Thursday, November 25, 2010
Michigan Rep. Conyers Reads Playboy on DC Flight
The voters of Michigan's 14th District have really found themselves a quality Congressman in Democrat John Conyers. A passenger sitting in the same row as Conyers on a flight to Washington, DC last summer took video of him apparently unabashedly flipping through a Playboy magazine. Way to go Michigan 14th, you've obviously elected a man of true character and integrity. Pelosi's "drain the swamp" campaign apparently missed this particular gem.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Labor Unions Want Your Retirement Account
As if things couldn't get any more unbelievable out there, a key union ally of Obama proposes creating mandatory public pensions for all workers and forcing existing 401K and IRA funds into them. From WorldNetDaily:
A key labor union ally of the Obama administration has mounted an effort to create government-mandated worker retirement accounts as an entitlement program, with the possibility that a portion of all private retirement funds could be forced into U.S. Treasury debt.I really hope that Obama doesn't go along with what basically amounts to the theft of Americans' retirement savings. I'm sure that this proposal will be rationalized with declarations of "it's for your own good" and "workers have an unalienable right to a retirement account". At one point I would have considered something like this unthinkable, but with the federal government growing increasingly tyrannical and literally drowning in debt, it is just too convenient and tempting of a way to finance future spending binges.
Branding the program "Retirement USA," the Service Employee International Union, or SEIU, has joined with the AFL-CIO, the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington-based economic left-leaning think tank that receives substantial labor funding and two other left-leaning interest groups, the Pension Rights Center and the National Committee to Preserve Social Security.
Retirement USA promotes the concept that all workers in the U.S. have a right to a government account that would fund a secure retirement in addition to Social Security and private workplace programs such as the 401(k).
"Our goal is to involve all workers and all employees in a government-mandated retirement program, with the government putting up the difference for lower-paid employees," Nancy Hwa, a spokewoman for the participating Pension Rights Center, told WND.
Retirement USA would require by law employers and employees to contribute to a retirement account for every employee and demand that a portion of that contribution go into a federal-government-created annuity that would be funded by purchasing Treasury debt.
"Retirement USA is basically an effort that amounts to nationalizing 401(k)s and IRAs," David John, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation told WND.
This proposal demonstrates that the SEIU and AFL-CIO (both heavy Obama supporters) are utterly evil. That they would even consider forcing a scheme like this on us is almost beyond belief. Such are the times we live in, and such is the "quality" of leadership under which we suffer.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Liberal Jack Cafferty: Nancy Pelosi is a "horrible woman"
Wow, you know it has to be bad when even liberals are noticing the breathtaking corruption and arrogance of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Nothing further needs to be said about the great video below the fold.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Chavez the Fool Strikes Again
Hugo Chavez is a fool, and an arrogant one at that. Foolishness and arrogance seem to go together, do they not? The AP reported Monday that Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez shut down stores this week that raised their prices following the government's recent currency devaluation. According to the AP, "authorities began inspecting retailers a day after President Hugo Chavez threatened to temporarily close or take over businesses that raise prices as a result of the devaluation he announced Friday. Chavez said he is determined to curb inflation — even if it means deploying the military to prevent price hikes." 1 Though Mr. Chavez seems to think much of himself, he obviously knows nothing about economics - and his nation is paying the price. You cannot devalue a currency and expect prices to stay the same. Money is a commodity like anything else, therefore it's value to everything else is relative. If the purchasing power of money is devalued, that means it purchases less than it did before. And if it purchases less than it did before, that means it takes more money to purchase goods and services. In other words, prices have to go up. If they don't, businesses can't make a profit and stay in business.
Chavez may intend for his heavy-handed measures to make goods and services more affordable for the poor, but the end result is going to be scarcity. If retailers can't sell and make a profit, they will choose not to sell at all.
With policies like these, Chavez is doing extreme damage to his nation's economic future by making it astronomically risky to start a business. Think about it: would you want to invest tens or hundreds of thousands of your hard earned cash knowing the government might choose to regulate your pricing, shut your business down, or confiscate it altogether? Most people wouldn't. It will takes years of sound economic policy to repair the perception that Venezuela is a risky place to do business, and in the meantime the citizens of the nation will suffer.
References
1. Venezuela shutters stores in price-hike crackdown. (January 9, 2010). Retrieved January 9, 2010, from http://www.dailyfinance.com/article/venezuela-shutters-stores-in-price-hike/
Thursday, December 31, 2009
The Treaty of Tripoli Provides No Support for Secularist Argument
Misguided as he is most of the time, Ed Brayton over at Scienceblogs is a pretty bright guy. But I'm amazed that he and so many others still refer to the Treaty of Tripoli as support for the position that the United States was founded within a secular framework. Most Americans probably have never even heard of the Treaty of Tripoli, yet a short quote from the document taken completely out of context is often presented as a major component of the argument for a secular Founding. The phrase in question is as follows, from Article 11 of the treaty: Note that there is no period after the word "religion", only a semicolon. This means that the thought expressed by the article continues beyond the oft-quoted opening statement. To properly understand the complete intended meaning of the drafter, the entire article must be taken as a whole. The most important phrase, in my opinion, and the one that most colors the meaning of the article as a whole, is the one that concludes the article: This phrase indicates that Article 11 was not making a declaration that America's government was not rooted in a Christian worldview. Why would the representatives of Tripoli even care about that? I would think that the details about the philosophical underpinnings of the American government would be irrelevant in a peace treaty, particularly if the treaty was with a nation with a vastly different philosophical worldview. Why highlight your differences when you're trying to make peace, right? The key phrase is "pretext arising from religious opinions". This refers to conflicts deriving from differing religious views. In other words, by signing, the parties to the treaty are agreeing not to start any holy wars. And why would the issue of "religious opinions" need to even be raised in a peace treaty with a Muslim nation? Because it was well-understood that the United States was a predominantly Christian nation, meaning that the vast majority of citizens held to a Christian worldview. This is not to say that the United States was a Christian theocracy as many Muslim nations are theocracies, only that the United States was heavily influenced by a Judeo-Christian worldview. If that was the case, it is pretty safe to say that a Christian worldview heavily influenced the framing of America's system of government. And why would it be any other way considering the Founders came from heavily Christianized Europe? The bottom line is that the Treaty of Tripoli provides zero support for the position that America was founded within a strictly secular framework. Secularists would be better off to drop the argument altogether. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;
Hopefully that didn't read like a complete sentence, because it wasn't one. And using it like one is disingenuous at best (or just ignorant), lying by omission at worst. If taken as a complete sentence, it certainly gives the impression that the treaty is declaring that Christianity, in no shape or form, had any influence on the Founding of our nation. However, let's look at the whole article for the context, which is important: Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
. . . no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Senators Display Their Constitutional Ignorance on the Health Care Issue
Democrats have demonstrated that they have no reservations whatsoever about trampling underfoot the Constitution in their quest to implement some form of national health care system. One of the most disturbing provisions in the health care bill working through the Senate is the requirement that all Americans purchase health insurance or potentially face fines and jail time. CNSNews asked several Democratic Senators to identify the part of the Constitution that gives them the authority to make this mandate. The following were some of the responses, as reported by CNSNews:
Senator Reed (D-Rhode Island) responded as follows:Let me see, I would have to check the specific sections, so I'll have to get back to you on the specific section. But it is not unusual that the Congress has required individuals to do things, like sign up for the draft and do many other things too, which I don't think are explicitly contained [in the Constitution]. It gives Congress a right to raise an army, but it doesn't say you can take people and draft them. But since that was something necessary for the functioning of the government over the past several years, the practice on the books, it's been recognized, the authority to do that.
Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-Arkansas) apparently believes that "Congress has the authority to force individual Americans to buy health insurance because the U.S. Constitution 'charges Congress with the health and well-being of the people.'"
Senator Mary Landrieu (D-Louisiana) deferred to the lawyers when questioned:“Well, we’re very lucky as members of the Senate to have constitutional lawyers on our staff, so I’ll let them answer that."
The scariest thing about this is that it doesn't seem to have ever occurred to these Senators to question whether they have the constitutional authority to mandate purchasing health insurance. We are truly in trouble if constitutionality is the farthest thing in the minds of our congressional leadership when deliberating legislation. The truth is that Congress has no right or authority whatsoever to require that we purchase health insurance. The proper role of government, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, is to secure our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property (rendered "pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration). Instead of securing our rights, this mandate plunders and violates them. If we aren't allowed the liberty to make financial and health decisions on our own without government interference, how can we possibly say we are free? The proper role of government is to protect and defend our unalienable rights, not attempt to be our caretaker.
“But what I will say is that most certainly it is within Congress’ jurisdiction to come up with a way to have a health insurance funded with shared responsibility, is the way I like to, you know--government has a responsibility, individuals have a responsibility and business has a responsibility."
If there is one good thing to result from the liberal takeover of our federal government a year ago, it's that Americans can now see what liberal governance looks like. I believe that the more the radical, left wing leadership in Congress and the White House push authoritarian, nanny-state policies, the more they seal their fate in the 2010 elections.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Democrats Accuse Joe Wilson of Being Motivated by Racism
Talk radio host Mark Levin has said that liberals are obsessed with two things: sex and race. I couldn't agree more. Liberals are always obsessing about sex, whether it is pushing the limits of decency in public and the media, agitating for more sex education at younger ages, or conjuring up new rights based on sexual behaviors and preferences. The other liberal obsession, race, reared it's ugly and well-worn head once again today thanks in part to the perennially ridiculous Jimmy Carter, who claimed that "racial politics played a role in South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst during President Obama's speech to Congress last week and in some of the opposition the president has faced since taking office". Carter commented as follows to NBC News:"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American . . . I live in the South, and I've seen the South come a long way, and I've seen the rest of the country that shares the South's attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African-Americans."
Carter continued with the following:
"That racism inclination still exists, and I think it's bubbled up to the surface because of belief among many white people -- not just in the South but around the country -- that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. It's an abominable circumstance, and it grieves me and concerns me very deeply.""I think it's based on racism. There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president . . . The president is not only the head of government, he is the head of state. And no matter who he is or how much we disagree with his policies, the president should be treated with respect."
As disgraceful as these comments are, even more ridiculous were comments made by Representative Hank Johnson, a Democrat from Georgia, regarding Rep. Joe Wilson. The following is from FOX News:Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst last week drew new recriminations from his colleagues Tuesday, with a member of the Congressional Black Caucus suggesting that a failure to rebuke the South Carolina Republican would be tantamount to supporting the most blatant form of organized racism in American history.
Liberals absolutely cannot let the issue of race go. Will there ever come a day when the scourge of slavery and institutionalized discrimination will be buried forever, never to be dredged up? Or is the charge of racism just far too tempting a way for liberals to demonize their opponents? The comments by Carter and Rep. Johnson are absolutely disgraceful and inexcusable. We will never be free from the legacy of racism as long we tolerate irresponsible race-baiters that continue to saddle our society with guilt for the sins of the past.
Making an obvious reference to the Ku Klux Klan, Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., said Tuesday that people will be putting on "white hoods and white uniforms again and riding through the countryside" if emerging racist attitudes, which he says were subtly supported by Wilson, are not rebuked. He said Wilson must be disciplined as an example.
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://kitconet.com/images/quotes_special.gif)
