The question I raise today is: Have we become so diversified that our sense of national unity actually has fallen apart? I pose this as a question to which the answer will help build the strength of our nation or will slowly destroy us. Unfortunately, I have to include some disclaimers on the front end. I am not racist, never have been, I was raised better than that. To the opposite extreme I am, I actually believe and practice what I preach. That is right ladies and gentleman, I believe in equality and fairness, not matter what someone's race or ethnicity. Actual equality, not the fantasy made up equality that Democrats believe in. Their equality entails speaking for years and years about equality but only to attract votes. They have never done anything worthwhile dealing with civil rights. May I offer the south as a classic example. The south used to be the breeding ground for segregationist hatred, as it has slowly moved away from that hatred it has become increasingly Republican. Coincidence? I think not.
Some time ago, the Democratic party started to get the Black vote in the United States. This paradigm shift actually took place in the late twenties and early thirties. Polling, yes they had this even then, and public opinion among black Americans ws decidedly shifting from the party of Lincoln. They felt, alas, that the Republicans were taking advantage of them for votes and leaving them behind as soon as they went to Washington. So, the Democratic party for the first time thought, hey, we can do the same thing! And the rest is proverbial history. After 75 years, the promises are unfulfilled, Socialist thinking has not ended wide spread poverty of minorities or given them advanced status. Public opinion has dictated that affirmative action has actually hurt minorities more than helped. Lyndon Johnson's social programs have entered the country into debt and obligations, but again, this has spun a negative view of minorities in the minds of many Americans. It has also prevented, not helped, many Black and minority americans from advancing themselves socially, politically, and economically. And now we are a diverse culture, not in the good sense, but we are segregated once again. We are not all one big melting pot of Americans, we are African American, Mexican American, Cuban American, Irish American, German American, English American, Canadian American, Asian Pacific American, and more. We have chosen to ignore our destiny as a Nation and instead embraced our downfall as diverse camps of nationals who just happen to reside in the same general area. Whoopi Goldberg, as much as I hate her politics, was right when she said she was not African American, she was an American period. She received flak from all corners, but she was right and honest. I am a product of Immigration. My relatives came from abroad, one specific branch came from Germany less than a century ago, I am NOT A GERMAN AMERICAN! If anyone dares to call me a German American, I will punch them in the mouth and then kick them. I am an American. I don't have a separate constitution, I am an American and to say otherwise is a disgrace to my relatives who fought for a better life in this country in the wilderness of Minnesota to South Dakota.
So the question we have to ask ourselves is why do the Democrats want to break us into groups. They want to because it gives them more political power. They cannot when more than fifty percent of America's vote. So they play one group against the other for maximum effect. They know that if they do not get at least 85% of the black vote, they will not win the Presidency. They know if they don't get 75% of the Hispanic vote, they will not win another national election. They break them apart because they are able to demonize white people(Why else, do they spew that our Constitution only considers black people 3/5 of a person when that is not further from the truth. A free black was considered a full person just like everyone else. In fact, the slave owners would have been more than happy to have them count double. The northern states did not feel that they should reward slavery. You see, the more people the southern states freed, the more representatives they could get.) and pretend that they hold the keys to all minorities' prosperity. IF that was the case would they not have sprung them from their "bonds." No, because they know that a black American who is wealthy is more likely to vote Republican than a black American who is poor. The moment they give real opportunity to black people, they will start thinking about policy and not party. The Democrats will always lose on policy, all they have is their name brand.
Our diversification is pointless. We all have the same wants, the same needs, this is what true equality is, right? A national identity. Do we not want our children to grow up in a safer world. If that is protecting them from national trespassers from Mexico, then why does it matter if they are Mexican Americans? It doesn't! They are Americans and they want to be safe! What American wants to be taxed out the wahoo! I don't, you don't, and when the leaders of the Democratic party says that we are undertaxed (just for the record, undertaxed isn't even in the dictionary) as a nation! What American is going to vote for them? None, unless they are taught to break themselves into factions. So now we teach our children to think of themselves as a part of different factions. I was always taught that this was a part of the reason that racism develops, by separation. However, not any more, this is the politically correct way of doing business in America. Don't dare question this! You will be dubbed a racist.
-Cincinnatus
Monday, May 30, 2005
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Why Whimpy Conservatives cannot Communicate (The Week in Review)
It is a shame to me that us heartless conservatives cannot be a little more heartless! In general, Majority Leader Bill Frist has proved once and for all that not only is he not competent to run the Senate, how in the world is he going to run the country? At least we can strike one person off the list of possibilities for 2008. I like President Bush because he is ballsy, and when people underestimate him, he strikes back and leaves them wondering how in the world they lost even more power. But, if the Democrats can't beat us, we sure can beat ourselves! Senator Frist (I think he is still a Senator?) is the antithesis of ballsy. I don't even think he can spell it, and being a heart surgeon, I don't even think he knows where they are located. (Where is a proctologist when we need one?) Anyways, I digress, but I am just really ticked off at the incompetence of the national Republican party right now. At least they are smart enough to stand by the best whip/majority leader in recent history. We are the only political party that is presenting any ideas on things like social security, tax breaks for small business, and fixing medicare, however, we are constantly running neck and neck. I think this lies in our inability to really communicate. Why else do minorities constantly vote for Representatives and Senators that do absolutely nothing for them except use them for votes. Why else have we not been able to get Social Security legislation through? Why else haven't we pulled the plug on this "Nuclear" option two years earlier! I am getting to the point that I would almost rather us be in the minority! I think we focus a little more, we communicate a lot better, and it makes me proud to call myself a conservative and a Republican. Now, I am just content to be a conservative. And I promise you this, if things keep going this way, don't be surprised if a third party starts that is for conservatives, by conservatives, who might be in the minority but at least we know who we are and where our balls are.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Can Muslims Achieve Democracy?
That question is especially significant considering the current war we find ourselves in. I have a few problems with that question, however. First, I think that it is a little prejudicial to that particular religion. This assumes that a Muslim, simply because of his religion, does not want or posses a need for basic freedoms. All people feel the pull towards life, liberty, and property, even Muslims. Second, I think that is a liberal ploy that they are best suited for monarchies or perhaps tyranny. They are not. Many of the Iraqi people that I talk with say that not only understand the fundamentals of a democracy, they see that the most important linchpin is a secular governmental institution that allows the free practice of their religion. I will also say that I enjoy discussing politics with an Iraqi a lot more than most Americans. The fact that they know such terms as separation of powers, and actually know how they apply is heartening. But a secular government is seen as most important.
The news reports violence on a daily basis, however, it is unfortunate that they report it as a quagmire. They do not even care that most Iraqis are happy with the direction their country has taken. Or that if we reported deaths in the United States like they do Iraq, then it would appear that our Country is abrasive to Democracy. Our Senate is on the verge of a shut down, we cannot agree on social security, and there is countless acts of violence in our streets. Some one call the national guard! We are rejecting Democracy! Ma’am, settle down, I am in the National Guard and I am in Iraq because they need us there not in the United States.
Will it work? How can we judge them in two years what we have achieved in two hundred years. If you read the Madison notes of the Constitutional Convention, they were not at all certain that their experiment would work. It is a shame that in our day of internet and TV news, we aren’t willing to give them a chance. Could you imagine what the news coverage of our Constitutional Convention would have sounded like:
Hello, this is Bubba outside the Philadelphia State House where the delegates were meeting. It appears that there has been a break down and Benjamin Franklin has recommended that they all go to the church and pray about what to do next! That is right folks, you heard it here first. Benjamin Franklin is endorsing a theocracy as our new system of government! I think we were better off under the British. It wasn’t that bad. They will get taxed out the wahoo in Connecticut in a couple hundred years anyways…long live the Queen!
I am sure that if the media was as affluent and instant as it is now, we would be in a world of hurt. Iraq should be left alone long enough to realize their own destiny. Even if it takes going down to the Mosque to pray.
The news reports violence on a daily basis, however, it is unfortunate that they report it as a quagmire. They do not even care that most Iraqis are happy with the direction their country has taken. Or that if we reported deaths in the United States like they do Iraq, then it would appear that our Country is abrasive to Democracy. Our Senate is on the verge of a shut down, we cannot agree on social security, and there is countless acts of violence in our streets. Some one call the national guard! We are rejecting Democracy! Ma’am, settle down, I am in the National Guard and I am in Iraq because they need us there not in the United States.
Will it work? How can we judge them in two years what we have achieved in two hundred years. If you read the Madison notes of the Constitutional Convention, they were not at all certain that their experiment would work. It is a shame that in our day of internet and TV news, we aren’t willing to give them a chance. Could you imagine what the news coverage of our Constitutional Convention would have sounded like:
Hello, this is Bubba outside the Philadelphia State House where the delegates were meeting. It appears that there has been a break down and Benjamin Franklin has recommended that they all go to the church and pray about what to do next! That is right folks, you heard it here first. Benjamin Franklin is endorsing a theocracy as our new system of government! I think we were better off under the British. It wasn’t that bad. They will get taxed out the wahoo in Connecticut in a couple hundred years anyways…long live the Queen!
I am sure that if the media was as affluent and instant as it is now, we would be in a world of hurt. Iraq should be left alone long enough to realize their own destiny. Even if it takes going down to the Mosque to pray.
Thursday, May 05, 2005
Rejection From a Liberal (my lesson in double talk)
So, after my wife made her attack...she got blasted and then they decided they like diversity. Of course, they like my wife's cuddly view of conservatism. I love her to death, but she doesn't like making people mad. Well, they asked her to get me to log on and post some. You can view my posts at www.twinteresting.com/forums scroll down to politics and view my thread. May I be the first to say that they can't handle my not-so-cuddly view of conservatism. After a day and a half of posting, I have been banned for making inflamatory comments, and decrying homosexuality and democrats. Banned! At first there was a sense of loss, but then I realized who was banning me, and frankly with the aptitude in the forum, the news was about like being banned from a gay bar for life. Big deal. However, I learned alot in those thirty-six hours. I learned that liberals like double speak. I got banned for being rude, however, in banning me they told me, and I quote:
This was clearly a guy of fairly limited intelligence who's been spending too much spare time while in Iraq browsing right wing blogs and websites. I wouldn't doubt that we could find him on the message board at Free Republic.com with the other extremists talking about how happy they were when John Edwards' wife got breast cancer, since he was a blood-sucking trial lawyer who attacked doctors. (That was the gist of a LOOONNNNNGGGG thred over there last fall. He'd fit right in!)Anyway, it's embarrassing that guys like that wear the uniform. He's got "Abu Ghraib" written all over him.
SO, it is alright for him to call me an embarrassment to the uniform I wear and also stupid, however, I can't make a tongue in cheek argument that it seems that liberals thrive on bad news because it makes President Bush look bad. Here is the quote I was answering:
I must have missed the part in the Constitution that defined lying about a blow job as a high crime or misdemeanor, but lying about WMDs is okey dokey.
My response was as follows:
First of all, I will forgive your ignorance, it was perjury. Lying under oath. That is a crime in all fifty states, four territories, and DC. Second, there were WMD, Saddam used them. Of course, it was also good enough for Bill Clinton to bomb an Aspirin factory in Iraq. Bottomline, Americans like you would be happy that another 9-11 would take place so that you could blame President Bush for it. You are also the types get off in some sick way when you can report a new total for "dead in Iraq." Why? Because it makes the big bad Republican look bad. You care nothing about our nation's well being, you only want another moral deginerate who happens to be a Democrat, in the White House.
Just for the record, I was speaking tongue-in-cheek, but I guess, they didn't see the thought provoking statement, however, she did make this statement:
Oh, and yes, I'd be downright thrilled to see another 9/11. I revel in the thought of thousands of people dying so that I can blame Bush.
That was obviously tongue-in-cheek, but nobody attacked her. Bottomline is that liberals do not play fair. They will attack you and call your names, but if you do the same, they will call you rude and do the liberal's equivalent of taking their ball and going home, banning you from their discourse. The first ammendment works really well for anyone who is liberal, of course it was never intended for conservatives. (That my friends was tongue in cheek, if you couldn't tell)
-Cincinnatus
This was clearly a guy of fairly limited intelligence who's been spending too much spare time while in Iraq browsing right wing blogs and websites. I wouldn't doubt that we could find him on the message board at Free Republic.com with the other extremists talking about how happy they were when John Edwards' wife got breast cancer, since he was a blood-sucking trial lawyer who attacked doctors. (That was the gist of a LOOONNNNNGGGG thred over there last fall. He'd fit right in!)Anyway, it's embarrassing that guys like that wear the uniform. He's got "Abu Ghraib" written all over him.
SO, it is alright for him to call me an embarrassment to the uniform I wear and also stupid, however, I can't make a tongue in cheek argument that it seems that liberals thrive on bad news because it makes President Bush look bad. Here is the quote I was answering:
I must have missed the part in the Constitution that defined lying about a blow job as a high crime or misdemeanor, but lying about WMDs is okey dokey.
My response was as follows:
First of all, I will forgive your ignorance, it was perjury. Lying under oath. That is a crime in all fifty states, four territories, and DC. Second, there were WMD, Saddam used them. Of course, it was also good enough for Bill Clinton to bomb an Aspirin factory in Iraq. Bottomline, Americans like you would be happy that another 9-11 would take place so that you could blame President Bush for it. You are also the types get off in some sick way when you can report a new total for "dead in Iraq." Why? Because it makes the big bad Republican look bad. You care nothing about our nation's well being, you only want another moral deginerate who happens to be a Democrat, in the White House.
Just for the record, I was speaking tongue-in-cheek, but I guess, they didn't see the thought provoking statement, however, she did make this statement:
Oh, and yes, I'd be downright thrilled to see another 9/11. I revel in the thought of thousands of people dying so that I can blame Bush.
That was obviously tongue-in-cheek, but nobody attacked her. Bottomline is that liberals do not play fair. They will attack you and call your names, but if you do the same, they will call you rude and do the liberal's equivalent of taking their ball and going home, banning you from their discourse. The first ammendment works really well for anyone who is liberal, of course it was never intended for conservatives. (That my friends was tongue in cheek, if you couldn't tell)
-Cincinnatus
Saturday, April 30, 2005
A Response from an Army Wife
Hey this is something that my wife posted on another site the other day, I thought you might enjoy it...
Hey guys , here is the response I wrote to that anti-military post from a military wife whose hubby is getting deployed an dboth he an dshe HATE the War, Bush and all it stands for. She actually said that she was ashamed to stand for the National Anthem or to display a bumper sticker saying she was a proud Army wife! Yep, I went off! In A Christ-like Manner of Course! HaHa! . Thought you'd enjoy!
Quote:
Originally Posted by kitty
I didn't know! I know Gisele has been worried about this for quite sometime, but I didn't realize they 'got word'.... Hmmmm Come to Canada! We would love you and look after you!
This makes me ever so sad to read of the ill feelings this military wife has towards her husband's future deployment. I believe that I do have the right to comment on this because my husband has been deployed for 11 months, six of which have been in Iraq. In total he will be gone for 18 months. My husband left not only his pregant wife (at the time), and his 14 month old daughter to go and defend our freedoms, but he left his entire life. He was just finishing up his masters degree and we were preparing to find jobs, relocate and buy a house. But, being the patriot that he is, he left all of this to go and protect not only our freedoms, but the future of freedoms of his two litle girls now 6 months and 2 years. Do we miss him? Heck yeah? Do we wish he was here? You bet! But, that doesn't mean I dont think he should be there! Both he and I know that this IS the place where he needs to be. If everyone just sat back and griped about what this nation does or who we have become, then obviously all we would have is a bunch of complainers. SOME people actually have to go out and make a diffference. Yeah websites, blogs and such are great, but praise God that they do nothing but complain. Truely is this is such an unjust war, then why is it again that Bush is in and we are over there? Oh yeah, it is because the majority of Americans believe that this is where we need to be and they cast their votes in such a way this past November. I am not saying that everyone who lives in this Nation has to agree with the war or that everything in Bush's adminstration is right. I am saying though that if you don't like it fine, but leave those who are giving you that FREEDOM to say so alone! Do you not realize that your freeom of speach is truely not free? If we were to just sit on our haunches here in America and say "we are peace loving people, come and join us...." Do you really think that we would still be a "free, peace loving come and join us nation"??? Hello! Yes a democracy is built on the people voicing thier input to thier goverment to keep it free, but it is also built on defending that freedom!!! Sometimes we have to go outside of our borders to do just that. I am not one for war, but if it means that I can get on a plane with my 6 month old and my 2 yr old and not even think twice about whether or not we will make it there safe. Or if I can look into my childrens future and not have to think...gee...I wonder if another regime will take over before they reach college, and keep them at home simply because they are females??? Then God Bless our soldiers and May the best man truely win!!!!I know that this post will probably tick quite a few of you off, but you know what? I really don't care. I am a PROUD Army National Guard wife and don't care to scream it from the roof tops. I will gladly stand at the sound of our National Anthem being sung or Put a tee-shirt on my kids that says "my daddy is serving in Iraq for you!" Yes, there are those who do not agree, but I am not saying just jumping on the band wagon is what is necessary to be Patriotic. Our Nation was founded on the principles of our God given freedoms. But, this does mean that you should be PROUD of that Nation, which grants you these freedoms, as well as those who are leaving their famlies to go and fight to defend them! And what I have to say to this military wife???? Hun the Canadians are beconing you to them!! I am sorry that you are so ashamed to say that your husband is going overseas. I have no idea why everyoone is acting like these brave young men and women didn't VOLUNTEER to do this? Yes your husband has honorably been seving for the last 20 years, but that was his choice? These guys get to CHOOSE to re-up ever six years? Did he miss the memo that he doesn't have to be in the military if he doesn't want to?
My husband is in the National Guard, which means that we are not supposed to be a "military family." We were doing just fine living our non-military life, but when our Nation called upon him, he was more than willing to go. In fact as soon as 911 happened he was actually on the phone seeking out if he was needed as a voulunteer. Basically in short, these men and women who are volunteering to serve are keeping those of you who are so against the military and this war from being drafted, so again you sould be THANKING them for there service and not knock/belittling thier cause and commander in cheif! Sorry to upset so many of you on this forum, but there was no way I was letting this one be posted without saying...If you hate this county, it's leadership, defense system, and all than it sands for....no one is stopping you from leaving???? What have YOU done today to EARN your freedoms as an American, besides complain and belittle the contributions of others???
Hey guys , here is the response I wrote to that anti-military post from a military wife whose hubby is getting deployed an dboth he an dshe HATE the War, Bush and all it stands for. She actually said that she was ashamed to stand for the National Anthem or to display a bumper sticker saying she was a proud Army wife! Yep, I went off! In A Christ-like Manner of Course! HaHa! . Thought you'd enjoy!
Quote:
Originally Posted by kitty
I didn't know! I know Gisele has been worried about this for quite sometime, but I didn't realize they 'got word'.... Hmmmm Come to Canada! We would love you and look after you!
This makes me ever so sad to read of the ill feelings this military wife has towards her husband's future deployment. I believe that I do have the right to comment on this because my husband has been deployed for 11 months, six of which have been in Iraq. In total he will be gone for 18 months. My husband left not only his pregant wife (at the time), and his 14 month old daughter to go and defend our freedoms, but he left his entire life. He was just finishing up his masters degree and we were preparing to find jobs, relocate and buy a house. But, being the patriot that he is, he left all of this to go and protect not only our freedoms, but the future of freedoms of his two litle girls now 6 months and 2 years. Do we miss him? Heck yeah? Do we wish he was here? You bet! But, that doesn't mean I dont think he should be there! Both he and I know that this IS the place where he needs to be. If everyone just sat back and griped about what this nation does or who we have become, then obviously all we would have is a bunch of complainers. SOME people actually have to go out and make a diffference. Yeah websites, blogs and such are great, but praise God that they do nothing but complain. Truely is this is such an unjust war, then why is it again that Bush is in and we are over there? Oh yeah, it is because the majority of Americans believe that this is where we need to be and they cast their votes in such a way this past November. I am not saying that everyone who lives in this Nation has to agree with the war or that everything in Bush's adminstration is right. I am saying though that if you don't like it fine, but leave those who are giving you that FREEDOM to say so alone! Do you not realize that your freeom of speach is truely not free? If we were to just sit on our haunches here in America and say "we are peace loving people, come and join us...." Do you really think that we would still be a "free, peace loving come and join us nation"??? Hello! Yes a democracy is built on the people voicing thier input to thier goverment to keep it free, but it is also built on defending that freedom!!! Sometimes we have to go outside of our borders to do just that. I am not one for war, but if it means that I can get on a plane with my 6 month old and my 2 yr old and not even think twice about whether or not we will make it there safe. Or if I can look into my childrens future and not have to think...gee...I wonder if another regime will take over before they reach college, and keep them at home simply because they are females??? Then God Bless our soldiers and May the best man truely win!!!!I know that this post will probably tick quite a few of you off, but you know what? I really don't care. I am a PROUD Army National Guard wife and don't care to scream it from the roof tops. I will gladly stand at the sound of our National Anthem being sung or Put a tee-shirt on my kids that says "my daddy is serving in Iraq for you!" Yes, there are those who do not agree, but I am not saying just jumping on the band wagon is what is necessary to be Patriotic. Our Nation was founded on the principles of our God given freedoms. But, this does mean that you should be PROUD of that Nation, which grants you these freedoms, as well as those who are leaving their famlies to go and fight to defend them! And what I have to say to this military wife???? Hun the Canadians are beconing you to them!! I am sorry that you are so ashamed to say that your husband is going overseas. I have no idea why everyoone is acting like these brave young men and women didn't VOLUNTEER to do this? Yes your husband has honorably been seving for the last 20 years, but that was his choice? These guys get to CHOOSE to re-up ever six years? Did he miss the memo that he doesn't have to be in the military if he doesn't want to?
My husband is in the National Guard, which means that we are not supposed to be a "military family." We were doing just fine living our non-military life, but when our Nation called upon him, he was more than willing to go. In fact as soon as 911 happened he was actually on the phone seeking out if he was needed as a voulunteer. Basically in short, these men and women who are volunteering to serve are keeping those of you who are so against the military and this war from being drafted, so again you sould be THANKING them for there service and not knock/belittling thier cause and commander in cheif! Sorry to upset so many of you on this forum, but there was no way I was letting this one be posted without saying...If you hate this county, it's leadership, defense system, and all than it sands for....no one is stopping you from leaving???? What have YOU done today to EARN your freedoms as an American, besides complain and belittle the contributions of others???
Thursday, April 14, 2005
A Lighter for Your Security?
That is right, now, we cannot take a lighter on an airplane. Why? You ask. Well, let's just say that it is something that two Democratic Senators thought up to make our lives more secure. So, someone must have tried to make a lighter bomb, right? No. Someone threatened to burn someone to death? No. Unfortunately, this is way that liberals think. They believe that they need to protect us from every possible insecurity. Except for of course border security, letting people carry handguns, and allowing the military to do their jobs without harassment. This would be too risky, but they will take my lighter, besides the fact that a white male has never tried to attack an airline with one. They will take Grandma's crochet hooks, besides the fact that no grandma anywhere has used such hooks to inflict acts of terror. They will force me to take off my children's shoes, even though no Caucasian family has used their children as weapons of terror on a plane. A military family at that! The bottom line is that the Democratic and liberal thinking is to do a lot of menial non-influential things that you can point to in an election year. Hopefully, we will all come to realize that these menial things are merely that. Menial! If these are the policies that we are going to adopt to make us more secure, why in the world do we hire such ignorant people to the Senate and House? I can come up with mundane policy too, but I will never get elected because I am poor, non-influential, and I actually care enough to try and change Washington. So, until we get more people interested in changing Washington, we will get more laws that claim to protect our security, but really don't. May God have mercy on our souls and our constitution.
-Cincinnatus
-Cincinnatus
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
Wow, I am impressed they spelled Federalism Correctly!
I have decided that I want to be a writer for the AP! It can't be that hard, nobody double checks your information, nobody complains about anything you do, and you can always operate under the guise of not being biased while actually being biased. It seems that the Associated Press has taken some interest in how the Schiavo Case hurts Federalism. Of course, it is just a jab at President Bush and how they are dragging out some Republicans that disagree in the Congress using their Constitutional authority to try and save someone's life. Before I delve into the article, as is my modus operandi, I will talk a little about Federalism.
Federalism, of course, is an operational term which refers to the delicate balance between the State's power and authority and the powers granted to the Federal government. The reason that Federalism is such an issue is because we have a lot of elected officials who believe that the 10th amendment actually is not as important as the rest of the document. Of course, they also believe that the document is living, breathes on its own and is in need of food and human sacrifice, which begs the question does it have a living will? Must have, because liberals have been trying to kill it for the last 75 years. For education and for the sake of rational discourse, I am going to quote the tenth amendment. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Just so everyone knows, I carry a copy of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence with me wherever I go. I know, my wife thinks I am weird too, however, it is because I love when people say that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is in the Constitution and I am able to do a little re-education. I digress, anyways, the tenth amendment kind of covers the whole Federalism issue, however, the problem always has been that this is the least known amendment and liberals treat it as if it doesn't exist. They can find the right to privacy and abortion on demand in the document, but they cannot READ the tenth amendment! State's have a lot of rights and only have certain things they cannot do on their own, like coin money. Turns out that all these things they cannot do are spelled out in the Constitution. It always surprises the heck out of me when people claim that the forefathers could not foresee what was going to happen in the future. They sure foresaw that the federal government would try to usurp their authority. I am not from the south, but they did have a point during the Civil War and it was not "we love slaves and hate Yankees," although, considering the liberals the Northeast keeps running for national office who can blame them for hating Yankees, it was that the Federal Government should stay in Washington and not try to run the State's business! For anyone who does not think that this is true. Look at the fact that even after the civil war, we had to pass three amendments to get rid of slavery and overt discrimination. So, yes today the Federalism battle is alive and well. Look at the Department of Education for example, talk about redundant and it costs more money for virtually no help to the State financial and educational structure.
Which brings me to the article about how Terri Schiavo's case. It turns out that some Conservative Republicans are complaining about how Federalism is going to be destroyed with Congress and President Bush doing what they did. Well, as I have already stated in previous posts, this would be a good argument if, under the tenth amendment, Congress did not have that authority. However, they do, therefore it is not something that is "reserved to the States" in fact it is "delegated to the United States" Congress by Article III, Section 2. I wish more liberals even Republican liberals cleverly disguised as "Conservative Republicans" by the AP would actually read the Constitution that they claim to defend or protect. Fortunately for us, their dangerous level of thinking has not spread to the courts, nevermind, or the American Universities, nevermind, well at least it hasn't spread to the normal American. We will always fight to protect that fragile document we so endear.
Federalism, of course, is an operational term which refers to the delicate balance between the State's power and authority and the powers granted to the Federal government. The reason that Federalism is such an issue is because we have a lot of elected officials who believe that the 10th amendment actually is not as important as the rest of the document. Of course, they also believe that the document is living, breathes on its own and is in need of food and human sacrifice, which begs the question does it have a living will? Must have, because liberals have been trying to kill it for the last 75 years. For education and for the sake of rational discourse, I am going to quote the tenth amendment. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Just so everyone knows, I carry a copy of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence with me wherever I go. I know, my wife thinks I am weird too, however, it is because I love when people say that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is in the Constitution and I am able to do a little re-education. I digress, anyways, the tenth amendment kind of covers the whole Federalism issue, however, the problem always has been that this is the least known amendment and liberals treat it as if it doesn't exist. They can find the right to privacy and abortion on demand in the document, but they cannot READ the tenth amendment! State's have a lot of rights and only have certain things they cannot do on their own, like coin money. Turns out that all these things they cannot do are spelled out in the Constitution. It always surprises the heck out of me when people claim that the forefathers could not foresee what was going to happen in the future. They sure foresaw that the federal government would try to usurp their authority. I am not from the south, but they did have a point during the Civil War and it was not "we love slaves and hate Yankees," although, considering the liberals the Northeast keeps running for national office who can blame them for hating Yankees, it was that the Federal Government should stay in Washington and not try to run the State's business! For anyone who does not think that this is true. Look at the fact that even after the civil war, we had to pass three amendments to get rid of slavery and overt discrimination. So, yes today the Federalism battle is alive and well. Look at the Department of Education for example, talk about redundant and it costs more money for virtually no help to the State financial and educational structure.
Which brings me to the article about how Terri Schiavo's case. It turns out that some Conservative Republicans are complaining about how Federalism is going to be destroyed with Congress and President Bush doing what they did. Well, as I have already stated in previous posts, this would be a good argument if, under the tenth amendment, Congress did not have that authority. However, they do, therefore it is not something that is "reserved to the States" in fact it is "delegated to the United States" Congress by Article III, Section 2. I wish more liberals even Republican liberals cleverly disguised as "Conservative Republicans" by the AP would actually read the Constitution that they claim to defend or protect. Fortunately for us, their dangerous level of thinking has not spread to the courts, nevermind, or the American Universities, nevermind, well at least it hasn't spread to the normal American. We will always fight to protect that fragile document we so endear.
-Cincinnatus
Monday, March 21, 2005
Social (in)Security
My friends at the Heritage Foundation have just put out some interesting numbers on how personal accounts for social security can work. Before I delve into the numbers, however, let's take a look at some of the common arguments against personal accounts.
Number one, private accounts are based on the stock market, the stock market could tank and then where would all the money go? While this is a reasonable complaint (Ok it isn't, since the stock market crash of 1929, the largest reason for the crash, people buying stocks on loans has been well taken care of by legislation, also the chances of there being another crash like it are otherwise slim to none, but I just wanted to humor a liberal or two.) liberals are missing another important point. OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS GOING BANKRUPT!!!!!!! That is right ladies and gentlemen, what do you think will be the first to go if the country starts heading into bankruptcy? Yes you up front...no not Congress' salaries. Yes you in the back... that is right Social Insecurity. Why? Because it is the easiest way for the government to cover its books, in fact they have been doing so since the 1970s! So, while we are suppose to shake in fear that a stock market crash is going to happen in the next year or so, which for the record this is what the liberals have been longing for since September 11, 2001, we are suppose to have unmoving faith in the solvency of the United States Government. How is that dollar doing by the way? Oh, wait, I wasn't suppose to ask that!
Number two, most young Americans hate this plan. Why? A secret squirrel poll told us. Ok, may I be the first young American, I am 24, to point out that I personally never got polled and I love the plan. To the contrary of this, a simple Yahoo search of "polls social security young" will give you multiple hits that all say the same thing. Young people are more willing to "tinker" (a liberal word meaning totally dismantle) with social insecurity than older people. Hmm, may I point out the obvious, younger people understand that it will not be there for us. 2042+ may seem far off for some. To me that is around the year I would like to retire! So, you ask me which one do I prefer. The possibility of only getting a little money, or the probability of getting no money. I may not be a part of the biggest voting block in the United States, but I am no idiot!
So, David C. John points out,in his article for the Heritage Foundation, that Social Security is solvent with private accounts. He points out that the average projected return for Social Security accounts is at 6.5%. This is taking into account that the Social Security accounts will be invested in 50% stock and 50% government bonds. Being that President Bush is asking for 20% to be invested in bonds, that pushes up the average. "This is what makes stocks and bonds perfect for retirement investing. Holding them for 20-plus years virtually guarantees significant profits at a fairly low risk level." If you don't believe this just look at the retirement accounts that all of these Senators and Congressmen have. I bet they resemble private accounts...because they are! What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Of course the biggest thing that any liberal is missing is that they operate under the assumption that Americans should be forced to save. Then they assume that the government can manage their savings better. My biggest point in all of this is that it is my money to lose. Give it to me and I will make the choice. If I suddenly have a change of heart and want to give the government more of my money, I might actually check yes next to giving to the Presidential candidate fund. If I want to blow my money on an IPod instead of planning for retirement so be it, yes it is ill-advised, but it is my choice! That is what drives our economy! People making choices for themselves. The same people that hate Bill Gates for working for a living and having good business sense want to make a governmental monopoly out of my retirement. What is next forcing me to pay taxes on my paid for property or else taking my property away. Oh wait, they do that too. My money is not the governments, it is mine. Taxes are a civic duty that I pay in order to finance a more free society. However, this does not give them the right to claw into my bank account at every turn! It is my duty to respect my elders too but that doesn't give them the right to take their walkers and smack my children upside the head. So, like bad liberals, they don't want to give us a say or a vote they just want to cram our welfare down our own throats. Sometimes, when it comes to social security, I feel as a child at the buffet table of liberty being force fed the brussel sprouts of retirement planning.
If social security is to be saved, it has to be overhauled. The same politicians that drive the "wait 'till it dies" mentality take their vehicles in for regularly scheduled maintenance. We have got to do something now before our government goes completely belly up, not to mention that we can do so by offering younger Americans a "better deal."
-Cincinnatus
Number one, private accounts are based on the stock market, the stock market could tank and then where would all the money go? While this is a reasonable complaint (Ok it isn't, since the stock market crash of 1929, the largest reason for the crash, people buying stocks on loans has been well taken care of by legislation, also the chances of there being another crash like it are otherwise slim to none, but I just wanted to humor a liberal or two.) liberals are missing another important point. OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS GOING BANKRUPT!!!!!!! That is right ladies and gentlemen, what do you think will be the first to go if the country starts heading into bankruptcy? Yes you up front...no not Congress' salaries. Yes you in the back... that is right Social Insecurity. Why? Because it is the easiest way for the government to cover its books, in fact they have been doing so since the 1970s! So, while we are suppose to shake in fear that a stock market crash is going to happen in the next year or so, which for the record this is what the liberals have been longing for since September 11, 2001, we are suppose to have unmoving faith in the solvency of the United States Government. How is that dollar doing by the way? Oh, wait, I wasn't suppose to ask that!
Number two, most young Americans hate this plan. Why? A secret squirrel poll told us. Ok, may I be the first young American, I am 24, to point out that I personally never got polled and I love the plan. To the contrary of this, a simple Yahoo search of "polls social security young" will give you multiple hits that all say the same thing. Young people are more willing to "tinker" (a liberal word meaning totally dismantle) with social insecurity than older people. Hmm, may I point out the obvious, younger people understand that it will not be there for us. 2042+ may seem far off for some. To me that is around the year I would like to retire! So, you ask me which one do I prefer. The possibility of only getting a little money, or the probability of getting no money. I may not be a part of the biggest voting block in the United States, but I am no idiot!
So, David C. John points out,in his article for the Heritage Foundation, that Social Security is solvent with private accounts. He points out that the average projected return for Social Security accounts is at 6.5%. This is taking into account that the Social Security accounts will be invested in 50% stock and 50% government bonds. Being that President Bush is asking for 20% to be invested in bonds, that pushes up the average. "This is what makes stocks and bonds perfect for retirement investing. Holding them for 20-plus years virtually guarantees significant profits at a fairly low risk level." If you don't believe this just look at the retirement accounts that all of these Senators and Congressmen have. I bet they resemble private accounts...because they are! What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Of course the biggest thing that any liberal is missing is that they operate under the assumption that Americans should be forced to save. Then they assume that the government can manage their savings better. My biggest point in all of this is that it is my money to lose. Give it to me and I will make the choice. If I suddenly have a change of heart and want to give the government more of my money, I might actually check yes next to giving to the Presidential candidate fund. If I want to blow my money on an IPod instead of planning for retirement so be it, yes it is ill-advised, but it is my choice! That is what drives our economy! People making choices for themselves. The same people that hate Bill Gates for working for a living and having good business sense want to make a governmental monopoly out of my retirement. What is next forcing me to pay taxes on my paid for property or else taking my property away. Oh wait, they do that too. My money is not the governments, it is mine. Taxes are a civic duty that I pay in order to finance a more free society. However, this does not give them the right to claw into my bank account at every turn! It is my duty to respect my elders too but that doesn't give them the right to take their walkers and smack my children upside the head. So, like bad liberals, they don't want to give us a say or a vote they just want to cram our welfare down our own throats. Sometimes, when it comes to social security, I feel as a child at the buffet table of liberty being force fed the brussel sprouts of retirement planning.
If social security is to be saved, it has to be overhauled. The same politicians that drive the "wait 'till it dies" mentality take their vehicles in for regularly scheduled maintenance. We have got to do something now before our government goes completely belly up, not to mention that we can do so by offering younger Americans a "better deal."
-Cincinnatus
Sunday, March 20, 2005
A word about feeding tubes, brain waves, and what in the heck are they thinking?
As you all have probably heard by now, Terri Schiavo is now hungry. On Friday, a very dark day in my opinion, her feeding tube was removed. First, I would like to point out a few things. She is not "brain dead" like the media is reporting. She is in fact somewhat functional. Of course, we have all seen the photos of her haphazardly smiling towards cameras. She is able to "communicate" with her parents and she is just what the liberal establishment has come to know as handicapped. She cannot feed herself. Which brings us to the feeding tube. It is just that, a feeding tube. It is not a respirator, it is not an iron lung, it is a feeding tube. While it is true that she will die without the aid of this miraculous means of modern technology, this does not, in my view warrant taking it away. My daughter cannot eat unless she is fed, wait I am bringing a child into this, nevermind, five months ago it would have been alright to kill her too in the eyes of liberals, so it is just a waste of breath to go into that example. Another point, there is NO living will, which by the way I just had one done, it states "Try and kill me you bloodhounds and I will show you your Constitutional rights in eternity!" Call me selfish but I will be around for awhile! So, Terri's husband (I could care less what his name is) claims that she told him she wanted to die. I am sure that this was great dinner talk, but it wasn't in writing! If I claimed Sam Walton whispered to me that I was his heir, I would be laughed at, but she whispers she wants to die and everyone accepts it as a legally binding wish.
So, the courts ruled that this is not a violation of her constitutional rights. Of course, a criminal gets due process but a harmless citizen gets her feeding tube taken away. I have talked about liberals "protecting" things before, I guess they are trying to protect the Constitution now! Now, thank the Lord, Congress is doing something about it. Of course her "husband" says that, " I'm outraged, and I think that every American in this country should also be outraged that this government is trampling all over a personal family matter that has been adjudicated in the courts for seven years," he told CNN. "I think that the Congress has more important things to discuss." This might be logical if they weren't discussing this on their DAY OFF! I for one am glad that they decided to actually come in on their day off. That means that us taxpayers get a little more bang for our buck. Now, would the media be reporting that this was a waste of time if they were discussing important things like tax hikes, abortion on demand, or saving some Caribou in Alaska? Of course not, that is what we pay them for? I don't think so, in fact I vote for these guys to do exactly what they are doing! Telling the courts that they do have jurisdiction and they better do something about this.
That, by the way is the reason that Congress is getting involved in the first place. The Federal Courts decided that they did not have jurisdiction. So, Congress is giving it to them. Which, by the way is their Constitutional right. (Article III, Section 2, Clause 3-Not that I am keeping score) And it is really hard to misinterpret what it states too (not that it matters to the Supremes), "In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." Hmmm, sounds to me like this is not a waste of time, BUT THEIR JOB!!! So, let us all say a prayer for the merciless souls in this case. It is bad enough that her so-called husband is lovingly patient enough to let the courts decide her fate and not finish her off himself! Let alone that he has sired two children out of wedlock with another woman. If being on a feeding tube is grounds for dying, I am sure that adultery is grounds for divorce. Don't worry Mr. and Mrs. Schindler, I think I heard Terri say that she wanted a divorce about 15 years ago, maybe we wouldn't be in this circumstance if every so-called whisper was taken into account.
-Cincinnatus
So, the courts ruled that this is not a violation of her constitutional rights. Of course, a criminal gets due process but a harmless citizen gets her feeding tube taken away. I have talked about liberals "protecting" things before, I guess they are trying to protect the Constitution now! Now, thank the Lord, Congress is doing something about it. Of course her "husband" says that, " I'm outraged, and I think that every American in this country should also be outraged that this government is trampling all over a personal family matter that has been adjudicated in the courts for seven years," he told CNN. "I think that the Congress has more important things to discuss." This might be logical if they weren't discussing this on their DAY OFF! I for one am glad that they decided to actually come in on their day off. That means that us taxpayers get a little more bang for our buck. Now, would the media be reporting that this was a waste of time if they were discussing important things like tax hikes, abortion on demand, or saving some Caribou in Alaska? Of course not, that is what we pay them for? I don't think so, in fact I vote for these guys to do exactly what they are doing! Telling the courts that they do have jurisdiction and they better do something about this.
That, by the way is the reason that Congress is getting involved in the first place. The Federal Courts decided that they did not have jurisdiction. So, Congress is giving it to them. Which, by the way is their Constitutional right. (Article III, Section 2, Clause 3-Not that I am keeping score) And it is really hard to misinterpret what it states too (not that it matters to the Supremes), "In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." Hmmm, sounds to me like this is not a waste of time, BUT THEIR JOB!!! So, let us all say a prayer for the merciless souls in this case. It is bad enough that her so-called husband is lovingly patient enough to let the courts decide her fate and not finish her off himself! Let alone that he has sired two children out of wedlock with another woman. If being on a feeding tube is grounds for dying, I am sure that adultery is grounds for divorce. Don't worry Mr. and Mrs. Schindler, I think I heard Terri say that she wanted a divorce about 15 years ago, maybe we wouldn't be in this circumstance if every so-called whisper was taken into account.
-Cincinnatus
Do Judges Really Need our Protection?
As I was doing my daily scroll through top headline a couple, run by Yahoo News and the New York Times caught my eye. “Protecting Judges” was the one ran by the New York Times and “Judges Lack Protection Politicians Get” was the one ran by the national AP. It seems that in the recent climate of liberal lunacy, liberals are starting to sign America on board protecting their only asset, the Federal Judiciary. Since the evil “Red States” won’t elect them, and the “Conservative” media is out to get them, it appears that ideologically all they have is the Federal Judiciary. Well, I click on the link and discover what appears to be a new national crisis. Federal judges need bodyguards.
Nicole Ziegler Dizon, an Associated Press Writer (as if that means anything anymore, who isn’t?) states that while important “politicians, from governors and mayors down to California’s school superintendent and Chicago’s city treasurer, routinely travel with protection provided by the taxpayers,” judges often do not get that sort of protection. Well, this is a serious problem! Judges are getting “knocked off” left and right. This is a “disparity that is getting more attention after the killings of Lefkow’s (a U.S. District Judge) family members by a man upset over a malpractice case and the recent shooting rampage that began in an Atlanta courthouse and left a judge and three others dead.” Read that statement folks, death count equals judge one and others five. Never mind, just another liberal rant, but I was worried for nearly a minute or two. Dizon goes on to say that right now federal judges and other members of the bench generally get body guards only when there is a credible threat against them. Oh, so judges get protection when they need it? I thought there was a problem! Turns out that, like the media does, Dizon found someone, with a title, willing to support her claim, a Lt. Governor in Illinois thinks that this is such a problem that he gave up his bodyguards to be better used for judges. Where is Martin Scorsese for this picture of human sacrifice? I mean it can get downright dangerous in the hood around Springfield!
So, what is the solution? The government “should do more, from paying for home security systems to assigning psychologists to courthouses to identify people who might be dangerous.” Why didn’t I think of this before? Screw the military or bodyguards, if only we had government security systems and more psychologists, the world would be a safer place for us all. I have an idea! Why not just give every judge a .9mm? Even if you are a conservative who believes in guns causing more fatalities, first get some more information, second this works out perfectly even if they accidentally shoot themselves or get themselves killed. They are Federal Judges and they won’t be missed! Which leads me to my next point…
This problem points out a classic problem with liberal thinking, they do not understand a free market economy. The reason that taxpayers are willing to spend money on elected politicians is they represent our views and if they don’t we vote them out. The reason that taxpayers are not willing to spend money on judges is because they are not worth it. The less judges the better. Why? Because all they do is legislate from the bench and because all the Senate Democrats do is filibuster worthy judges, then why offer these scoundrels protection? Now don’t get me wrong, if a judge is threatened on something other than the fact that they are worthless and have legislated from the bench, then they deserve protection, and according to Dizon, they get it. Although, can I be the first to say if Judge Lefcow’s family had been killed over something like she ruled against baby-killers, then I doubt Dizon would have taken the time! When liberals want to protect something, everybody should be worried. They want to protect ANWR even though there is nothing there. They want to protect the taxing establishment, which should be a clue. They would rather protect baby seals then baby children not to even talk about a woman on a feeding tube in Florida! They even want to protect terrorist’s rights, which for the record don’t exist. I mean if they ever claim to protect me I am going to an exorcist. So, when they start wanting to protect judges, that should be our first clue that maybe there is something ideological to all this filibustering after all.
-Cincinnatus
Nicole Ziegler Dizon, an Associated Press Writer (as if that means anything anymore, who isn’t?) states that while important “politicians, from governors and mayors down to California’s school superintendent and Chicago’s city treasurer, routinely travel with protection provided by the taxpayers,” judges often do not get that sort of protection. Well, this is a serious problem! Judges are getting “knocked off” left and right. This is a “disparity that is getting more attention after the killings of Lefkow’s (a U.S. District Judge) family members by a man upset over a malpractice case and the recent shooting rampage that began in an Atlanta courthouse and left a judge and three others dead.” Read that statement folks, death count equals judge one and others five. Never mind, just another liberal rant, but I was worried for nearly a minute or two. Dizon goes on to say that right now federal judges and other members of the bench generally get body guards only when there is a credible threat against them. Oh, so judges get protection when they need it? I thought there was a problem! Turns out that, like the media does, Dizon found someone, with a title, willing to support her claim, a Lt. Governor in Illinois thinks that this is such a problem that he gave up his bodyguards to be better used for judges. Where is Martin Scorsese for this picture of human sacrifice? I mean it can get downright dangerous in the hood around Springfield!
So, what is the solution? The government “should do more, from paying for home security systems to assigning psychologists to courthouses to identify people who might be dangerous.” Why didn’t I think of this before? Screw the military or bodyguards, if only we had government security systems and more psychologists, the world would be a safer place for us all. I have an idea! Why not just give every judge a .9mm? Even if you are a conservative who believes in guns causing more fatalities, first get some more information, second this works out perfectly even if they accidentally shoot themselves or get themselves killed. They are Federal Judges and they won’t be missed! Which leads me to my next point…
This problem points out a classic problem with liberal thinking, they do not understand a free market economy. The reason that taxpayers are willing to spend money on elected politicians is they represent our views and if they don’t we vote them out. The reason that taxpayers are not willing to spend money on judges is because they are not worth it. The less judges the better. Why? Because all they do is legislate from the bench and because all the Senate Democrats do is filibuster worthy judges, then why offer these scoundrels protection? Now don’t get me wrong, if a judge is threatened on something other than the fact that they are worthless and have legislated from the bench, then they deserve protection, and according to Dizon, they get it. Although, can I be the first to say if Judge Lefcow’s family had been killed over something like she ruled against baby-killers, then I doubt Dizon would have taken the time! When liberals want to protect something, everybody should be worried. They want to protect ANWR even though there is nothing there. They want to protect the taxing establishment, which should be a clue. They would rather protect baby seals then baby children not to even talk about a woman on a feeding tube in Florida! They even want to protect terrorist’s rights, which for the record don’t exist. I mean if they ever claim to protect me I am going to an exorcist. So, when they start wanting to protect judges, that should be our first clue that maybe there is something ideological to all this filibustering after all.
-Cincinnatus
Votum-Familia-ResPublica
To some it is just a saying. To me and my family it is our way of life. God, family, and country has been instilled in me as our family motto as long as I can remember. Now, as I look at our great nation, I can only help but wonder what will become of this great land for the generations to come. Will my children be able to experience the same things I have? Will they look back upon their life and say I lived all that I could for God, family, and country? I pray that they will.
Cincinnatus
Cincinnatus
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)