though these attacks keep piling up, Huckabee’s numbers keep going up, so far. Maybe some sheep are learning to look at the truth for themselves and walk on their own without the traditional guides.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)