Views on the News
July 30, 2011
Views on the News*
Suppose that an official of the government were to act against the common good of his society by disregarding the established laws and infringing upon the man's unalienable rights, then what can the citizens do in this situation? It is plain to all who read the Constitution that our governmental powers have been transgressing their boundaries for quite some time now, and that they have overridden the original intent our forefathers engineered for both themselves and their children. Some of these advances into the private citizen's rights have been made incrementally, and with the consent of an increasingly lazy, litigious, and immoral citizenry, but there are certain infringements which have blatantly crossed the boundaries delineating government by the people, instead becoming government over the people. One such example involves the creation of indiscernible laws, which intrude on areas of the public's life in ways which most lack the intellectual capacity to understand, because the legislation exceeds any readable size. The second example comprises such an insidious perversion of laws that it strips our citizens of any serious rights, instead favoring subjective interpretations. The third example, in which our leaders display a pattern of 1) refusing to enforce laws protecting the autonomy of states, 2) refusing to properly patrol our borders or deport dangerous illegal immigrants, 3) refusing to enforce laws because certain races flout them more frequently, 4) refusing to depose those officials who publicly and intently disregard laws, 5) declaring an intent to subject the American people to international powers both foreign and hostile; and 6) subjugating the rights of the American populace to domestically situated hostile cultures, is tantamount to treason. After all, the people, having elected leaders with the intent of establishing and propagating a system of law, must necessarily be protected by that law. If that people, with its leaders having refused to enforce certain laws pertaining to sovereignty, finds itself under the authority of hostile foreign nation, it is only fair to assume that those in leadership have no intent of being public servants, and that they maintain an agenda contrary to the public good. The rebel is one who purposely and continuously discards or perverts law intended to preserve the people's rights, seeks to replace a historical people with another, and openly declares his intent to transfer authority to unaccountable international powers. It is plain to all reasonable men that the opposition of illegitimate governmental pursuits amounts to nothing less than patriotism and self-defense, so Americans must take their stand today for the protection of their God-given rights.
(“Of Rebels and Rebellions” by Jeremy Egerer dated July 23, 2011 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/of_rebels_and_rebellions.html )
It should be clear by this time that there is no medium of intellectual exchange with the left, that facts do not matter, that logic is helpless to convince or to prompt even the slightest reconsideration, and that practically every counter-argument can be turned on its head and interpreted as confirmation of the original idée fixe. This is a tendency or disposition that bespeaks the resurgence of a political romanticism wedded to motives rather than consequences, unachievable ideals rather than practical values. It consists largely of the cryogenized remnants of an antique crusade for unperturbed happiness and tranquility, actuated by a child-like desire for transcendence that is the curse of liberal political civilization, and that, in various spiritual and revolutionary forms, has caused untold harm and suffering in the past. The statists for the most part are convinced they are right in proceeding as they do despite the clear repudiation of their congenial tenets furnished by the real world. The counterfeit narrative must be maintained at all costs, its opponents and critics demonized, and every antithetical detail or circumstance reinterpreted as elements in a nefarious plot against the integrity and well-being of the innocent and at-risk. The syndrome at work is one of absolute conviction based on the transformation of objective stimuli into subjective impressions via the baleful alchemy of a private obsession. The delusion is plausible because it is rendered seamless and coherent although it has no application to things as they are. Internal consistency, however strained, replaces external correspondence. The epitome of the sealed worldview is represented by the political phenomenon of socialism, in whatever form it adopts. As has often been demonstrated, socialism, however it may be defined, has failed wherever it has been tried, from the reverberating implosion of the U.S.S.R. to the Peronism of Argentina to current European states like Greece and Spain (and others) sinking into unsustainable debt and heading toward fiscal default. The harder reality pushes, the harder the mind committed to its illusion pushes back, impenetrable and resistant. The etiology of this psychological disease is complex and not entirely understood, but it remains a compulsion that garbles and disfigures the world. There can be little doubt that committed socialists and Marxists are immune to reality and will favor policies that deform rather than advance communal benefit, turning the world into an ideological cul-de-sac in which misconceptions multiply and neighbor is set against neighbor. The left toils in the grip of a persistent fantasy that is utterly impervious to logical refutation, its adherents, all chanting together the formulae of epistemic solidarity, will not be influenced by such frivolities as objective data and sober reasoning, and it is, in short, sheer madness on a planetary scale.
(“Diagnosing the Left” by David Solway dated July 25, 2011 published by Front Page Magazine at http://frontpagemag.com/2011/07/25/diagnozing-the-left/ )
The false narrative is that the TEA Party is a bunch of stubborn nuts, if not outright racists, but in truth, the TEA Party has been right about everything, while almost everyone else has been nuts, especially the "experts." At every opportunity the current administration grew government, shrank the private sector, and viewed budding enterprises as little more than beasts of burden -- something to whip while healthy and carve up and eat when not. Nothing Democrats did helped; everything they did hurt. This jobless recovery is not some mystery. It is clearly the result of decisions -- decisions made by Obama and the Democrats:
· Minimum wage - One of the first things Democrats did after taking back Congress in 2007 was raise the federal minimum wage, and the unemployment rate rose.
· TARP. Senator Barack Obama voted for it, along with most of his Democrat colleagues and many Republicans as well. By December, after using $267 billion, Paulson said the crisis was averted, but they were not done yet. When the dust cleared, the federal government owned two bankrupt car companies and the god-awful home mortgage portfolios of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- entities that had nothing to do with the original purpose of TARP.
· Stimulus. Opposition to Obama's stimulus was the origin of the TEA Party. How the stimulus was sold: It would create three million jobs or more; it would keep the unemployment rate under 8%; the jobs wer shovel-ready; and it would cost $787 billion. Instead: There are 1.2 million fewer jobs now than when the stimulus was passed; unemployment went over 10% and is still over 9%; maybe 6% of it went to infrastructure projects; and it will cost close to $1 trillion.
· ObamaCare. ObamaCare was sold as a way to bend the health "cost curve" down, but it is bending the cost curve up costing more than it would have been without ObamaCare. It strangled the recovery in the crib.
· Drilling moratorium. Politically based under the guise of the BP oil spill the drilling moratorium and subsequent regulatory strangulation will cost 230,000 new jobs, $44B less in GDP, 150 million barrels of oil, and $15B moore in imported oil.
· Budgets. The truth is that Democrats have not even written, much less passed, a budget of any kind in over two years; they simply kill everyone else's. The Republican-led House passed a budget on schedule in April. Senate Democrats voted it down. Obama proposed a budget in February. The Congressional Budget Office scored it as having a 10-year cumulative deficit of $9.5 trillion. The Democrat-led Senate voted that down too, 97-0. The House proposed the only written plan for addressing the debt ceiling -- the Cut, Cap and Balance plan. Senate Democrats voted that down, too.
· Financial reform. The Dodd-Frank bill to regulate all finance in the country is a thousand-page-plus piece of legislation, but those pages did not include the details.
· EPA. The EPA now has power to regulate every use of fossil fuels in this country, as well as every breath we take, if they so deem. Unable to pass Cap and Trade, the EPA now regulates carbon dioxide emissions.
Meanwhile the TEA Party was hearing what the heartland is saying which was completely different than the Beltway noise. At every point, the TEA Party and its sympathizers tried to stop these idiocies, only to be called ignorant racists. It was largely due to TEA Party pressure that House leaders came up with “cut, cap and balance.” Do "Taxed Enough Already," "stop spending," and "obey the Constitution" sound that crazy to you now? If not, maybe you have finally awoken to find our country being transformed into something very different from the intent of our Founding Fathers.
(“The Tea Party, Right About Everything” by Randall Hoven dated July 25, 2011 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/the_tea_party_right_about_everything.html
“It’s Official Tea is Good for the GOP” by Robert knight dated July 26, 2011 publishing Town Hall at http://townhall.com/columnists/robertknight/2011/07/26/its_official_tea_is_good_for_the_gop )
President Obama is going to lose his bid for re-election, and not just because of the anemic recovery, stubborn unemployment, runaway spending, staggering deficits, lack of public faith in his ability as commander-in-chief, his hostility towards Israel's government, the rise of the TEA Party, or the Republican-favoring implications of redistricting on the electoral map, but there is a more fundamental reason he'll lose: Barack Obama, once perceived as extraordinary, now just seems politically boring. Obama isn't boring in the same conventional, square, policy-wonk manner of so many other politicians; he still acts cool, plays basketball, and parties with Hollywood's A-list. As a President he has become boring: he is tiresome, unpersuasive, divisive, repetitive, predictable, and cynical -- importantly, the opposite of everything advertised himself to be. Somewhere along the way, the once-soaring speeches of The Great Orator degenerated into longwinded clichés delivered in a grating, repetitive cadence. The electric smile morphed into a frequent scowl. Inspiring messages have given way to blaming everyone else for the lack of success of his policies and scolding his subjects for not "stepping up their game." His every word seems politically calculated rather than anchored by principle. He has shown little ability to electrify, motivate, persuade or unify anyone-except his political opposition. The country seems tired of him. Internationally, his tenure has been demeaning. His unique contributions to American foreign policy include "Leading from behind;" embracing a gutless philosophy of American Un-exceptionalism; serial apologizing for America; and subjecting America to well-deserved lectures on economic policy by our Communist Chinese financial overlords. It's not as if any of this has endeared America to the world; from the Thames to Tel Aviv to Taiwan to Turkey, alliances are frayed. Political cynicism may be expedient, but seeing it repeatedly is boring. Being in favor of tax increases during a recession, before being against them, before being for them again is boring. Advocating breathtaking spending increases as economic "stimulus" and then blaming others for the resulting ballooning deficits is boring. Constant posturing is boring. Constant excuses are boring. What is surprising is that Obama's entire election was based on his uniquely un-boring image and ability to excite, motivate and inspire: young. hip, black, fresh, cool, confident, different, above-the-fray. Something happened since the campaign; time passed; reality intruded; the magic faded; the promise was broken; and we got to know the real him. As President, Obama is prickly and thin-skinned; he is preachy and condescending; he is self-absorbed, self-pitying, self-absolving, self-crediting, and self-aggrandizing. Watching him is more depressing than uplifting. He is exactly what he promised not to be: just like any other ordinary, boring politician. When a messianic figure is revealed to be all too ordinary, it is impossible for even the best political consultants to restore the original image. The curtain has been pulled back on Obama, and we see that he is no wizard, so it will be difficult to get out the vote this time around for someone as ordinary, as boring, as Barack Obama.
(“Obama the Bore” by Abraham Katsman dated July 26, 2011 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/obama_the_bore.html )
It’s not the default that strikes the most fear in the White House and Congress these days; it’s the downgrade, but what really haunts the administration is the very real prospect, stoked two weeks ago by Standard & Poor’s, that Barack Obama could go down in history as the President who presided over his country’s loss of its gold-plated, triple-A bond rating. A credit rating reflects an extensive analysis of how well a particular entity, in this case the federal government of the United States, can service its underlying loans. Obama could win and lose at the same time, striking a deal to avoid default but failing to pass muster on the substance of that deal with credit agencies, which could go ahead and downgrade the rating anyway. Financial analysts say such a move would hit Americans with more than $100 billion a year in higher borrowing costs, but it’s not just that because it would give the President’s Republican rivals a ready-made line of attack that he’s dragging the country in the wrong direction. Back in April, long before the debt ceiling debate reached the fevered pitch it has currently assumed, one of those ratings agencies, Standard & Poor’s, lowered the nation’s outlook regarding its long-term credit rating from “stable” to “negative.” That change was essentially a warning that if America did not get its debt under control, there was a one-in-three chance that S&P would lower the AAA rating over the next two years. A scant three months later, S&P had upped the ante to a fifty-fifty chance over the ensuing three months, and possibly as early as August. The principal impetus for such a downgrade would be a deal whereby the U.S. raises the debt ceiling, but does not have an enforceable agreement to address ongoing deficits. Without such an agreement, interest rates would skyrocket on credit cards, on mortgages and on car loans, which amounts to a huge tax hike on the American people. The bigger impact will be a deep economic crisis - this one caused almost entirely by Washington. Bank analysts predict the odds of a default as close to zero, but warned that a downgrade is a growing possibility. A single downgrade might have limited market impact, but a move by all three main ratings agencies, Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s Investor Service and Fitch Ratings, would likely force huge investment funds that must hold only the safest of bonds to sell en masse.
(“It’s not the default, it’s the downgrade” by Carrie Budoff Brown and Ben White dated July 27, 2011 published by Politico at http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59997.html
“A Looming Downgrade” by Arnold Ahlert dated July 27, 2011 published by Front Page Magazine at http://frontpagemag.com/2011/07/27/a-looming-downgrade/ )
When liberals call for tax increases they mean increasing tax rates or instituting new taxes, but all liberals really want is more government revenue so they can spend more. The confusion about the relationship between tax rates and revenues comes from the fact that liberals and the media assume that increasing tax rates and/or establishing new taxes will increase government revenue. Theoretically there are two ways to increase revenue: rates can be increased or the tax base, the amount of money that gets taxed, can increase. Common sense, and past history, shows that increasing tax rates can cause people to not invest and even Obama, in August 2009, said it was bad economics to raise taxes in a recession. When people aren't spending, increasing their taxes will just cause them to spend less and worsen the overall economy. Worsening the economy shrinks the tax base and hence can result in lower revenues, even if the tax rates have been increased. While increasing rates on the 51% of Americans who pay federal income taxes helps no one other than the government, growing the economy and increasing the tax base provides new wealth for all Americans. Raising taxes on the 49% of Americans who don't currently pay taxes might raise revenue but at a huge expense to the economy. The majority of those who don't pay taxes don't have large amounts of disposable income. Increasing their tax rates would force them to reduce spending and hurt the economy. While in the interest of fairness it may be good to ensure that all working Americans pay taxes now is not the time to add that drag to the economic equation. Capitalism works because human beings are willing to work hard if they can in return get rewarded. Increasing the tax burden beyond some point reduces the reward to the point that a lot of people won't put in that extra effort because the reward is just not worth it t them. Why then do liberals keep calling for increasing the tax rates rather than trying to grow the tax base? The answer is that a concise economic definition of a liberal is one who wishes to be philanthropic with other people's money. Following the liberal prescription of increasing tax rates has never helped an economy recover, therefore it's necessary to reframe the debate. The first question is: does the government need more revenues or should it be able to execute its constitutional functions with the money it currently receives? After resolving that issue, if it is determined that the government does need more revenue, perhaps just to pay off the debt if nothing else, the question must be cast as how government revenues can be increased, not whether or not tax rates should increase. Many Americans who support a tax increase are really saying that they support more government revenue, but once they're given another, far more palatable option, for increasing government revenue such as growing the economy and growing the tax base, they'll stop calling for tax increases.
(“Raising Taxes Not Revenue” by Tom Trinko dated July 23, 2011 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/raising_taxes_not_revenue.html )
Washington Democrats call themselves "pro-choice," as long as “choice" means abortion because that is where the Democrats' passion for choice starts and stops and anywhere else, Democrats sabotage a woman's right to choose. Instead, they demand to make that choice for her, as they do for men. I support a woman's right to choose whether or not to use a traditional Thomas Alva Edison incandescent bulb - Democrats disagree. I support a woman's right to choose whether or not to use Avastin - Obama's Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee disagrees even though a key side effect of metastatic breast cancer is death as 40,000 women discover annually. I support a woman's right to choose whether or not to buy health insurance under ObamaCare - Congressional Democrats disagree to compel women (and men) to participate in ObamaCare. I support a woman's right to choose to send her child to an alternative school that accepts educational vouchers - Washington Democrats disagree. I support a woman's right to choose Internet gambling as a pastime - Obama's Justice Department disagrees. If a woman chooses to kill the young American in her womb, nearly every Democrat in Washington, D.C. will fight for her, but if a woman desires almost any other choice, Democrats impersonate the Great Wall of China.
(“Abortion, Yes – Other Choices? Forget It!” by Deroy Murdock dated July 22, 2011 published by News Max at http://www.newsmax.com/Murdock/abortionrights/2011/07/22/id/404546 )
* There is so much published each week that unless you search for it, you will miss important breaking news. I try to package the best of this information into my “Views on the News” each Saturday morning. Updates have been made this week to the following issue sections:
· Elections at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/dp/elections.php
· Environment at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/dp/environment.php