President Calderon's arguments and lecturing Congress about our country's drug problems and the related crime are nonsense (just as his criticism is of our immigration laws while Mexico's laws are MUCH more stringent). He keeps telling us that his country as a source of drugs and the cartel violence problem in his country (due to availability of assault weapons from the USA) are OUR fault. He says it's we in the USA who need to fix both problems, not Mexico. His arguments are completely lacking in logic and, for that matter, truth.
For example, if he's such an expert on what creates demand for drugs, how is it that Mexico has a very serious drug problem of its own that has been 'soaring' since 2001 according to USA Today? (New patients at drug treatment centers quadrupled between 2001 and 2007.) If it's so easy to stop/control the demand for drugs why haven't you done it Mr. Calderon? Nevertheless, Mr. Calderon, we ARE doing things to stop the demand from your country.
In fact, your own experts say that's precisely why your country's drug addiction problems are getting worse. According to USA Today (7/22/2008), "The new border fence and intensified patrols by both Mexican and U.S. federal agents have made it harder for Mexican cartels to get drugs into the USA. As a result, more narcotics remain in Mexico where they are sold to local consumers, says Marcela López Cabrera, director of the Monte Fenix clinic in Mexico City, which trains drug counselors." Mr. Calderon, please note that your OWN experts are saying that!
By the way, guess when we in the USA began restricting drugs such that Mexico's cartels had to start looking for customers in Mexico? It began early in Bush's first term. A lot of liberals who like to blame Republicans (especially Bush) for everything aren't going to like that statistic any more than others I've blogged about.
A quote in that same USA Today article is interesting regarding the addictiveness of marijuana: "Carlos Antonio López started using crack at age 11 to kill the pain of his mother's death.
"I started with marijuana, but after a while it didn't fill me up anymore," he says. "Then I started on crack. You get obsessed, you can't think about anything else." " There's another fact that flies in the face of arguments for legalized drugs and medical marijuana.
President Calderon just got done lecturing us ... again ... (this time as a 'guest' IN Congress!) about assault weapons being sold in our country that find their way to his. There are legitimate arguments for banning the sale of assault weapons here but, c'mon, do you actually expect us to believe that your cartels won't be able to find equally nasty and effective weapons from some other country? If we ban assault weapons, your cartels will magically be unable to get the arms they seek, right? No other country on the planet makes such weapons and they wouldn't sell them to your cartels even if they did, right? Am I the only one who thinks that's a completely irrational and even ignorant argument?
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Hypocrisy and Audacity: President Calderon of Mexico Lecturing A State About Human Rights
Interesting timing, eh? Having Mexico President Calderon 'on stage' in OUR Congress just days after Arizona passed a new immigration law? What a coincidence! ;-)
Mexico is a country with much stricter immigration laws than those at our federal OR state levels. While Calderon was lecturing us about Arizona's new law that gives police there the ability to pursue identifying documentation from people ONLY after they were stopped for breaking some law, Mexico police were busily enforcing their law that says they are "REQUIRED(!) to demand that foreigners prove their legal presence in Mexico BEFORE attending to any other issues". Mexico police MUST first pursue proof of legal presence of people they suspect may not be there legally. Here, even in Arizona, not only must there be a different legal reason for stopping people in the first place but the cop must have sufficient other reason to believe the person is here illegally before asking for proof of legal presence.
In fact, ALL Mexican law is more strict with suspected and actual illegal immigrants than any of ours. And they have less reason for it ... no 9/11 there and radical Islamists aren't saying they're absolutely committed to the destruction of their country.
So, as to the facts involved, Calderon has a lot of nerve lecturing us, ESPECIALLY IN our own Congress. But even worse, however, was the sight of members of Congress rising to give the man a standing ovation(!) for criticizing one of our sovereign states for claimed principles that Mexico itself violates worse. The unmitigated gall of Calderon coming here to say such things, IN our own Congress no less, makes me angry. The unmitigated gall of our own elected representatives giving him a standing ovation for a public and arguably irrational dressing down of a state not only angers me, it makes me literally sick to my stomach.
What's so ridiculously laughable is that Arizona's law is less strict than the federal law it was designed to support. Federal law enforcement people need LESS justification (than Arizona police under their new law) to stop someone who may be here illegally. And Federal law enforcement people need LESS justification to require proof of legal presence.
The argument against Arizona's law that it should be struck down because it CAN be applied in an abusive way is nonsense. In fact pretty much ALL of our laws CAN be applied in an abusive way if police want to. If we struck down every law that could POSSIBLY be applied abusively we'd have NO laws at all! The solution is to be tough with those who abusively enforce laws, not to dumb down our laws so they don't 'offend' people. The Arizona law has BUILT INTO IT restrictions against abusing it so it will be EASY to prosecute police who do. Whatever abuse is attempted will be short-lived if we do that.
Finally, for people in power here to USE a foreign president to dress down a sovereign state when 75% of Americans support what that state is doing and HAS A RIGHT AND OBLIGATION TO DO for the sake of its citizens' security is reprehensible. It's especially reprehensible of Congress due to the fact that the Constitution REQUIRES them(!) to protect our national borders. Not providing that security is an abdication of Congress' Constitutional responsibilities and duties. Congress loses ALL moral authority to criticize, much less penalize(!), a state for doing what Constutional duties Congress itself fails to execute. What Arizona is doing is the ultimate, justifiable and legal exercise of state's rights and is fully consistent with the founders' intentions as well as the Constitution itself. Congress should be standing up and asking Arizonans what can we do to help fix this problem, not spending its time trying to figure out how to circumvent an affront to its politically correct sensitivities.
Mexico is a country with much stricter immigration laws than those at our federal OR state levels. While Calderon was lecturing us about Arizona's new law that gives police there the ability to pursue identifying documentation from people ONLY after they were stopped for breaking some law, Mexico police were busily enforcing their law that says they are "REQUIRED(!) to demand that foreigners prove their legal presence in Mexico BEFORE attending to any other issues". Mexico police MUST first pursue proof of legal presence of people they suspect may not be there legally. Here, even in Arizona, not only must there be a different legal reason for stopping people in the first place but the cop must have sufficient other reason to believe the person is here illegally before asking for proof of legal presence.
In fact, ALL Mexican law is more strict with suspected and actual illegal immigrants than any of ours. And they have less reason for it ... no 9/11 there and radical Islamists aren't saying they're absolutely committed to the destruction of their country.
So, as to the facts involved, Calderon has a lot of nerve lecturing us, ESPECIALLY IN our own Congress. But even worse, however, was the sight of members of Congress rising to give the man a standing ovation(!) for criticizing one of our sovereign states for claimed principles that Mexico itself violates worse. The unmitigated gall of Calderon coming here to say such things, IN our own Congress no less, makes me angry. The unmitigated gall of our own elected representatives giving him a standing ovation for a public and arguably irrational dressing down of a state not only angers me, it makes me literally sick to my stomach.
What's so ridiculously laughable is that Arizona's law is less strict than the federal law it was designed to support. Federal law enforcement people need LESS justification (than Arizona police under their new law) to stop someone who may be here illegally. And Federal law enforcement people need LESS justification to require proof of legal presence.
The argument against Arizona's law that it should be struck down because it CAN be applied in an abusive way is nonsense. In fact pretty much ALL of our laws CAN be applied in an abusive way if police want to. If we struck down every law that could POSSIBLY be applied abusively we'd have NO laws at all! The solution is to be tough with those who abusively enforce laws, not to dumb down our laws so they don't 'offend' people. The Arizona law has BUILT INTO IT restrictions against abusing it so it will be EASY to prosecute police who do. Whatever abuse is attempted will be short-lived if we do that.
Finally, for people in power here to USE a foreign president to dress down a sovereign state when 75% of Americans support what that state is doing and HAS A RIGHT AND OBLIGATION TO DO for the sake of its citizens' security is reprehensible. It's especially reprehensible of Congress due to the fact that the Constitution REQUIRES them(!) to protect our national borders. Not providing that security is an abdication of Congress' Constitutional responsibilities and duties. Congress loses ALL moral authority to criticize, much less penalize(!), a state for doing what Constutional duties Congress itself fails to execute. What Arizona is doing is the ultimate, justifiable and legal exercise of state's rights and is fully consistent with the founders' intentions as well as the Constitution itself. Congress should be standing up and asking Arizonans what can we do to help fix this problem, not spending its time trying to figure out how to circumvent an affront to its politically correct sensitivities.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Democrats' Criticism of Rand Paul's Position on the Civil Rights Act Is A Hoot!
So, Rand Paul says that if he had been in Congress when the Civil Rights Act was being considered he would have had problems with the way it covered one of ten areas related to racism. Now Democrats and The Media are having a field day criticizing Paul for opposing any element of the reforms.
Hey folks! Don't you remember how the voting ACTUALLY went back then on the actual bill? Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act TWO TO ONE versus Republicans on a percentage basis!
Democrats, especially Southern Democrats, opposed the abolition of slavery. In fact, Southern Democrats so opposed abolition that they were willing to plunge the new republic into a civil war in defense of slavery. Thank God, they finally they relented. Then the Democratic party continued opposing equal rights through most of our history after that, including opposing the Civil Rights Act more than others by two to one. And they've now bestowed on themselves the moral authority to judge harshly someone in another party who says he would have had difficulty with one of ten aspects of that act?
Does ANYONE else recognize the mind-boggling insanity and hypocrisy in this? Good grief!
For anyone interested in actual facts and the truth (how many of you ARE there anyway?), here are the numbers for how the Civil Rights Act voting ACTUALLY went:
House of Representatives:
Dem’s For: 152
Dem’s Against: 96
Repub For: 138
Repub Against: 34
%Dems against: 38.7
%Repub against: 19.8
Senate:
Dem’s For: 46
Dem’s Against: 21
Repub For: 27
Repub Against: 6
%Dems against: 31.3
%Repub against: 18.2
Hey folks! Don't you remember how the voting ACTUALLY went back then on the actual bill? Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act TWO TO ONE versus Republicans on a percentage basis!
Democrats, especially Southern Democrats, opposed the abolition of slavery. In fact, Southern Democrats so opposed abolition that they were willing to plunge the new republic into a civil war in defense of slavery. Thank God, they finally they relented. Then the Democratic party continued opposing equal rights through most of our history after that, including opposing the Civil Rights Act more than others by two to one. And they've now bestowed on themselves the moral authority to judge harshly someone in another party who says he would have had difficulty with one of ten aspects of that act?
Does ANYONE else recognize the mind-boggling insanity and hypocrisy in this? Good grief!
For anyone interested in actual facts and the truth (how many of you ARE there anyway?), here are the numbers for how the Civil Rights Act voting ACTUALLY went:
House of Representatives:
Dem’s For: 152
Dem’s Against: 96
Repub For: 138
Repub Against: 34
%Dems against: 38.7
%Repub against: 19.8
Senate:
Dem’s For: 46
Dem’s Against: 21
Repub For: 27
Repub Against: 6
%Dems against: 31.3
%Repub against: 18.2
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Yes, There Actually ARE Legitimate Reasons To Want To See More ID
A fellow ran a stop sign and ran into my car in San Jose about 8 years ago. The police came and began their usual routine of checking driver's licenses and insurance. The guy who ran into my car had no driver's license, no insurance and no car registration ... all REQUIRED by law to be in your possession when you drive in California. He had no form of identification whatsoever.
This is EXACTLY the kind of thing police frequently run into in Arizona and other places where illegal immigration flourishes. It is NOT racial profiling to assume there's something fishy about a person who can't identify himself or even prove he has a residence. I have no patience for this nonsense argument we're hearing that assuming there's something fishy about such a person must not be done because it can be profiling. Well, DUH! In fact, EVERYONE working in roles of dealing with people breaking laws (police, firemen, military, etc) is taught to pay attention to everything and draw reasonable conclusions about the person, what they're doing and why they're doing it. Acting 'suspicious' IS a legitimate thing to consider. It can save a cop's life for one thing. And it's called profiling the situation or person!!! Profiling of itself is an essential(!) tool to police, firemen, military, etc. It helps them do their job AND protect themselves. Evaluating a situation and the people involved is WHAT THEY MUST DO. To tell cops they must turn off all their instincts based on training and years of experience just because the person they've stopped for legitimate reasons may be latino is not only nonsense, it is flat dangerous to the cop and other citizens in the area.
This is exactly what Arizonans and citizens throughout the country want something done about. When a cop stops someone who cannot provide BASIC(!) legally required documentation the cops IN FACT ALREADY(!) have sufficient reason to arrest them!
Think about what happened to me above. I didn't do anything illegal. I was the 'victim' and they checked MY ID! I had broken NO laws but the cop check all my paperwork. I had no problem with that. If I get stopped by a Fish and Game person who wants to check my fishing license EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE NO REASON TO BELIEVE I'VE DONE ANYTHING WRONG that's fine with me. Why? Because by doing that with OR without reason to believe something's wrong they will be catching people who are breaking the law. Should they be allowed to ask for ID when they do catch someone doing something wrong or if their behavior is 'suspicious' (like carrying a creel in a catch and release area even though they haven't done anything wrong if there are no fish in the creel)? Absolutely.
Suspicious behavior like driving eratically and running a stop sign isn't just suspicious, it's illegal. If a cop stops someone for doing what he/she thinks is illegal or even 'suspicious' has every right (and responsibility!) to look into their paperwork. If, when a person is stopped, they act nervous or evasive to questions it's completely logical that there could be something illegal going on or even that the cop's life could be at risk. NO rational law-supportive person can make a sensible argument that cops have no business checking ID if they've stopped someone for law-breaking actions or even suspicious behavior. History and cops' personal experience are full of examples where their intuition about suspicious behavior they can't quite put words to has saved their own or someone else's life. Most law-abiding people have NO problem with cops inquiring into their documentation and legal status because they know the cops are trying to protect them and other citizens. I suspect that most of the people who are opposed to the new Arizona law are either law-breakers themselves, may be inclined to break the law sometime or have friends or relatives they want to protect from being arrested (even though they have broken the law).
We are a country of laws. We created it so. We appreciate having laws, even ones that intrude on our personal lives to a limited extent because those laws keep us safe from people who don't care about living lawfully. Those who don't want to live in a nation of laws should either learn to get along and do what our culture has set up as our standard or go somewhere else.
Do various types of law enforcement officers profile people in order to figure out who may be breaking the law? OF COURSE they do! There ARE certain kinds of behavior that TEND to indicate something else illegal could be going on. If they stop you for doing one thing wrong do they have any reason or justification for at least suspecting something more or worse could be going on and, therefore, ought to check the person out more thoroughly? Of course they do because, much of the time, there IS something more going on. Their experience and, frankly, human nature tell us that!
Checking further into what they may be up to at that point has NOTHING to do with whether or not they're latino. It has EVERYTHING to do with keeping the peace and enforcing SENSIBLE laws such as possessing a valid driver's license and proof of insurance. Having broken at least four laws IS sufficient reason to suspect there may be more the person has done or is doing. It is sufficient justification to check further.
The average American citizen MUST comply with such laws and has a good chance of being arrested if he/she has broken so many of them. People who have no documentation when a cop stops them has broken at least four laws, including whatever the cop stopped them for in the first place. What is it about such a person that they automatically get to go on their way without further action or scrutiny? Because they're latino or because we, for some insane reason, want to grant special privileges to potential illegal immigrants that citizens(!) don't have? What kind of insanity IS that?
So, here's the way it appears the pro-immigration folks want cops to behave. If an American citizen is stopped for a traffic or other violation (as cops do everywhere already) and cannot produce ANY documentation, it's okay for cops to enforce the laws as long as they're obviously caucasian, black or asian but if there's ANY chance they may be latino, the cops should let them go and not pursue any further examination of other potential illegal activities that breaking FOUR laws already suggests is a good possibility. Under such crazy rules as the pro-immigration crowd seem to want, just the ACT of stopping a latino could be judged profiling even if the cop has no way to know what nationality the driver is. A good prosecutor would have no trouble proving the cop MAY have had reason to believe the driver was latino (by way of car type, music being played, mexican flag in the window, whatever). Even if the cop actually hadn't noticed any of that, the fact that he COULD have known would be sufficient grounds to say profiling COULD have been used (no way to prove it wasn't!) in which case we need to err on the side of not offending potential illegal immigrants and throw the case out. We need to do that because it's more important to protect illegal immigrants' 'rights' than protect citizens and citizens' interests. Don't you see how crazy that thinking is?
We created a police force to enforce laws and keep the peace, thereby keeping us safe and secure. We pay for that for a reason. We have created the laws they much follow. We've made great effort to ensure the laws are color/ethnicity-blind (by ANY country's standards!). We need to let cops do their job to protect us, our property, our national security, and themselves. If a cop stops someone for a legal reason, we not only must allow him/her to pursue other suspicious activity when there's reasonable bases on which to suspect something's fishy, we must INSIST on it! It's complete nonsense to do otherwise.
This is EXACTLY the kind of thing police frequently run into in Arizona and other places where illegal immigration flourishes. It is NOT racial profiling to assume there's something fishy about a person who can't identify himself or even prove he has a residence. I have no patience for this nonsense argument we're hearing that assuming there's something fishy about such a person must not be done because it can be profiling. Well, DUH! In fact, EVERYONE working in roles of dealing with people breaking laws (police, firemen, military, etc) is taught to pay attention to everything and draw reasonable conclusions about the person, what they're doing and why they're doing it. Acting 'suspicious' IS a legitimate thing to consider. It can save a cop's life for one thing. And it's called profiling the situation or person!!! Profiling of itself is an essential(!) tool to police, firemen, military, etc. It helps them do their job AND protect themselves. Evaluating a situation and the people involved is WHAT THEY MUST DO. To tell cops they must turn off all their instincts based on training and years of experience just because the person they've stopped for legitimate reasons may be latino is not only nonsense, it is flat dangerous to the cop and other citizens in the area.
This is exactly what Arizonans and citizens throughout the country want something done about. When a cop stops someone who cannot provide BASIC(!) legally required documentation the cops IN FACT ALREADY(!) have sufficient reason to arrest them!
Think about what happened to me above. I didn't do anything illegal. I was the 'victim' and they checked MY ID! I had broken NO laws but the cop check all my paperwork. I had no problem with that. If I get stopped by a Fish and Game person who wants to check my fishing license EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE NO REASON TO BELIEVE I'VE DONE ANYTHING WRONG that's fine with me. Why? Because by doing that with OR without reason to believe something's wrong they will be catching people who are breaking the law. Should they be allowed to ask for ID when they do catch someone doing something wrong or if their behavior is 'suspicious' (like carrying a creel in a catch and release area even though they haven't done anything wrong if there are no fish in the creel)? Absolutely.
Suspicious behavior like driving eratically and running a stop sign isn't just suspicious, it's illegal. If a cop stops someone for doing what he/she thinks is illegal or even 'suspicious' has every right (and responsibility!) to look into their paperwork. If, when a person is stopped, they act nervous or evasive to questions it's completely logical that there could be something illegal going on or even that the cop's life could be at risk. NO rational law-supportive person can make a sensible argument that cops have no business checking ID if they've stopped someone for law-breaking actions or even suspicious behavior. History and cops' personal experience are full of examples where their intuition about suspicious behavior they can't quite put words to has saved their own or someone else's life. Most law-abiding people have NO problem with cops inquiring into their documentation and legal status because they know the cops are trying to protect them and other citizens. I suspect that most of the people who are opposed to the new Arizona law are either law-breakers themselves, may be inclined to break the law sometime or have friends or relatives they want to protect from being arrested (even though they have broken the law).
We are a country of laws. We created it so. We appreciate having laws, even ones that intrude on our personal lives to a limited extent because those laws keep us safe from people who don't care about living lawfully. Those who don't want to live in a nation of laws should either learn to get along and do what our culture has set up as our standard or go somewhere else.
Do various types of law enforcement officers profile people in order to figure out who may be breaking the law? OF COURSE they do! There ARE certain kinds of behavior that TEND to indicate something else illegal could be going on. If they stop you for doing one thing wrong do they have any reason or justification for at least suspecting something more or worse could be going on and, therefore, ought to check the person out more thoroughly? Of course they do because, much of the time, there IS something more going on. Their experience and, frankly, human nature tell us that!
Checking further into what they may be up to at that point has NOTHING to do with whether or not they're latino. It has EVERYTHING to do with keeping the peace and enforcing SENSIBLE laws such as possessing a valid driver's license and proof of insurance. Having broken at least four laws IS sufficient reason to suspect there may be more the person has done or is doing. It is sufficient justification to check further.
The average American citizen MUST comply with such laws and has a good chance of being arrested if he/she has broken so many of them. People who have no documentation when a cop stops them has broken at least four laws, including whatever the cop stopped them for in the first place. What is it about such a person that they automatically get to go on their way without further action or scrutiny? Because they're latino or because we, for some insane reason, want to grant special privileges to potential illegal immigrants that citizens(!) don't have? What kind of insanity IS that?
So, here's the way it appears the pro-immigration folks want cops to behave. If an American citizen is stopped for a traffic or other violation (as cops do everywhere already) and cannot produce ANY documentation, it's okay for cops to enforce the laws as long as they're obviously caucasian, black or asian but if there's ANY chance they may be latino, the cops should let them go and not pursue any further examination of other potential illegal activities that breaking FOUR laws already suggests is a good possibility. Under such crazy rules as the pro-immigration crowd seem to want, just the ACT of stopping a latino could be judged profiling even if the cop has no way to know what nationality the driver is. A good prosecutor would have no trouble proving the cop MAY have had reason to believe the driver was latino (by way of car type, music being played, mexican flag in the window, whatever). Even if the cop actually hadn't noticed any of that, the fact that he COULD have known would be sufficient grounds to say profiling COULD have been used (no way to prove it wasn't!) in which case we need to err on the side of not offending potential illegal immigrants and throw the case out. We need to do that because it's more important to protect illegal immigrants' 'rights' than protect citizens and citizens' interests. Don't you see how crazy that thinking is?
We created a police force to enforce laws and keep the peace, thereby keeping us safe and secure. We pay for that for a reason. We have created the laws they much follow. We've made great effort to ensure the laws are color/ethnicity-blind (by ANY country's standards!). We need to let cops do their job to protect us, our property, our national security, and themselves. If a cop stops someone for a legal reason, we not only must allow him/her to pursue other suspicious activity when there's reasonable bases on which to suspect something's fishy, we must INSIST on it! It's complete nonsense to do otherwise.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
American Exceptionalism: What Happens When That's No More?
Which has been the go-to country when there are problems in other parts of the world?
Which is the ONE country that has a strong enough economic engine to maintain a military force sufficient to deter threats anywhere, any time and still maintain a healthy economy?
Only ONE country has the ability to provide BOTH the financial and military resources needed in an increasingly dependent world.
Why is it that other countries can 'afford' extensive welfare systems that make vast numbers of citizens dependent on a decreasing minority of citizens willing and able to provide it? Answer: because they don't choose(!) to maintain a military sufficient to fully protect themselves and their interests. Too many of us think European style living is the model to follow but they can only afford it because we Americans take care of all other business they won't out of self-centeredness and laziness.
Which is the ONE country that has a strong enough economic engine to bring relief into regions of disaster faster and better than anyone else?
Which is the ONE country that's provided the economic engine sufficient to draw standards of living to new levels world-wide?
Which is the go-to country for world-wide economic stability and safety?
Which country innovates/invents the most and generously shares not only their wealth but their innovations in health care, sciences, and other things that improve 'the human condition' ... world-wide?
Why is it that we've been able to do all that? In a phrase, American Exceptionalism. Economically. Politically. Culturally. It derives from freedom, individual responsibility, UNselfishness, and a government that doesn't get in our way.
So, progressives want us to be more like Europe. More union control. Bigger more expensive government. MUCH more government spending. MUCH more national debt. MUCH more taxation. More welfare. More time off from work. More of other people taking care of us and our needs. Our exceptionalism is what makes everything listed above possible. European countries cannot do what we do and don't appear interested in doing it. So, what do you suppose will happen when we're exactly like Europe in those regards? When we're like them, who'll be like us and take over for us in the areas above, hmmmm? If an exceptional country is so essential as it appears to be now, what happens to the world when there is no exceptional country any more? Who takes care of them? Who takes care of us when we cannot take care of ourselves any more?
What happens to us when our government consumes so much of our financial and other resources that we can't afford an expansive government (including the enormous welfare drain), an effective military and other countries' dependence on us in so many ways? When our financial condition is so shaky due to national debt that our currency carries no favor internationally?
To whom will other countries go then? They're dependent on us now but have a field day running us down in spite of our generosity and the way we contribute to a higher standard of living enjoyed by other countries. Here we are bailing out Greece (and other countries soon) via the IMF and other means. They need us (even though the EU was created to avoid such things)! To whom will they go when we've bankrupted ourselves via a gluttenous and corrupt government and welfare system? To whom will WE go when we're bankrupt and need help from someone else?
Answer those questions thoughtfully and honestly. Understand there are consequences for decisions as bad as the ones we've been making the past ten years which are becoming astronomically bad of late. It's nonsense to think we can continue this way and not suffer serious, serious consequences. It's time to pull together for the common good, not selfish and partisan good. Think long-term consequences, not short-term greed and satisfaction. Time to stop living selfishly and 'me first'. Start accepting some REAL responsibility for our own lives and for changing where we're headed. If we don't SOON(!), we will NOT like what's about to happen to us in a very, very short timeframe.
Which is the ONE country that has a strong enough economic engine to maintain a military force sufficient to deter threats anywhere, any time and still maintain a healthy economy?
Only ONE country has the ability to provide BOTH the financial and military resources needed in an increasingly dependent world.
Why is it that other countries can 'afford' extensive welfare systems that make vast numbers of citizens dependent on a decreasing minority of citizens willing and able to provide it? Answer: because they don't choose(!) to maintain a military sufficient to fully protect themselves and their interests. Too many of us think European style living is the model to follow but they can only afford it because we Americans take care of all other business they won't out of self-centeredness and laziness.
Which is the ONE country that has a strong enough economic engine to bring relief into regions of disaster faster and better than anyone else?
Which is the ONE country that's provided the economic engine sufficient to draw standards of living to new levels world-wide?
Which is the go-to country for world-wide economic stability and safety?
Which country innovates/invents the most and generously shares not only their wealth but their innovations in health care, sciences, and other things that improve 'the human condition' ... world-wide?
Why is it that we've been able to do all that? In a phrase, American Exceptionalism. Economically. Politically. Culturally. It derives from freedom, individual responsibility, UNselfishness, and a government that doesn't get in our way.
So, progressives want us to be more like Europe. More union control. Bigger more expensive government. MUCH more government spending. MUCH more national debt. MUCH more taxation. More welfare. More time off from work. More of other people taking care of us and our needs. Our exceptionalism is what makes everything listed above possible. European countries cannot do what we do and don't appear interested in doing it. So, what do you suppose will happen when we're exactly like Europe in those regards? When we're like them, who'll be like us and take over for us in the areas above, hmmmm? If an exceptional country is so essential as it appears to be now, what happens to the world when there is no exceptional country any more? Who takes care of them? Who takes care of us when we cannot take care of ourselves any more?
What happens to us when our government consumes so much of our financial and other resources that we can't afford an expansive government (including the enormous welfare drain), an effective military and other countries' dependence on us in so many ways? When our financial condition is so shaky due to national debt that our currency carries no favor internationally?
To whom will other countries go then? They're dependent on us now but have a field day running us down in spite of our generosity and the way we contribute to a higher standard of living enjoyed by other countries. Here we are bailing out Greece (and other countries soon) via the IMF and other means. They need us (even though the EU was created to avoid such things)! To whom will they go when we've bankrupted ourselves via a gluttenous and corrupt government and welfare system? To whom will WE go when we're bankrupt and need help from someone else?
Answer those questions thoughtfully and honestly. Understand there are consequences for decisions as bad as the ones we've been making the past ten years which are becoming astronomically bad of late. It's nonsense to think we can continue this way and not suffer serious, serious consequences. It's time to pull together for the common good, not selfish and partisan good. Think long-term consequences, not short-term greed and satisfaction. Time to stop living selfishly and 'me first'. Start accepting some REAL responsibility for our own lives and for changing where we're headed. If we don't SOON(!), we will NOT like what's about to happen to us in a very, very short timeframe.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
'Entitlement' And Social Security ... Related Medicare & Medicaid Matters
We who are retired or are nearing retirement are receiving lots of criticism for becoming a drain on the US society, financially and otherwise. How about examining the WHOLE story behind those criticisms as well as the causes, obligations and consequences with more emphasis on truth? Or are you only interested in looking at us as a problem best fixed by us simply going away?
Did that last sentence sound goofy? In fact, it reflects not only what many younger-than-45 folks think but it is even being preached in at least one elementary school. A teacher in Powell Wyoming recently told his/her students the following. We have economic problems we have to fix and we'd get it done better if older people would just sit down and shut up. He/she also then added, we'd be better off if they'd all just die. This was reported by the child's Mom to media but you likely won't hear about it because it makes even the liberal media squeamish.
The point is, this teacher said something many Americans feel the same way about but are reluctant to vocalize so blatantly. In fact, similar statements by adults have made it into The Media. You know that thinking exists and it's becoming more common every day.
There's lots I could say about the morality of the teacher and a growing segment of society that feels that way but I won't. Moralizing about it doesn't advance understanding we must reach about this issue so we can do the right thing about our economic problems. How about some history first?
All the social programs that are in trouble are products of the progressive, mostly liberal, agenda. Democrats have been the driving force behind the creation as well as mismanagement of all of them. When Democratic presidents and congressmen sold these to their colleagues, it was done with a plea to their 'social justice sensitivities'. And it was done with a guarantee(!) that they were affordable (because they had models and data that proved it beyond a reasonable doubt!) even though there were many rational voices being raised to the contrary. Because progressives were in control of things, the rational voices were drowned out. Then reality happened and those Republicans who sounded alarms in the beginning and increasingly so over the years were called insensitive alarmists.
Before I go further, does any of this sound familiar as if we're heard this recently ... like history repeating itself? At what point does, "I keep doing the same thing over and over again with bad results that get worse every time" start to tell you that maybe history and the results suggest it's not such a good thing to pursue after all or should be pursued significantly differently? When does it begin to make sense that maybe those on the right of the political spectrum do have something to offer that could keep us from getting the country into such trouble? Maybe we should work with them more because what we've been doing for 100 years(!) isn't working! Maybe we shouldn't act so sure of ourselves because EVERY time we did it in the past we were wrong!
To get to the correct solution it is completely logical to look with skepticism on the 'agenda' that got us here. How can we fix it if we don't take the time to understand what we did wrong AND what history suggests will be the real consequences of possible alternative solutions?
Am I nervous about President Obama and Democrats/Progressives 'fixing' this mess without any input from Republicans? Let's see, the things that got us into this mess were progressive creations and were mismanaged largely by Democrats. And the current solution is to do the same thing on an even grander scale! Hmmmm. Do I really have ANY reason to be nervous? If you say no, what planet or reality are you from?
Important note: notice that what got us into this trouble is NOT the people receiving what the government decided to give them! It's the government that created and mismanaged these programs. They created these programs and told us to use them, guaranteeing(!) that they'd remain solvent (would not add to the national debt) and secure. Now these programs are in trouble and it's the fault of the people receiving the benefits? Huh? And the solution is for those receiving those benefits (that they didn't really ask for in the first place!) to: 1) be quiet and let the same people who broke the programs 'fix' them doing the same kind of things and/or 2) just die so they stop causing problems the government created. Huh! I say, HUH? What kind of nonsense logic is that?
Consider the point of view of a recent retiree. We didn't ask for these programs. Many of us would have preferred taking care of our own retirement planning. But the government gave us no choice. They TOOK money from us our entire lives to put into these programs with the promise(!) that when we retired we'd get it back. We had no choice. Money we could have put into retirement savings/investments was taken from us. The government PREVENTED us from saving it for our retirement. Now that we're retired, the government and many citizens are not only saying that the programs are going bankrupt and we won't get back what they told(!) us we would but many are saying the problem is OUR fault and even that the solution is for us to die. At the very least, just shut up and quietly take whatever others decide what to do about it. What kind of logic is THAT?
Having said that, I agree that the solution appears to require we retirees get less back than we've been promised all these years. I'm willing to consider it and I think it should be on the table. I ask you, isn't it fair of us retirees to accept that? WE didn't cause this problem but we're willing to be part of the solution. How about you? For those of you who say WE caused this problem and we should just die to fix this problem, I say maybe you're the ones that should shut your pie-hole, hmmmmm?
Did that last sentence sound goofy? In fact, it reflects not only what many younger-than-45 folks think but it is even being preached in at least one elementary school. A teacher in Powell Wyoming recently told his/her students the following. We have economic problems we have to fix and we'd get it done better if older people would just sit down and shut up. He/she also then added, we'd be better off if they'd all just die. This was reported by the child's Mom to media but you likely won't hear about it because it makes even the liberal media squeamish.
The point is, this teacher said something many Americans feel the same way about but are reluctant to vocalize so blatantly. In fact, similar statements by adults have made it into The Media. You know that thinking exists and it's becoming more common every day.
There's lots I could say about the morality of the teacher and a growing segment of society that feels that way but I won't. Moralizing about it doesn't advance understanding we must reach about this issue so we can do the right thing about our economic problems. How about some history first?
All the social programs that are in trouble are products of the progressive, mostly liberal, agenda. Democrats have been the driving force behind the creation as well as mismanagement of all of them. When Democratic presidents and congressmen sold these to their colleagues, it was done with a plea to their 'social justice sensitivities'. And it was done with a guarantee(!) that they were affordable (because they had models and data that proved it beyond a reasonable doubt!) even though there were many rational voices being raised to the contrary. Because progressives were in control of things, the rational voices were drowned out. Then reality happened and those Republicans who sounded alarms in the beginning and increasingly so over the years were called insensitive alarmists.
Before I go further, does any of this sound familiar as if we're heard this recently ... like history repeating itself? At what point does, "I keep doing the same thing over and over again with bad results that get worse every time" start to tell you that maybe history and the results suggest it's not such a good thing to pursue after all or should be pursued significantly differently? When does it begin to make sense that maybe those on the right of the political spectrum do have something to offer that could keep us from getting the country into such trouble? Maybe we should work with them more because what we've been doing for 100 years(!) isn't working! Maybe we shouldn't act so sure of ourselves because EVERY time we did it in the past we were wrong!
To get to the correct solution it is completely logical to look with skepticism on the 'agenda' that got us here. How can we fix it if we don't take the time to understand what we did wrong AND what history suggests will be the real consequences of possible alternative solutions?
Am I nervous about President Obama and Democrats/Progressives 'fixing' this mess without any input from Republicans? Let's see, the things that got us into this mess were progressive creations and were mismanaged largely by Democrats. And the current solution is to do the same thing on an even grander scale! Hmmmm. Do I really have ANY reason to be nervous? If you say no, what planet or reality are you from?
Important note: notice that what got us into this trouble is NOT the people receiving what the government decided to give them! It's the government that created and mismanaged these programs. They created these programs and told us to use them, guaranteeing(!) that they'd remain solvent (would not add to the national debt) and secure. Now these programs are in trouble and it's the fault of the people receiving the benefits? Huh? And the solution is for those receiving those benefits (that they didn't really ask for in the first place!) to: 1) be quiet and let the same people who broke the programs 'fix' them doing the same kind of things and/or 2) just die so they stop causing problems the government created. Huh! I say, HUH? What kind of nonsense logic is that?
Consider the point of view of a recent retiree. We didn't ask for these programs. Many of us would have preferred taking care of our own retirement planning. But the government gave us no choice. They TOOK money from us our entire lives to put into these programs with the promise(!) that when we retired we'd get it back. We had no choice. Money we could have put into retirement savings/investments was taken from us. The government PREVENTED us from saving it for our retirement. Now that we're retired, the government and many citizens are not only saying that the programs are going bankrupt and we won't get back what they told(!) us we would but many are saying the problem is OUR fault and even that the solution is for us to die. At the very least, just shut up and quietly take whatever others decide what to do about it. What kind of logic is THAT?
Having said that, I agree that the solution appears to require we retirees get less back than we've been promised all these years. I'm willing to consider it and I think it should be on the table. I ask you, isn't it fair of us retirees to accept that? WE didn't cause this problem but we're willing to be part of the solution. How about you? For those of you who say WE caused this problem and we should just die to fix this problem, I say maybe you're the ones that should shut your pie-hole, hmmmmm?
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
NEWS FLASH: Tea Partiers Tend Not To Be Ignorant OR Uninformed
Sorry [not really ;-)] to disagree and, perhaps, burst your bubble but based on my own experience with people involved, "Tea Party" types are neither ignorant NOR uninformed. In fact, most of them are motivated to learn more about our country's actual history ... rather than follow like sheep what we hear from revisionists in The Media and among the progressive movement.
In fact, the things they hear from The Media and revisionist progressives tend to HIGHLY motivate them to know more. That's because what they hear from such people just doesn't feel right with respect to what they partially recall from the factual history most of us heard in school or from parents. Others among Tea Partiers who don't have a basis for suspecting what the truth is can't live with the dichotomy of opinion. They hear strongly worded beliefs from two very opposite points of view and it motivates them to find out what the truth is. Most of them are like sponges, seeking and devouring information on actual history from authoritative (not just right-wing!) sources. Yes, they even read books (including such notable writings as Thomas Paine's Common Sense)! They also read the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. They're driven to become more knowlegable about current events, political issues and politicians' views and positions on issues. They evaluate where we were as a country versus where we are (and where we're going) and make an intelligent, well-informed decision and/or choice about things.
The people I meet among the Tea Party crowd tend to be much, MUCH better informed about our country's history, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, our founding fathers, the constitutional convention, the progressive movement, and other related subjects than what I'd call the 'average American'. There is amazing ignorance among our many of our fellow citizens about even very basic things such as who is the Vice President for example. But Tea Party folks I know tend to crave knowledge about our country and what's going on so they can make an informed decision about the nonsense they hear about what our country is or isn't and where we came from politically and culturally.
In fact, the things they hear from The Media and revisionist progressives tend to HIGHLY motivate them to know more. That's because what they hear from such people just doesn't feel right with respect to what they partially recall from the factual history most of us heard in school or from parents. Others among Tea Partiers who don't have a basis for suspecting what the truth is can't live with the dichotomy of opinion. They hear strongly worded beliefs from two very opposite points of view and it motivates them to find out what the truth is. Most of them are like sponges, seeking and devouring information on actual history from authoritative (not just right-wing!) sources. Yes, they even read books (including such notable writings as Thomas Paine's Common Sense)! They also read the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. They're driven to become more knowlegable about current events, political issues and politicians' views and positions on issues. They evaluate where we were as a country versus where we are (and where we're going) and make an intelligent, well-informed decision and/or choice about things.
The people I meet among the Tea Party crowd tend to be much, MUCH better informed about our country's history, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, our founding fathers, the constitutional convention, the progressive movement, and other related subjects than what I'd call the 'average American'. There is amazing ignorance among our many of our fellow citizens about even very basic things such as who is the Vice President for example. But Tea Party folks I know tend to crave knowledge about our country and what's going on so they can make an informed decision about the nonsense they hear about what our country is or isn't and where we came from politically and culturally.
Monday, May 3, 2010
More Nonsense: We're Only Doing What Republicans Have Done To Us First
What a crock the title thinking is! The "Republicans in Congress (ie, so do Republican citizens!) deserve what they're getting because they did it too" argument is total bull. Why you may ask?
Remember, as I have written before, in my 60+ years on this planet Democrats have held veto power in one or both(!) houses 30 years. How many times have Republicans have a veto-proof majority in EITHER house in my 60+ years? ZERO! Republicans haven't been pulling these kind of unconstitutional(!) shennanigans as Democrats actually(!) claim ... BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T! No matter how much Congressional Democrats prounounce it and no matter how much you want to believe The Media Kool-Aid, it CANNOT be true because Republicans haven't had the majority muscle by which to do it. PERIOD!
Republicans have never totally denied Democratic citizens of their representation in legislation the way Democrats did last year and are still trying to do without a veto-proof majority because they COULDN'T. Republicans have ALWAYS worked with Democrats on legislation for the simple reason that they had to. Maybe Republicans WOULD have done the same thing if they ever had a veto-proof majority but we have to judge it on what actually happened, not on made-up characterizations from The Media and current Democratic leadership.
The president and Congressional Democrats have a lot of nerve spreading untruths like this. In my day we called it dishonest, if not outright lying.
To Democrats, how do you actually feel about friends and relatives you love and respect having no voice in Congress ... about their being denied representation in legislation? (Yes, they were 'represented' in terms of having votes registered against bills last year but my point is that their interests aren't represented in the actual legislation which is the real point of the matter.) Is THAT fair? Is it even constitutional? How would YOU feel if Republicans did that to your representatives and, by extension, to you? I know you're STILL thinking Republicans DID it too because you believe (and want to believe?) the lies to the contrary but remember Republican congressional representatives could not and, therefore, have not done this. Sorry, but facts are facts.
What may be most important in this discussion is that it illustrates the key difference between a democracy and a republic. We, in fact, are operating like a democracy where the majority party may completely rule like this. But our founders made the distinction to call this a republic for a reason. They didn't want this form of majority rule that's possible under a democracy. Democrats love to brag about how our democracy has come a long way. What they're saying is they're glad we're no longer a republic. Do you think they'd think this was a good thing if Republicans ever had veto-proof majorities? Of course not. This kind of power in Congress is a good thing to Democrats only when they are in power. It's not right. In fact, it's not constitutional.
I was amazed (and somewhat appalled) by something President Obama told the U of Michigan graduating class last week. He quoted Ben Franklin who, when he was asked what he and the other congressional delegates had just created by signing the constitution, answered: "A Republic, if you can keep it". There IS a reason why Ben said "Republic" and not "Democracy"! After quoting that, President Obama then said we should be proud that we've been faithful to that by, indeed, preserving our "democracy". Taken at face value Obama appears to believe that the founders thought a Republic and a Democracy are the same thing (when, in fact, they went out of their way to make a distinction and preference between them!). We are left to conclude one of two things. Either President Obama is ignorant of the difference between a Republic and a Democracy or he does know and is purposely misleading gullible Americans (both about what the founders wanted and the fact that we don't have what they intended). Question: are you comfortable with either explanation?
Perhaps, because presidents come and go as will Obama, a more important question is, are you comfortable that we've strayed far from what the founders intended and established vis-a-vis the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution? It's important to understand that we have diverged from them quite far(!) and then consciously(!) decide whether that's a good thing. That's what we in the Tea Party and related movements are in the process of illuminating. You're free to make your own choice about whether this is a good thing but please DO make a conscious choice based on knowing what is our actual history and what we are actually doing to our country.
Remember, as I have written before, in my 60+ years on this planet Democrats have held veto power in one or both(!) houses 30 years. How many times have Republicans have a veto-proof majority in EITHER house in my 60+ years? ZERO! Republicans haven't been pulling these kind of unconstitutional(!) shennanigans as Democrats actually(!) claim ... BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T! No matter how much Congressional Democrats prounounce it and no matter how much you want to believe The Media Kool-Aid, it CANNOT be true because Republicans haven't had the majority muscle by which to do it. PERIOD!
Republicans have never totally denied Democratic citizens of their representation in legislation the way Democrats did last year and are still trying to do without a veto-proof majority because they COULDN'T. Republicans have ALWAYS worked with Democrats on legislation for the simple reason that they had to. Maybe Republicans WOULD have done the same thing if they ever had a veto-proof majority but we have to judge it on what actually happened, not on made-up characterizations from The Media and current Democratic leadership.
The president and Congressional Democrats have a lot of nerve spreading untruths like this. In my day we called it dishonest, if not outright lying.
To Democrats, how do you actually feel about friends and relatives you love and respect having no voice in Congress ... about their being denied representation in legislation? (Yes, they were 'represented' in terms of having votes registered against bills last year but my point is that their interests aren't represented in the actual legislation which is the real point of the matter.) Is THAT fair? Is it even constitutional? How would YOU feel if Republicans did that to your representatives and, by extension, to you? I know you're STILL thinking Republicans DID it too because you believe (and want to believe?) the lies to the contrary but remember Republican congressional representatives could not and, therefore, have not done this. Sorry, but facts are facts.
What may be most important in this discussion is that it illustrates the key difference between a democracy and a republic. We, in fact, are operating like a democracy where the majority party may completely rule like this. But our founders made the distinction to call this a republic for a reason. They didn't want this form of majority rule that's possible under a democracy. Democrats love to brag about how our democracy has come a long way. What they're saying is they're glad we're no longer a republic. Do you think they'd think this was a good thing if Republicans ever had veto-proof majorities? Of course not. This kind of power in Congress is a good thing to Democrats only when they are in power. It's not right. In fact, it's not constitutional.
I was amazed (and somewhat appalled) by something President Obama told the U of Michigan graduating class last week. He quoted Ben Franklin who, when he was asked what he and the other congressional delegates had just created by signing the constitution, answered: "A Republic, if you can keep it". There IS a reason why Ben said "Republic" and not "Democracy"! After quoting that, President Obama then said we should be proud that we've been faithful to that by, indeed, preserving our "democracy". Taken at face value Obama appears to believe that the founders thought a Republic and a Democracy are the same thing (when, in fact, they went out of their way to make a distinction and preference between them!). We are left to conclude one of two things. Either President Obama is ignorant of the difference between a Republic and a Democracy or he does know and is purposely misleading gullible Americans (both about what the founders wanted and the fact that we don't have what they intended). Question: are you comfortable with either explanation?
Perhaps, because presidents come and go as will Obama, a more important question is, are you comfortable that we've strayed far from what the founders intended and established vis-a-vis the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution? It's important to understand that we have diverged from them quite far(!) and then consciously(!) decide whether that's a good thing. That's what we in the Tea Party and related movements are in the process of illuminating. You're free to make your own choice about whether this is a good thing but please DO make a conscious choice based on knowing what is our actual history and what we are actually doing to our country.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Let's Stop With The Mischaracterizations and Slander Already... It's Counter-Productive
What's actually 'fair' in this country from government is practicing fair and proportional representation of ALL citizens in the creation of laws and execution of the will of The People. The whole point of the constitution was the creation of a limited(!) federal government that was to provide proportional representation (in legislation and laws) of The People who hired them to (constitutionally!) represent their interests, mainly in the areas of national defense and international/interstate commerce. The constitution did NOT grant to the majority party power to do whatever it wants. In fact, the founders' writings cautioned against that kind of tyranny by the majority party.
Is the minority party entitled to consideration and representative participation? According to the constitution, yes! According to any sense of fair play, yes. After all the minority party is contributing about 45% of the resources the government spends, expends or wastes(!). After all, a larger proportion of the minority party's citizens fight the country's wars, putting their lives on the line for ALL citizens, including those in the majority party. In fact, in military poll after poll, conservatives outnumber liberals in the military by a ratio of about 60/40. And what's up with the fact that few liberals in congress have been in the military and the ratios of their kids in the military is so small? They like us fighting (and dying) in greater numbers in their wars but aren't interested in us having fair representation in legislation and laws. What's up with that?
Liberals in government tend to be lifetime politicians. Has anyone who is prominent in the current administration worked in a real job or run a for profit company? How many have executive management experience? You know the answer to such questions. Government doesn't produce anything; it only consumes. What's the likelihood they understand what really makes small businesses run, having never worked in a for-profit small business? What, therefore, is the likelihood that what they think stimulates the 'real' economy actually does so? You know the answer to that too if you're being honest.
I'm wandering a bit from the point I wanted to make which is this. Yes, the 'right' and 'left' disagree on principles ... even on what the constitution means or whether in fact it's even relevant today. The point is, we in the current minority are ENTITLED to our opposing views. We have a right to disagree and express that disagreement ... even vocally although not violently. Civil disagreement and even civil disobedience is not only okay, it's American as the civil rights movement was. It's as constitutional too!
So, why the hostility, mischaracterizations of us for our differing views? Why is it only okay for the left to be vocal or disobedient? Gross mischaracterizations are materializing about our position on nearly every issue, the current one regarding immigration reform being no different. More on that in my next blog with the comments in this blog as a baseline.
Is the minority party entitled to consideration and representative participation? According to the constitution, yes! According to any sense of fair play, yes. After all the minority party is contributing about 45% of the resources the government spends, expends or wastes(!). After all, a larger proportion of the minority party's citizens fight the country's wars, putting their lives on the line for ALL citizens, including those in the majority party. In fact, in military poll after poll, conservatives outnumber liberals in the military by a ratio of about 60/40. And what's up with the fact that few liberals in congress have been in the military and the ratios of their kids in the military is so small? They like us fighting (and dying) in greater numbers in their wars but aren't interested in us having fair representation in legislation and laws. What's up with that?
Liberals in government tend to be lifetime politicians. Has anyone who is prominent in the current administration worked in a real job or run a for profit company? How many have executive management experience? You know the answer to such questions. Government doesn't produce anything; it only consumes. What's the likelihood they understand what really makes small businesses run, having never worked in a for-profit small business? What, therefore, is the likelihood that what they think stimulates the 'real' economy actually does so? You know the answer to that too if you're being honest.
I'm wandering a bit from the point I wanted to make which is this. Yes, the 'right' and 'left' disagree on principles ... even on what the constitution means or whether in fact it's even relevant today. The point is, we in the current minority are ENTITLED to our opposing views. We have a right to disagree and express that disagreement ... even vocally although not violently. Civil disagreement and even civil disobedience is not only okay, it's American as the civil rights movement was. It's as constitutional too!
So, why the hostility, mischaracterizations of us for our differing views? Why is it only okay for the left to be vocal or disobedient? Gross mischaracterizations are materializing about our position on nearly every issue, the current one regarding immigration reform being no different. More on that in my next blog with the comments in this blog as a baseline.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)