Today I took a walk down the Falls Road in West Belfast, Northern Ireland. I have often dreamt of doing such since I was young; I'd always romanticized about the brave Irish Republicans that fought for their freedom the same as did the American colonists in the late 1700s. However, as I looked on at the many murals spotting the walls, I noticed a key element which never existed in the American Revolution: an admiration for Socialism.
I not only saw paintings of Che and others of his ilk, but I saw many words congratulating Socialist leaders and demeaning the US. What the artists of these murals must forget is that the US was one of the few countries that took in their poor and starving during the Great Famine, that the US was one of the few countries where the Irish had rights, and that the US was one of the few countries that supplied the Irish Republicans with arms when they went to fight for freedom.
While I don't condone the use of violence, I certainly despise Socialism much more. And that the Irish Republicans advertise Socialism as a great system shows only their ignorance to the real fact that Socialism has NEVER prevailed in any culture or any state. Nearly all of the old communes fell into disrepair within a few generations and it has been made embarrasingly obvious that Socialism can only work when people are forced to adopt it. Much has been said about the US's 'illegal war' in Iraq which was meant to force democracy upon the Iraqis, yet folks never realize that Socialism does the exact same thing. No one will ever accept Socialism peacefully unless he thinks he has nothing more to lose. This is why Socialism only becomes prevalent in societies where the people are already subdued by poverty, hunger or fear.
As I continue my studies here in Belfast, I intend to legitimize the Republican struggle, however, I will also prove that Socialism is not an inherent part of that ideology and that if the Irish ever hope to achieve a united and free country, they should look not to Cuba or Palestine, but to the US.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Sunday, August 30, 2009
A Bad Choice
Having been a victim of the American education system, I know full well the failures of such a system. Not only are schools lacking in good teachers, but the curriculum is lacking even a basic semblance to important subject matter.
Schools no longer put enough emphasis on reading, writing and arithmetic. Instead they are busy teaching home economics, computer skills and child development. Not much is ever asked of students. American students spend less time in the classroom than students in almost any other industrialized nation. Students are not comprehensively tested and are rarely even expected to conduct intense research. What is more, nearly no significance is placed on the art of penmanship or on memorization of poems, speeches, etc. The singular most important concept which schools implement is that of the required reading list.
The required reading list is often a list of books which students are expected to read each year. Oftentimes, students are tested on the content of their readings and receive credit for having completed their lists. The books on this list vary, but usually include To Kill a Mockingbird, Moby Dick, The Scarlet Letter, and a number of more current books more intended for certain age groups. Now, however, a number of schools (most recently in Georgia) are trying to renovate these lists, allowing students to read whichever books they choose as long as that number adds up the the number of books required for that year. This leads students to find books which they find interesting and complete their lists with relative ease.
Such a system clearly illustrates the lack of responsibility or academic expectations which we place on students. As students obtain a choice in their readings, they begin choosing new and 'exciting' books which don't share the stuffy and intellectual subjects which infiltrate the classics. Teachers and parents tout that a choice system will get students to read. This is true, but what will they gain from their readings?
It's no secret that today's literature lacks the creativity, the elegance, the genius and the significance of the classics. Instead they are often flat, static and full of characters that are worse actors than those playing in soap operas and Twilight movies. The classics: Hemingway, Dumas, Hugo, Rand, Capote, Dickens, Machiavelli, de Tocqueville, Montesquieu, Locke, Hobbes, Augustine, Cicero, Aquinas, etc., they teach their readers more than just what's written, they teach their students how to analyze and interpret complex subjects such as futility, loss, jealousy, justice, equality, love and will. They teach their readers to look between the lines and associate deeply and spiritually with the characters, characters which embody and personify ethereal and dynamic existence. They teach their readers to enjoy and respect a good plot and experience the emotions which radiate from the ink. To my knowledge few such books have been written in the last 20-30 years.
It is certainly imperative that students read, however, it is more imperative that students draw something from what they read and come away with new and better ideas. It is the ideas within books that matter, not the fact that they contain words. So, to allow students to read whatever books they want is to allow them to bypass and reject the ideas which this great country was founded on. Instead of pondering the thoughts which the classics conjure, students will instead be exposed to base and trivial subjects as teenage vampire love. If America is to proceed with damning our students to lives of relative intellectual poverty and ignorance, then perhaps we should just throw in the towel.
Schools no longer put enough emphasis on reading, writing and arithmetic. Instead they are busy teaching home economics, computer skills and child development. Not much is ever asked of students. American students spend less time in the classroom than students in almost any other industrialized nation. Students are not comprehensively tested and are rarely even expected to conduct intense research. What is more, nearly no significance is placed on the art of penmanship or on memorization of poems, speeches, etc. The singular most important concept which schools implement is that of the required reading list.
The required reading list is often a list of books which students are expected to read each year. Oftentimes, students are tested on the content of their readings and receive credit for having completed their lists. The books on this list vary, but usually include To Kill a Mockingbird, Moby Dick, The Scarlet Letter, and a number of more current books more intended for certain age groups. Now, however, a number of schools (most recently in Georgia) are trying to renovate these lists, allowing students to read whichever books they choose as long as that number adds up the the number of books required for that year. This leads students to find books which they find interesting and complete their lists with relative ease.
Such a system clearly illustrates the lack of responsibility or academic expectations which we place on students. As students obtain a choice in their readings, they begin choosing new and 'exciting' books which don't share the stuffy and intellectual subjects which infiltrate the classics. Teachers and parents tout that a choice system will get students to read. This is true, but what will they gain from their readings?
It's no secret that today's literature lacks the creativity, the elegance, the genius and the significance of the classics. Instead they are often flat, static and full of characters that are worse actors than those playing in soap operas and Twilight movies. The classics: Hemingway, Dumas, Hugo, Rand, Capote, Dickens, Machiavelli, de Tocqueville, Montesquieu, Locke, Hobbes, Augustine, Cicero, Aquinas, etc., they teach their readers more than just what's written, they teach their students how to analyze and interpret complex subjects such as futility, loss, jealousy, justice, equality, love and will. They teach their readers to look between the lines and associate deeply and spiritually with the characters, characters which embody and personify ethereal and dynamic existence. They teach their readers to enjoy and respect a good plot and experience the emotions which radiate from the ink. To my knowledge few such books have been written in the last 20-30 years.
It is certainly imperative that students read, however, it is more imperative that students draw something from what they read and come away with new and better ideas. It is the ideas within books that matter, not the fact that they contain words. So, to allow students to read whatever books they want is to allow them to bypass and reject the ideas which this great country was founded on. Instead of pondering the thoughts which the classics conjure, students will instead be exposed to base and trivial subjects as teenage vampire love. If America is to proceed with damning our students to lives of relative intellectual poverty and ignorance, then perhaps we should just throw in the towel.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Obama Finally makes a Good Decision
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/aug/20/lockerbie-bomber-release-libya-obama
It took him almost 7 months, but Obama finally has made a good decision! The Lockerbie Bomber, who bombed a Pan Am flight in 1988 over Lockerbie, Scotland, was just released from prison by UK authorities on grounds that he is terminally ill and will die soon from cancer. Rightfully so, however, Mr. Obama reacted to this release with bitterness. Kudos to him!
This man, Abdel Megrahi, killed nearly 300 people on that flight and he deserves to suffer the most foul death. How is it that a convicted murderer should be spared from his necessary fate simply because he is diagnosed as ill? I perceive that it may have something to do with Britain's recent affinity with Islam.
In this case, Megrahi should suffer a cruel and unusual fate, that of being hanged, drawn and quatered. For those of you who don't know what that is, watch the ending scene of BraveHeart. These Muslim extremists are not human, they are monsters. They want only to kill and destroy and therefore they lack all humanity and the inherent rights of said beings. The only thing good enough for such monsters is a painful and drawn out death.
It took him almost 7 months, but Obama finally has made a good decision! The Lockerbie Bomber, who bombed a Pan Am flight in 1988 over Lockerbie, Scotland, was just released from prison by UK authorities on grounds that he is terminally ill and will die soon from cancer. Rightfully so, however, Mr. Obama reacted to this release with bitterness. Kudos to him!
This man, Abdel Megrahi, killed nearly 300 people on that flight and he deserves to suffer the most foul death. How is it that a convicted murderer should be spared from his necessary fate simply because he is diagnosed as ill? I perceive that it may have something to do with Britain's recent affinity with Islam.
In this case, Megrahi should suffer a cruel and unusual fate, that of being hanged, drawn and quatered. For those of you who don't know what that is, watch the ending scene of BraveHeart. These Muslim extremists are not human, they are monsters. They want only to kill and destroy and therefore they lack all humanity and the inherent rights of said beings. The only thing good enough for such monsters is a painful and drawn out death.
You Can't Win Them All
I saw the look of disappointment in Mr Robert Harper's (Porter Co. Commisioner) eyes today...the look of defeat. It's a look that everyone portrays from time to time. It's a terrible look and an even more terrible feeling for the one who is defeated. Yet, sometimes defeat is not so clearly defined, and in many cases may prove to be a victory to a man's conscience.
Harper's defeat came at the Full Commission Meeting this morning at the Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission in Portage. For nearly 3 hours, politicians and board members perused the agenda, voting on new amendments and listening to presentations. However, it was the Valpo Dash vote about half way through the meeting which really brought the excitement.
Supported by Valpo mayor, Mr Costas, an act was laid on the table to provide procurement for the expansion of the Valpo Dash program which operates Valpo-Chicago buses for those not wanting to drive or take the So. Shore. The money had already been appropriated and the FTA had found the project sustainable, however, Mr Harper and Portage Mayor Velasquez had their objections.
Harper gave a riveting speech on his views and pointed out that the Dash simply did not have the numbers. What's more, as a proposed vote for the creation of the RTA is becoming a possibility, Harper admitted that many other cities and town will soon want money for such bus programs as well. The RTA proposal already includes a provision for taxing power and no doubt taxes would have to be levied in order to provide the subsidies for such bus programs.
Costas fired back that the money had already been set aside...it would be lost if the program was not supported. Also, many folks are in need of this service and Costas figured that in a few years the number of riders would rise significantly. Needless to say, Costas won the day with nearly 70% of the votes (weigthed of course in order to provide a wider margin of victory). Yet, I think it was Harper that walked away with a little bit of personal satisfaction that he did what was right.
Publicly supported transit programs are a waste of money. Sure, they help to alleviate the burden of pollution on the environment and they get more people into less vehicles. However, they are also a huge burden on tax-payers. With trains and buses being subsidized by the government (whether it be state, local, or federal) tax-payers are paying for such services to be made available. Yet, whenever a tax-payer wishes to use such a service, they also have to pay for fare: they're being double-charged. What is more, since not many tax-payers use such systems (especially this Valpo Dash bus system), the capital of the many is allocated to the few, those who do use the system. In Valpo, the buses (2 of them) carry approximately 30 people daily. That is hardly a majority or even a large minority. And since there is so little demand, and so little income from the fares, the Dash program is heavily subsidized by tax-payer funds.
Costas today won the vote which allows for the procurement of 4 new buses using $2.2 million, 80% from the FTA and 20% from the City of Valpo.
I find a problem with this. The government was not created to provide public transportation. Instead, if demand is high, private entrpreneurs will certainly open up shop and will provide more efficient services at little to no cost to the public. Yet, the commission today decided that the tax payers (both on a federal and local level) should be compelled to provide for the .1% of folks who use the Dash. What is more, those folks who use the Dash will not only pay the taxes, but will also have to pay the fare. This is far from efficient. This is far from fair. And this service is far from necessary in the Valpo area.
Besides my doubts on the importance of this program, I had to agree with Costas at the end of the day because the appropriation for the program had already been voted on and approved twice. Today's vote was just for procurement as the program had already been verified by the correct agencies. If the procurement had been lost today, then all of the money allocated to the program would also have been lost and tax-payers would have lost anyway. It was a catch-22.
The supporters of the program beamed with happiness, yet as I glance at Mr Harper, I noticed that he left with a certain air of respectibility and candor which is rarely seen in politicians today. He may have been defeated when it came to the vote, but he stood up for the rights of his constituents. He spoke his piece and he deferred agreement to the commission. And when his position was defeated, he gracefully accepted the outcome. Today, Mr Harper lost the vote. But because he pursued truth and justice, instead of a personal agenda, it is Mr Harper who truly won.
Harper's defeat came at the Full Commission Meeting this morning at the Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission in Portage. For nearly 3 hours, politicians and board members perused the agenda, voting on new amendments and listening to presentations. However, it was the Valpo Dash vote about half way through the meeting which really brought the excitement.
Supported by Valpo mayor, Mr Costas, an act was laid on the table to provide procurement for the expansion of the Valpo Dash program which operates Valpo-Chicago buses for those not wanting to drive or take the So. Shore. The money had already been appropriated and the FTA had found the project sustainable, however, Mr Harper and Portage Mayor Velasquez had their objections.
Harper gave a riveting speech on his views and pointed out that the Dash simply did not have the numbers. What's more, as a proposed vote for the creation of the RTA is becoming a possibility, Harper admitted that many other cities and town will soon want money for such bus programs as well. The RTA proposal already includes a provision for taxing power and no doubt taxes would have to be levied in order to provide the subsidies for such bus programs.
Costas fired back that the money had already been set aside...it would be lost if the program was not supported. Also, many folks are in need of this service and Costas figured that in a few years the number of riders would rise significantly. Needless to say, Costas won the day with nearly 70% of the votes (weigthed of course in order to provide a wider margin of victory). Yet, I think it was Harper that walked away with a little bit of personal satisfaction that he did what was right.
Publicly supported transit programs are a waste of money. Sure, they help to alleviate the burden of pollution on the environment and they get more people into less vehicles. However, they are also a huge burden on tax-payers. With trains and buses being subsidized by the government (whether it be state, local, or federal) tax-payers are paying for such services to be made available. Yet, whenever a tax-payer wishes to use such a service, they also have to pay for fare: they're being double-charged. What is more, since not many tax-payers use such systems (especially this Valpo Dash bus system), the capital of the many is allocated to the few, those who do use the system. In Valpo, the buses (2 of them) carry approximately 30 people daily. That is hardly a majority or even a large minority. And since there is so little demand, and so little income from the fares, the Dash program is heavily subsidized by tax-payer funds.
Costas today won the vote which allows for the procurement of 4 new buses using $2.2 million, 80% from the FTA and 20% from the City of Valpo.
I find a problem with this. The government was not created to provide public transportation. Instead, if demand is high, private entrpreneurs will certainly open up shop and will provide more efficient services at little to no cost to the public. Yet, the commission today decided that the tax payers (both on a federal and local level) should be compelled to provide for the .1% of folks who use the Dash. What is more, those folks who use the Dash will not only pay the taxes, but will also have to pay the fare. This is far from efficient. This is far from fair. And this service is far from necessary in the Valpo area.
Besides my doubts on the importance of this program, I had to agree with Costas at the end of the day because the appropriation for the program had already been voted on and approved twice. Today's vote was just for procurement as the program had already been verified by the correct agencies. If the procurement had been lost today, then all of the money allocated to the program would also have been lost and tax-payers would have lost anyway. It was a catch-22.
The supporters of the program beamed with happiness, yet as I glance at Mr Harper, I noticed that he left with a certain air of respectibility and candor which is rarely seen in politicians today. He may have been defeated when it came to the vote, but he stood up for the rights of his constituents. He spoke his piece and he deferred agreement to the commission. And when his position was defeated, he gracefully accepted the outcome. Today, Mr Harper lost the vote. But because he pursued truth and justice, instead of a personal agenda, it is Mr Harper who truly won.
The Road Less Travelled
Health care reform is needed, however it should build on what we currently have. WE have THE BEST health care in the world considering our technological advances and the quality of our doctors and nurses. A Socialized medicine plan or a public option will only decrease the quality of our health care: waiting times will increase on a large scale, some procedures will be denied, doctors and nurses will have less incentive to work, etc. This is what happens in all countries that develop such a public plan.
The government is inefficient when it toils in the market. Our government, the one established by our Founding Fathers, was meant to do only 3 things: provide a standing army to defend us and our national interest, provide a police force to protect our persons and property, and to provide courts of law to solve public and private disputes between citizens and other entities. Providing socialized health care, or a public health plan, was never even remotely mentioned by any of our Founders and such had never been found to have been mentioned by any philosophers or political scientists of that time either.
I'll be the first to admit that our health care costs too much and that insurance companies seem to be parasitical in their practice, however, there are more and better ways to go about reforming health care than destroying what our Founders created. The first thing would be to open up our borders to increased pharmaceutical trade. This would allow foreign countries to sell us more prescription drugs as lower costs, thus driving American companies to lower their costs as well. Good competition equals better quality and lower prices. On that same note, Congress should also legislate that citizens would be allowed to purchase insurance from across state lines. Currently, one cannot purchase insurance from another state, and thus there is no competition outside of each individual state. By opening the states up, insurance companies will have to compete in order to stay in business, thus driving down premiums. Also, the government should make it easier for individuals who are not working, or choose not to be on their employers insurance, to be able to shop around for the insurance of their choice. A tax rebate would do just that. Each year the IRS would rebate tax payers choosing to find their own insurance with a set amount of money for individuals and families.
This plan has been championed by both John McCain and Jim DeMint. In fact, DeMint introduced a similar plan in the Senate earlier this year. Why Congress is not taking it up, that's anyone's guess.
The fact is that 4/5 of the supposed 50 million uninsured are illegal immigrants, persons already convered by Medicare and Medicaid, persons making 75k or more a year, and persons who are between 18-26 and choose not to buy healthcare insurance. So only 10million people are uninsured (or 3.2% of the population), and thus the problem is less than what so many people are stating.
Our Founding Fathers believed heavily in the right to private property, and that includes money. And while Mr. Obama plans on taxing those making more than 250k a year in order to pay for this plan, he is thus denying them of their property in order to aid 3% of the population. The government confiscation and reallocation of capital (money and property) is Socialsim any way you cut it. I, for one, admire our Founders for their brilliance and foresight. They founded a democratic republic and not a socialist republic for a reason. And I feel entirely certain that they would not agree with Mr. Obama and the Liberals on this case, but instead would side with the Republicans that have already outlined a better and more efficient plan without the costly side effects.
The government is inefficient when it toils in the market. Our government, the one established by our Founding Fathers, was meant to do only 3 things: provide a standing army to defend us and our national interest, provide a police force to protect our persons and property, and to provide courts of law to solve public and private disputes between citizens and other entities. Providing socialized health care, or a public health plan, was never even remotely mentioned by any of our Founders and such had never been found to have been mentioned by any philosophers or political scientists of that time either.
I'll be the first to admit that our health care costs too much and that insurance companies seem to be parasitical in their practice, however, there are more and better ways to go about reforming health care than destroying what our Founders created. The first thing would be to open up our borders to increased pharmaceutical trade. This would allow foreign countries to sell us more prescription drugs as lower costs, thus driving American companies to lower their costs as well. Good competition equals better quality and lower prices. On that same note, Congress should also legislate that citizens would be allowed to purchase insurance from across state lines. Currently, one cannot purchase insurance from another state, and thus there is no competition outside of each individual state. By opening the states up, insurance companies will have to compete in order to stay in business, thus driving down premiums. Also, the government should make it easier for individuals who are not working, or choose not to be on their employers insurance, to be able to shop around for the insurance of their choice. A tax rebate would do just that. Each year the IRS would rebate tax payers choosing to find their own insurance with a set amount of money for individuals and families.
This plan has been championed by both John McCain and Jim DeMint. In fact, DeMint introduced a similar plan in the Senate earlier this year. Why Congress is not taking it up, that's anyone's guess.
The fact is that 4/5 of the supposed 50 million uninsured are illegal immigrants, persons already convered by Medicare and Medicaid, persons making 75k or more a year, and persons who are between 18-26 and choose not to buy healthcare insurance. So only 10million people are uninsured (or 3.2% of the population), and thus the problem is less than what so many people are stating.
Our Founding Fathers believed heavily in the right to private property, and that includes money. And while Mr. Obama plans on taxing those making more than 250k a year in order to pay for this plan, he is thus denying them of their property in order to aid 3% of the population. The government confiscation and reallocation of capital (money and property) is Socialsim any way you cut it. I, for one, admire our Founders for their brilliance and foresight. They founded a democratic republic and not a socialist republic for a reason. And I feel entirely certain that they would not agree with Mr. Obama and the Liberals on this case, but instead would side with the Republicans that have already outlined a better and more efficient plan without the costly side effects.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Why Valparaiso, IN has a lot to learn
Now that a few so-called racist motivated hate crimes have taken place in Valparaiso, the town has decided to put together a series of diversity seminars. This is completely beyond absurd.
Diversity programming is the singular most destructive brain-washing method used by those in power in the US. Created in order to help whites learn about blacks, which is to say, accept their culture, such programming is inherently racist. Instead of teaching Americans to take pride in our cultural heritage, we instead must accept and enjoy the fake cultural heritage of different races.
Diversity is championed by a diverse group of people: whites, blacks, Hispanics, politicians, preachers, etc. However, all such supporters are ideologues, bent on recreating America in an alternative and inequal tradition. They fail to realize that each and every person born in America is American, just as any person born in Germany is German. They also forget that persons born in the US immediately become a part of what is known as the American culture, which includes the English language, American cuisine, music and entertainment. Nowhere else in the world is such a culture thriving; that’s because America is unique in that its culture is a blending of multiple cultures rather than a coexistence of independent cultures. It would be difficult to find an American of any color who would turn down a cheeseburger, fried chicken, or pizza. What is more, it’s difficult to find any American that doesn’t speak at least basic English. And nearly all Americans take pleasure in driving gas-guzzling cars, attending church, watching movies, and wearing blue jeans and t-shirts. These are all a part of the American culture, one shared by nearly every single American, regardless of color, religion or ancestry.
Black Americans are Americans, not Africans, not African Americans (unless of course they were born in Africa). And as such there is no reason to teach the public about their culture as they share the same culture as the rest of America. Wearing traditional African clothing and collecting African artwork does not make someone of that culture; that’s why I call this “fake culture” or the nominal practicing of a culture which one was not born into.
What diversity-pushing ideologues want to produce is a society which puts no blame on black criminals, and which makes blacks more equal than any other race. Already in our schools, such a system exists. When I was in high school, I came across a pamphlet which was sponsored by the Merrillville Community School Corporation which appeared to be a faculty/staff handbook. In this book was a detailed list of certain things which faculty and staff could not punish black students for because it was a part of their culture. Such things included dancing in the aisles, sagging their pants and being loud and boisterous. To say that such things are part of the black culture is asinine and ignorant of American culture, yet the school supported such protection of black students. A number of times during my years in high school, black students were treated more leniently for crimes than white students and this was allowed since the staff didn’t want to treat them badly for fear of civil rights law suits. A sense existed that blacks had been so mistreated by America in the past that they needed more slack in order to achieve the equality which they theoretically lacked.
It is policies such as these which diversity programmers wish to implement and maintain: policies of affirmative action and decreased responsibility for the black community. And it is because of such policies that racism still exists. Sure the blacks were treated badly in the past, but they now enjoy the same freedoms as all American citizens. In fact, they have contributed greatly to the American culture and have subsequently become an important part of the American heritage. America would surely not be the great nation it is today without the hard-work and intelligence of black Americans.
I think all Americans believe in equality of the races, especially when there is only one race, American. But ethnic and racial ideologues want to emphasize the differences between races so as to destroy the American race. And through their policies they have made blacks more equal than other Americans. Black students can get into colleges with low test scores and grades even when more accomplished white students are applying for the same program. And the same occurs in the job market, as we can see by the recent case of those Connecticut firemen. It is policies such as these which have bred resent by the racial majority and have thus produce racism.
While there is much more to address in terms of the ignorance of holding of diversity seminars, what Valpo and the rest of the country needs to understand is that racism will always exist where people are exalted for their race. Until America phases out diversity programming and fires back with American Race education, racism will continue to exist here.
Diversity programming is the singular most destructive brain-washing method used by those in power in the US. Created in order to help whites learn about blacks, which is to say, accept their culture, such programming is inherently racist. Instead of teaching Americans to take pride in our cultural heritage, we instead must accept and enjoy the fake cultural heritage of different races.
Diversity is championed by a diverse group of people: whites, blacks, Hispanics, politicians, preachers, etc. However, all such supporters are ideologues, bent on recreating America in an alternative and inequal tradition. They fail to realize that each and every person born in America is American, just as any person born in Germany is German. They also forget that persons born in the US immediately become a part of what is known as the American culture, which includes the English language, American cuisine, music and entertainment. Nowhere else in the world is such a culture thriving; that’s because America is unique in that its culture is a blending of multiple cultures rather than a coexistence of independent cultures. It would be difficult to find an American of any color who would turn down a cheeseburger, fried chicken, or pizza. What is more, it’s difficult to find any American that doesn’t speak at least basic English. And nearly all Americans take pleasure in driving gas-guzzling cars, attending church, watching movies, and wearing blue jeans and t-shirts. These are all a part of the American culture, one shared by nearly every single American, regardless of color, religion or ancestry.
Black Americans are Americans, not Africans, not African Americans (unless of course they were born in Africa). And as such there is no reason to teach the public about their culture as they share the same culture as the rest of America. Wearing traditional African clothing and collecting African artwork does not make someone of that culture; that’s why I call this “fake culture” or the nominal practicing of a culture which one was not born into.
What diversity-pushing ideologues want to produce is a society which puts no blame on black criminals, and which makes blacks more equal than any other race. Already in our schools, such a system exists. When I was in high school, I came across a pamphlet which was sponsored by the Merrillville Community School Corporation which appeared to be a faculty/staff handbook. In this book was a detailed list of certain things which faculty and staff could not punish black students for because it was a part of their culture. Such things included dancing in the aisles, sagging their pants and being loud and boisterous. To say that such things are part of the black culture is asinine and ignorant of American culture, yet the school supported such protection of black students. A number of times during my years in high school, black students were treated more leniently for crimes than white students and this was allowed since the staff didn’t want to treat them badly for fear of civil rights law suits. A sense existed that blacks had been so mistreated by America in the past that they needed more slack in order to achieve the equality which they theoretically lacked.
It is policies such as these which diversity programmers wish to implement and maintain: policies of affirmative action and decreased responsibility for the black community. And it is because of such policies that racism still exists. Sure the blacks were treated badly in the past, but they now enjoy the same freedoms as all American citizens. In fact, they have contributed greatly to the American culture and have subsequently become an important part of the American heritage. America would surely not be the great nation it is today without the hard-work and intelligence of black Americans.
I think all Americans believe in equality of the races, especially when there is only one race, American. But ethnic and racial ideologues want to emphasize the differences between races so as to destroy the American race. And through their policies they have made blacks more equal than other Americans. Black students can get into colleges with low test scores and grades even when more accomplished white students are applying for the same program. And the same occurs in the job market, as we can see by the recent case of those Connecticut firemen. It is policies such as these which have bred resent by the racial majority and have thus produce racism.
While there is much more to address in terms of the ignorance of holding of diversity seminars, what Valpo and the rest of the country needs to understand is that racism will always exist where people are exalted for their race. Until America phases out diversity programming and fires back with American Race education, racism will continue to exist here.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
In the Midst of Enemies
It is really not much of a surprise that Hugo Chavez and his cronies are out to stop Colombia from aiding the US. Colombian President Uribe, who has gone to great lengths to curb the growth of terrorism and narco-trafficking, has been at odds with the New Left in Latin America since his inauguration. This mostly stems from his friendliness towards the US and capitalism. Not to mention that Uribe has made short work of the FARC guerrillas, those Marxist murderers who are well-received and even supplied by the likes of Chavez, Morales and Correa.
A reenacting of the Plan Colombia, which is already on the books, will only allow the US to provide support in counterring drug traffickers and guerrillas. However, the Leftists are up in arms because that means more US troops in the region. Well, perhaps these gentlemen have forgotten their history, but the US has, since 1823, had the right and responsibility to protect the Western Hemisphere, especially from itself. The US has no intention of invading Venezuela, Bolivia or Ecuador...these nations are simply not that important and have no impact on our national interest.
Venezuela has been stocking up on Russian arms for quite some time, and as Chavez threatened to invade Colombia last year, I think it's a great idea for Colombia to gain a little troop support in order to protect all of the successes which Uribe has achieved for the nation-state. And if Colombia doesn't want to make its plans known to anyone but the US, then so be it, that's their right. The next battle for democracy will most likely take place in Latin America as that is where all of the major world actors are currently setting up shop. It's imperative that the US keep its word and maintain its supportivve relationship with Colombia.
A reenacting of the Plan Colombia, which is already on the books, will only allow the US to provide support in counterring drug traffickers and guerrillas. However, the Leftists are up in arms because that means more US troops in the region. Well, perhaps these gentlemen have forgotten their history, but the US has, since 1823, had the right and responsibility to protect the Western Hemisphere, especially from itself. The US has no intention of invading Venezuela, Bolivia or Ecuador...these nations are simply not that important and have no impact on our national interest.
Venezuela has been stocking up on Russian arms for quite some time, and as Chavez threatened to invade Colombia last year, I think it's a great idea for Colombia to gain a little troop support in order to protect all of the successes which Uribe has achieved for the nation-state. And if Colombia doesn't want to make its plans known to anyone but the US, then so be it, that's their right. The next battle for democracy will most likely take place in Latin America as that is where all of the major world actors are currently setting up shop. It's imperative that the US keep its word and maintain its supportivve relationship with Colombia.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
How to Make Your Colleagues Not Want to Kill You
After sitting through a number of meetings in the last few weeks, I've decided to create a run-down of proper etiquette.
1.) Show up on time or not at all.
2.) Turn off ALL cellphones! No one wants to hear your damn phone!
3.) Stick to the agenda...it's not a circus, its a meeting.
4.) No shameless self-promotion. This isn't a job fair.
5.) Don't scoff when its suggested that you listen to your constituents. They pay your salary.
6.) If you don't know what you're constituents want, you should probable get off your lazy, balding, greasy, fat, over-paid ass and go to a public meeting or workshop cluster
7.) Don't get snippy with the interns. They will bite.
8.) Fake Italian boots and Blues Bros. glasses just make you look silly.
9.) There's no such thing as a dumb question, just dumb people.
10.) Don't text and play games on your cell phone all meeting until the last 10 minutes and then decide to argue about points you were paying no attention to.
11.) When you're asked to suggest ideas to be included in a plan, just do what you're told.
12.) Don't waste everyone's time with questions that have no relevance to the meeting. Do that on your own time.
13.) Never show up to a meeting looking like a fat guy in a little coat.
14.) Don't just show up for the free food. It's obvious you haven't missed any meals.
15.) Don't bring a breakfast unless you have enough for everyone, and that orange juice isn't going to negate that breakfast burrito that you just shoved down your gullet.
16.) Go home, talk to your mother, and ask her to teach you how to dress for a meeting: polo's, gym shoes, and shirts without ties are NOT acceptable...ever.
17.) Learn how to tie a tie, its not like tieing your shoes.
18.) Don't chew gum when you talk, it makes you look like a cow.
19.) Don't get up, make a controversial statement, and then leave before the shit hits the fan.
20.) Learn how to use PowerPoint. We're not in kindergarten.
21.) Don't bring your own fan club just to make you look good. It will backfire.
1.) Show up on time or not at all.
2.) Turn off ALL cellphones! No one wants to hear your damn phone!
3.) Stick to the agenda...it's not a circus, its a meeting.
4.) No shameless self-promotion. This isn't a job fair.
5.) Don't scoff when its suggested that you listen to your constituents. They pay your salary.
6.) If you don't know what you're constituents want, you should probable get off your lazy, balding, greasy, fat, over-paid ass and go to a public meeting or workshop cluster
7.) Don't get snippy with the interns. They will bite.
8.) Fake Italian boots and Blues Bros. glasses just make you look silly.
9.) There's no such thing as a dumb question, just dumb people.
10.) Don't text and play games on your cell phone all meeting until the last 10 minutes and then decide to argue about points you were paying no attention to.
11.) When you're asked to suggest ideas to be included in a plan, just do what you're told.
12.) Don't waste everyone's time with questions that have no relevance to the meeting. Do that on your own time.
13.) Never show up to a meeting looking like a fat guy in a little coat.
14.) Don't just show up for the free food. It's obvious you haven't missed any meals.
15.) Don't bring a breakfast unless you have enough for everyone, and that orange juice isn't going to negate that breakfast burrito that you just shoved down your gullet.
16.) Go home, talk to your mother, and ask her to teach you how to dress for a meeting: polo's, gym shoes, and shirts without ties are NOT acceptable...ever.
17.) Learn how to tie a tie, its not like tieing your shoes.
18.) Don't chew gum when you talk, it makes you look like a cow.
19.) Don't get up, make a controversial statement, and then leave before the shit hits the fan.
20.) Learn how to use PowerPoint. We're not in kindergarten.
21.) Don't bring your own fan club just to make you look good. It will backfire.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
On Your Behalf
In mid-March, 2 US Journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee, were captured in North Korea after crossing the border from China. The reasons for their venture into North Korea are dubious, and Kim Jong-il made sure to paint these two as spies. As such, they were both sentenced to 12 years in a hard labor camp, which is to say a death sentence.
While many official attempts were no doubt made to secure the release of these 2, such attempts were to no avail as Kim had decided to play his usual game of cat and mouse with the US. However, yesterday, August 4th, Ex-President Bill Clinton decided to do a little negotiating of his own. After a few hours of conversation and dinner with the aging dictator, Bill was given those 2 young ladies as a consolation prize. Bill then swiftly collected his entourage and sped off to the US to bring Euna and Laura home.
Two girls rescued by the dashing and smooth-talking Clinton from the grasp of the evil dictator! It truly is great that Euna and Laura are safe! However, such meddling by Clinton, is not great, in fact it greatly injures the standing of the US.
During the 1790s, the US found itself in a tight spot with France, which had devolved from a monarchy into a vicious oligarchy. The Quasi-War ensued during this period when many Americans actually shared sympathies with the French Republicans. Some of these Americans even tried negotiating with France in order to secure a truce. President John Adams quickly saw the danger in this and he put a stop to it with the passing of the Logan Act. This act, named after a Dr. Logan who tried negotiating with the French, prohibited private citizens from entering into diplomatic relations with any foreign entity.
§ 953 states:
"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects. "
This act is in complete concordance with the Constitution, which gives negotiating powers solely to the President. Justice Sutherland, in the 1936 case of US v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp, wrote: "[T]he President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it."
A nation-state must have regularity in its diplomacy. It is neither prudent, nor safe to allow private citizens to engage in international diplmoacy. By Bill Clinton travelling to North Korea, he granted legitimacy to that regime. And while he may simply have been enjoying a private visit and had no intentions of negotiating on behalf of the US, the fact that he is an ex-President makes such an act inherent in his presence. Everything which he says is on behalf of the US government whether he intends on making that so or not. Now, the integrity and strength of the real US administration is jeopardized as rogue nations all over the world realize that private citizens will grant them the legitimacy and PR boosts that they need. They don't have to negotiate with those stuffy, over-bearing and needy state depatment officials, instead they can just chat with ex-presidents and get the attention they want.
The Founding Fathers understood the inherent problems of private diplomacy and warned against it...this needs to be stopped.
While many official attempts were no doubt made to secure the release of these 2, such attempts were to no avail as Kim had decided to play his usual game of cat and mouse with the US. However, yesterday, August 4th, Ex-President Bill Clinton decided to do a little negotiating of his own. After a few hours of conversation and dinner with the aging dictator, Bill was given those 2 young ladies as a consolation prize. Bill then swiftly collected his entourage and sped off to the US to bring Euna and Laura home.
Two girls rescued by the dashing and smooth-talking Clinton from the grasp of the evil dictator! It truly is great that Euna and Laura are safe! However, such meddling by Clinton, is not great, in fact it greatly injures the standing of the US.
During the 1790s, the US found itself in a tight spot with France, which had devolved from a monarchy into a vicious oligarchy. The Quasi-War ensued during this period when many Americans actually shared sympathies with the French Republicans. Some of these Americans even tried negotiating with France in order to secure a truce. President John Adams quickly saw the danger in this and he put a stop to it with the passing of the Logan Act. This act, named after a Dr. Logan who tried negotiating with the French, prohibited private citizens from entering into diplomatic relations with any foreign entity.
§ 953 states:
"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects. "
This act is in complete concordance with the Constitution, which gives negotiating powers solely to the President. Justice Sutherland, in the 1936 case of US v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp, wrote: "[T]he President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it."
A nation-state must have regularity in its diplomacy. It is neither prudent, nor safe to allow private citizens to engage in international diplmoacy. By Bill Clinton travelling to North Korea, he granted legitimacy to that regime. And while he may simply have been enjoying a private visit and had no intentions of negotiating on behalf of the US, the fact that he is an ex-President makes such an act inherent in his presence. Everything which he says is on behalf of the US government whether he intends on making that so or not. Now, the integrity and strength of the real US administration is jeopardized as rogue nations all over the world realize that private citizens will grant them the legitimacy and PR boosts that they need. They don't have to negotiate with those stuffy, over-bearing and needy state depatment officials, instead they can just chat with ex-presidents and get the attention they want.
The Founding Fathers understood the inherent problems of private diplomacy and warned against it...this needs to be stopped.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Motor Voter Mess
In a country which has often prided itself on its tremendous and unwaning work ethic, it is odd that so many so-called Americans are today making a din because of the supposedly burdensome requests which the government makes of its citizens. While paying taxes and signing up for selective service may be debateable in some circles, it is the non-adherence to voter registration laws which have ACORN and its Marxist counterparts in a tither.
As of late, these 'community organizations'--whatever that means-- have been pushing law suits through the courts which cite certain states, namely Indiana, as being in violation of the 'Motor Voter Law." This law is a somewhat dubious and senseless contrivance which forces the BMV to ask patrons upon their journey through the bureau of wasted time and money whether they would like to register to vote or not. While this would seem a time-saving and convenient measure, this law further addresses folks who apparently don't stop by the BMV on a regular basis. Folks such as those on public assistance (Medicaid and Food Stamps) are deemed unable to stop by the BMV or any other federal installation, and thus they are treated differently in the Motor Voter Law. The law dictates that when folks sign up for food stamps or medicaid, government workers must ask them if they wish to register.
Now, I'm all for getting people to vote. But, I do not condone laziness whatsoever. It is beyond ridicule that the government must remind people to register...can't these folks figure it out on their own? And if they can't make it to a government installation to register, then I doubt they can make it to the polling place on election day. Why must the government cater to those who already leech off society? And while the government should retain the right to market voter registration to the citizens, it should not be a stipulation of the social contract. Americans need to take responsibility for themselves...if they want to exercise their vote, then they need to get their lazy butts out of the house and ask around, I'm sure they'll find a registration booth closeby.
As of late, these 'community organizations'--whatever that means-- have been pushing law suits through the courts which cite certain states, namely Indiana, as being in violation of the 'Motor Voter Law." This law is a somewhat dubious and senseless contrivance which forces the BMV to ask patrons upon their journey through the bureau of wasted time and money whether they would like to register to vote or not. While this would seem a time-saving and convenient measure, this law further addresses folks who apparently don't stop by the BMV on a regular basis. Folks such as those on public assistance (Medicaid and Food Stamps) are deemed unable to stop by the BMV or any other federal installation, and thus they are treated differently in the Motor Voter Law. The law dictates that when folks sign up for food stamps or medicaid, government workers must ask them if they wish to register.
Now, I'm all for getting people to vote. But, I do not condone laziness whatsoever. It is beyond ridicule that the government must remind people to register...can't these folks figure it out on their own? And if they can't make it to a government installation to register, then I doubt they can make it to the polling place on election day. Why must the government cater to those who already leech off society? And while the government should retain the right to market voter registration to the citizens, it should not be a stipulation of the social contract. Americans need to take responsibility for themselves...if they want to exercise their vote, then they need to get their lazy butts out of the house and ask around, I'm sure they'll find a registration booth closeby.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
The Reason Why You Can't Reason with Libertarians
This is an argument which I recently had with a loony libertarian. While I'm really conservative in pretty much every aspect, I hate when people mouth off about the Patriot Act... or George Bush. I challenge anyone to do as good a job as Bush did while in office considering all of the problems which he faced. And as for the Patriot Act, it's not only precedented by our Founding Fathers, but it has no negative implications to the average American. As long as you're not calling Mohommed the turban-toting terrorist in Abu Dhabi, then your phone calls are not being listened to. And beyong that, if you have nothing to hide, then what is there to worry about from having your phone tapped? This is all regardless of the fact that numerous terrorist cells have been discovered in America because of this Act, and that no one has really lost any of their rights. Some people just can't be reasoned with. Plato knew this. And while I wouldn't condone Plato's method of dealing with this problem (killing unreasonable people), I can see where he comes from.:
Mike Cinko:
I think you have to be very careful about the unabashedly slanted Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and a lot of stuff on Fox news. Those guys were fervently behind George Bush when he was slicing and dicing our freedoms with the Patriot Act and invading Iraq.One place that IMO should be DAILY READING for everyone here is http://www.campaignforliberty.com/They have daily opinion pieces there that often give great libertine insight into what is happening to our country. Their blogs are very good as well.Fox News does have one hour long show that I catch every week--usually via link from the Campaign for Liberty site--called "Freedom Watch". Along with host Judge Andrew Napolitano (no relation to Janet), they usually have Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods and other guests to discuss current events that impact our personal and financial liberties.
Me:
I'll have to disagree with you slightly Mike, as much as I love the Constitution, I don't believe that the Patriot Act was in direct opposition to its fundamentals. The Act, as controversial as it has been made, was only intended to monitor phone calls and electronic transmissions which were made to known terrorist operatives overseas. While it does leave some potential for abuse, such as "spying" on American citizens, such things are almost completely fabricated as the average US citizen has nothing to fear. It is worth noting that a number of terrorists have been apprehended in the US and other nations because of intelligence gathering allowed under this Act. With that said, the Act should stay in existence until the War on Terror is over and, upon the end of that War, be made null and void.
Mike:
The 4th amendment says...
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. I'm no lawyer, but the Patriot Act opened a number of doors that violate this. It allowed wiretapping and monitoring of internet activity (which you pointed out). But it didn't allow this just for those with probable cause. It allows this on ANYONE. Further, the Patriot Act created a 100-mile from the border (or major waterway adjacent to a border) zone where "border patrol" agents could stop and search ANY vehicle without warrant or probable cause. That encompasses 2/3rds of Americans, by the way. Unfortunately, your "nothing to fear" premise is flawed, as the Patriot Act gave rise to the TSA searches when boarding airplanes. And because its definition of "terrorist" was vague, it created a way to allow people that--in the view of the TSA agents, were not a popularist Democrat or Republican types--to be stopped, searched, hassled and potentially arrested--for reasons that had nothing to do with airline safety.In short, the 4th amendment protects us from being searched and hassled for no reason. If they had potential terrorists in their sights and they have probable cause or a warrant, there's nothing in the Constitution holding them back. If they had no probable cause, then they can't do it. Period. Aspects of the Patriot Act are indeed in direct conflict with the Constitution.
Me:
While I understand the possible negative effects of the Act, I also find that there is acceptable precendent to it. In 1798, John Adams, one of the Founders, signed the Alien and Sedition Acts into law in an effort to find and deport French agents during the Quasi-War. Those agents...French Republicans, aka Socialists, were trying to infiltrate the US to gain support for their revolution. This is strikingly similar to the current US War on Terror, in which radical revolutionaries are declaring a war against America and are recruiting Americans to support them. Now, while the Alien and Sedition Acts were not quite as expansive as the Patriot Act (they didn't have phones in 1798), they served the same purpose, to protect American lives by restricting some freedoms. True, the Constitution promises us privacy, however, if someone was to break into your home and try to kill you while you sleep, wouldn't you want the police to enter your premises without your permission and apprehend the criminal? Same theory applies, just on a larger scale. Governments have long exercised extra-constitutional powers during war time and this is beneficial since it is more efficient to have singular rule during time of crisis...and after such crisis is over, rule should return to the people since they govern best in times of peace. The Alien and Sedition Acts were to play an important role in protecting the country. The Patriot Act does the same as there have been NOT one single act of terror perpetrated on US soil since 9/11. However, as Thomas Jefferson did by repealing the Alien and Sedition Laws when he came to office, so should our president do once the War on Terror is over.
Mike:
Because an Act or ruling was made by government, it is automatically and unquestionably a legitimate Constitutional exception? Think long and hard about what you're saying here. Your agreement that the Constitution is acceptably optional staggers me. Oh wait! But that's only in times of emergency, right? Did you know--I heard this from a former Presidential candidate--that the US has been in a Presidentially declared state of emergency since FDR took office? That's right... for the better part of A CENTURY. Why is that? Perhaps because Executive powers are expanded during declared "national emergencies"? So by extention of your logic, Constitutional exceptions have been OK for the last 1/3 of the USA's existence.On the Sedition Act... Part of this act put men in JAIL for SPEAKING against anyone in the government except the Vice President. Then you're OK with 1000 of us to be put in jail and considered FELONS after the April 15th protest then, right? You suggested that Jefferson repealed the Sedition Act because the crisis had passed. Not so. The Sedition Act ended on the last day of John Adams's term. And as you admitted, when Jefferson took office, he IMMEDIATELY pardoned the imprisoned Sedition Act victims and returned their fines to them. So either it was a staggering coincidence that the Quasi-War ended on the last day of Adams' term, or your reasoning is faulty.On the Alien Enemies Act... It was never repealed and is still in force today.On the police... Your example is completely unrealistic. So no, I'd rather the police NOT enter my home without my permission. The second amendment gives me the power to defend my property if needed. Besides, the Supreme Court has ruled that the police are under no obligation to protect me. Did you know that?
With all due respect, I believe you are naive. You assume that giving police an option to enter my property without permission, warrant or probable cause offers me protection. JUST THE OPPOSITE. Why do you think the 4th amendment exists? Because if King George or the territory governor or just some cop didn't like you, the police would enter your home looking for contriband, which also gave them free opportunity to plant something if they didn't find it and arrest you. That's why the rules are LIMITING. Opening one door opens other doors to tyranny.Look at the Steve Bierfeldt case. (Youtube it.) The Patriot Act created the TSA, which searches passengers before they board a plane. Then the vague definition of "terrorists" expanded to include basically anyone whose beliefs did not coincide with the government's, i.e. Ron Paulers, pro-lifers, Green party people, constitutionalists, etc. These instructions came from TSA leadership, not just some cop with an attitude. Bierfeldt was questioned about things that had NOTHING TO DO WITH AIRLINE SAFETY, was threatened to be turned over to the DEA because he had MONEY and was drug off to the police station. It was only after he recorded the incident and released it that eyebrows were raised. THIS is what happens when you open doors.As far as your assertion about safety since 9/11 goes, consider this. All Bush and co. ever said was that the terrorists are out to get us because we're free, Christian, whatever. Do you think Bin Laden is a "politically correct" kinda guy? In other words, do you think he'd softpedal what he said and publicly not say what he really thinks? He doesn't strike me as that kinda guy.A study was done that examined EVERY SENTENCE Bin Laden has said either in writings or speeches about why he hates the US. Once, he did kinda, but not exactly say that he hated us because we were not Muslims. But well over 1000 times (many times more than the next most prevalent reason) he has directly stated that he hates the US because we're over there, killing people and getting involved in the business of the Middle East. Now if you accept the initial premise, you have to accept that the evidence shows that what he wants is us out of there and that's far and away the highest priority reason. The author of the study suggests that they still would probably hate us if we left, but not enough that guys would be volunteering to kill themselves to get back at us.And isn't that a logical position? If China was over here dropping bombs and trying to overthrow our government, wouldn't you be ready to take up arms and fight?Another key point that people today miss... The founding fathers' position on foreign policy was to "avoid tangling alliances" with other countries, so we would be on friendly terms and able to trade with EVERYONE.War by the numbers... About 3000 people were killed on 9/11. Over 5000 soldiers have died and taken over $1 TRILLION with them in an unsuccessful effort to avenge what happened that day.Further still, the reality is that our country is broke. We're up to our eyeballs in debt and in the middle of either the greatest recession since the great depression or the second great depression. And yet, we have thousands of troops in Iraq, Obama ordered more troops into Afghanistan and we have military bases in 130 other countries. We have 10's of thousands of troops in conflict hot spots like South Korea, Germany and Japan.Another stupid question... I keep hearing that the reason we're there is "oil". And that makes sense, since oil is very important to us. But if we leave there, will our $$$ no longer be good to buy it from them? I'd think they'd still take our money.Considering all of this, my position is that we listen to the founding fathers, quit bombing people and ticking everyone off and COME HOME. I believe that will make us SAFER for reasons I stated earlier. Now if we make a focused effort to get Bin Laden that avoids bombing civilians, I might be OK with that. But what I've seen is a lot of mass destruction, sometimes in populated areas when the perpetrators are hiding in caves.As a side note, did you know that the only way for the US to declare war is via Congressional act? And did you know that a war against Iraq or Bin Laden has never been declared, even though we aggressively took out Iraq's army and overthrew their government? How is that possible? Oh yeah, that optional Constitution thing.And if you're OK with the extra-Constitutional Patriot Act, for how long is this OK? At this point, we're 6 years into it with no end in sight. What if we don't catch Bin Laden by 2013? Do we get our God given, Constitutionally protected rights back then after 10 years? At what point do we say enough is enough? What if it's like the Alien Enemies Act and it's never?Your response is appreciated.
Me:
Mike, you are completely off base and I avidly resent and reject your statement that I am naive. Quite the contrary, I have had both a formal and practical education in politics, political science, political theory, and international relations. I am an adept writer and have published and presented materials dealing with the above said subjects and I am currently enrolled in one of the greatest research institutions in the world. With that said, I believe that I have a much wider and more in-depth background in politics than the average American and perhaps even you.
Now, in dealing with the Alien and Sedition Act, you must understand that Jefferson was an avowed 'Republican' meaning that he stood for the French Republic (tyrannical in its own right). Adams wanted to protect America from French influence since the French had previously tried building a 5th column in the US. If you recall, citizen Genet, a Frenchman, was sent to the US in the late 1700s to recruit men for the Republican Army, so the threat of French intervention and war was real. Furthermore, the Quasi-War did end during Adams' term due to negotiaions with Bonaparte, and thus the war was over when Jefferson took office, creating precedent which allows the government to create repressive laws during wartime as long as they are repealed afterwards.
As for the Alien Enemies Act, it needs to be on the books since we have since Adams' time been fighting off enemy agents in our midst. Did you not hear of the recent discovery of Cuban agents living in America? or how about Alger Hiss et al? Yes, I truly believe that during time of war, the government has the right and responsibility to subject its citizens to some extraordinary restrictions. Does a little extra time in the airport line really constitute a breech of the Constitution?
The Constitution is not explicit on war powers, in fact, its not really explicit on anything and that is why, to understand the Constitution one must also look at the writings of the Founding Fathers and those who they relied on for philopsophy and knowledge. The power to declare war was given to Congress, but the power to make war was never mentioned... and finding that the President is the Commander in Chief of the military it is only right for him to retain the right to make war. This is important and it is also important that the President has this right without the consent of Congress. Whenever Congress declares war, such as WWI, those acts which are passed to defent the US, i.e. Sedition Act are much more actively pursued and repress many more freedoms than those of the Patriot Act. In that regard I believe the Founders would agree since they understood freedom of speech to be one of the most important rights of man and they knew full well how dangerous a powerful legislature would be....their generation was only a few removed from the Cromwellian era and the rise of the parliament in England.
Alexander Hamilton wrote, "Constitutions should consist only of general provisions; the reason is that they must necessarily be permanent, and that they cannot calculate for the possible change of things." This quote really sums up the general consensus of the Founders as they all knew that times would change. And with time the US grew into something larger and more powerful than any other nation in the world. And with that power we gained responsibility to spread freedom and democracy about the globe, whether our help was asked for or not. Take Iraq for example...we were much needed there in order to establish a true democratic republic..we succeeded for the most part, however we definitely should have stayed longer...100 years in necessary.
As for alliances, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Fed 15, "There is nothing absurd or impracticable in the idea of a league or alliance between independent nations for certain defined purposes precisely stated in a treaty regulating all the details of time, place, circumstance, and quantity; leaving nothing to future discretion; and depending for its execution on the good faith of the parties. " The Founders only understood war on a European scale and they did not have the resources to fight such a war. However, since we gained those resources in the early 20th century, we have since allied with many nations and have had many fruitful benefits come from such relationships. And we have saved humanity from the likes of Hitler and other totalitarian leaders.
What it boils down to is that government was created for just a few reasons: 1.) to protect the citizens from enemies both domestic and foreign, even if it means some short-term repressive measures, 2.) to provide a civilian police force to protect citizens in their lives, freedoms and properties, and 3.) to provide a venue for the settling of disputes. That is all. But more important is that government must be given those provisions in order for it to do its job. If the government is no longer allowed to do either of those 3 aforementioned things, then government has become useless and society has dove into the State of Nature...Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.
Mike:
"Mike, you are completely off base and I avidly resent and reject your statement that I am naive. Quite the contrary, I have had both a formal and practical education in politics, political science, political theory, and international relations. I am an adept writer and have published and presented materials dealing with the above said subjects and I am currently enrolled in one of the greatest research institutions in the world. With that said, I believe that I have a much wider and more in-depth background in politics than the average American and perhaps even you."
It is clear that you are educated and an adept writer. That does not change my view, however. Barack Obama and Barney Frank have very good credentials as well.
"Now, in dealing with the Alien and Sedition Act, you must understand that Jefferson was an avowed 'Republican' meaning that he stood for the French Republic (tyrannical in its own right). Adams wanted to protect America from French influence since the French had previously tried building a 5th column in the US. If you recall, citizen Genet, a Frenchman, was sent to the US in the late 1700s to recruit men for the Republican Army, so the threat of French intervention and war was real. Furthermore, the Quasi-War did end during Adams' term due to negotiaions with Bonaparte, and thus the war was over when Jefferson took office, creating precedent which allows the government to create repressive laws during wartime as long as they are repealed afterwards."
From my readings, "Republican" means that he was an advocate of state powers with limited federal powers, i.e. the 10th Amendment. The correct term at that time was "Federalist", but that term had already been commendeered by the opposing political group, who were really statists (which included John Adams), ironically enough. I am unfamiliar with a tie in with France.
"As for the Alien Enemies Act, it needs to be on the books since we have since Adams' time been fighting off enemy agents in our midst. Did you not hear of the recent discovery of Cuban agents living in America? or how about Alger Hiss et al?"
I'm not opposed to the Alien Enemies act because it is directed at non-US citizens. Which brings us to another interesting point... The guys who flew the planes into the towers and pentagon and Pennsylvanian dirt on 9/11 were all aliens. So EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN must have their rights taken away because a bunch of non-Americans did bad things. That doesn't make sense.
"Yes, I truly believe that during time of war, the government has the right and responsibility to subject its citizens to some extraordinary restrictions. Does a little extra time in the airport line really constitute a breech of the Constitution?"
You obviously didn't address or review the example I gave.
"The Constitution is not explicit on war powers, in fact, its not really explicit on anything and that is why, to understand the Constitution one must also look at the writings of the Founding Fathers and those who they relied on for philopsophy and knowledge."
I agree.
"The power to declare war was given to Congress, but the power to make war was never mentioned... and finding that the President is the Commander in Chief of the military it is only right for him to retain the right to make war."
This is doubletalk. If war is not declared by the only lawful entity that can do so, how can the action of war be legally taken? By this statement, declaring war is pointless. Further, the founding fathers created checks and balances in the system to preclude single entities like the President from having unbridled power. But you say that it is right that the President has unchecked power to make war (below). This is a clear deviation from the Constitutional separation of powers.
"This is important and it is also important that the President has this right without the consent of Congress. Whenever Congress declares war, such as WWI, those acts which are passed to defent the US, i.e. Sedition Act are much more actively pursued and repress many more freedoms than those of the Patriot Act. In that regard I believe the Founders would agree since they understood freedom of speech to be one of the most important rights of man and they knew full well how dangerous a powerful legislature would be....their generation was only a few removed from the Cromwellian era and the rise of the parliament in England. "
Any Act that conflicts with the Constitution must be null and void, since the Constitution is the SUPREME law of the land. That includes the Sedition Act.(continued)
Mike Cinko:
I think you have to be very careful about the unabashedly slanted Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and a lot of stuff on Fox news. Those guys were fervently behind George Bush when he was slicing and dicing our freedoms with the Patriot Act and invading Iraq.One place that IMO should be DAILY READING for everyone here is http://www.campaignforliberty.com/They have daily opinion pieces there that often give great libertine insight into what is happening to our country. Their blogs are very good as well.Fox News does have one hour long show that I catch every week--usually via link from the Campaign for Liberty site--called "Freedom Watch". Along with host Judge Andrew Napolitano (no relation to Janet), they usually have Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods and other guests to discuss current events that impact our personal and financial liberties.
Me:
I'll have to disagree with you slightly Mike, as much as I love the Constitution, I don't believe that the Patriot Act was in direct opposition to its fundamentals. The Act, as controversial as it has been made, was only intended to monitor phone calls and electronic transmissions which were made to known terrorist operatives overseas. While it does leave some potential for abuse, such as "spying" on American citizens, such things are almost completely fabricated as the average US citizen has nothing to fear. It is worth noting that a number of terrorists have been apprehended in the US and other nations because of intelligence gathering allowed under this Act. With that said, the Act should stay in existence until the War on Terror is over and, upon the end of that War, be made null and void.
Mike:
The 4th amendment says...
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. I'm no lawyer, but the Patriot Act opened a number of doors that violate this. It allowed wiretapping and monitoring of internet activity (which you pointed out). But it didn't allow this just for those with probable cause. It allows this on ANYONE. Further, the Patriot Act created a 100-mile from the border (or major waterway adjacent to a border) zone where "border patrol" agents could stop and search ANY vehicle without warrant or probable cause. That encompasses 2/3rds of Americans, by the way. Unfortunately, your "nothing to fear" premise is flawed, as the Patriot Act gave rise to the TSA searches when boarding airplanes. And because its definition of "terrorist" was vague, it created a way to allow people that--in the view of the TSA agents, were not a popularist Democrat or Republican types--to be stopped, searched, hassled and potentially arrested--for reasons that had nothing to do with airline safety.In short, the 4th amendment protects us from being searched and hassled for no reason. If they had potential terrorists in their sights and they have probable cause or a warrant, there's nothing in the Constitution holding them back. If they had no probable cause, then they can't do it. Period. Aspects of the Patriot Act are indeed in direct conflict with the Constitution.
Me:
While I understand the possible negative effects of the Act, I also find that there is acceptable precendent to it. In 1798, John Adams, one of the Founders, signed the Alien and Sedition Acts into law in an effort to find and deport French agents during the Quasi-War. Those agents...French Republicans, aka Socialists, were trying to infiltrate the US to gain support for their revolution. This is strikingly similar to the current US War on Terror, in which radical revolutionaries are declaring a war against America and are recruiting Americans to support them. Now, while the Alien and Sedition Acts were not quite as expansive as the Patriot Act (they didn't have phones in 1798), they served the same purpose, to protect American lives by restricting some freedoms. True, the Constitution promises us privacy, however, if someone was to break into your home and try to kill you while you sleep, wouldn't you want the police to enter your premises without your permission and apprehend the criminal? Same theory applies, just on a larger scale. Governments have long exercised extra-constitutional powers during war time and this is beneficial since it is more efficient to have singular rule during time of crisis...and after such crisis is over, rule should return to the people since they govern best in times of peace. The Alien and Sedition Acts were to play an important role in protecting the country. The Patriot Act does the same as there have been NOT one single act of terror perpetrated on US soil since 9/11. However, as Thomas Jefferson did by repealing the Alien and Sedition Laws when he came to office, so should our president do once the War on Terror is over.
Mike:
Because an Act or ruling was made by government, it is automatically and unquestionably a legitimate Constitutional exception? Think long and hard about what you're saying here. Your agreement that the Constitution is acceptably optional staggers me. Oh wait! But that's only in times of emergency, right? Did you know--I heard this from a former Presidential candidate--that the US has been in a Presidentially declared state of emergency since FDR took office? That's right... for the better part of A CENTURY. Why is that? Perhaps because Executive powers are expanded during declared "national emergencies"? So by extention of your logic, Constitutional exceptions have been OK for the last 1/3 of the USA's existence.On the Sedition Act... Part of this act put men in JAIL for SPEAKING against anyone in the government except the Vice President. Then you're OK with 1000 of us to be put in jail and considered FELONS after the April 15th protest then, right? You suggested that Jefferson repealed the Sedition Act because the crisis had passed. Not so. The Sedition Act ended on the last day of John Adams's term. And as you admitted, when Jefferson took office, he IMMEDIATELY pardoned the imprisoned Sedition Act victims and returned their fines to them. So either it was a staggering coincidence that the Quasi-War ended on the last day of Adams' term, or your reasoning is faulty.On the Alien Enemies Act... It was never repealed and is still in force today.On the police... Your example is completely unrealistic. So no, I'd rather the police NOT enter my home without my permission. The second amendment gives me the power to defend my property if needed. Besides, the Supreme Court has ruled that the police are under no obligation to protect me. Did you know that?
With all due respect, I believe you are naive. You assume that giving police an option to enter my property without permission, warrant or probable cause offers me protection. JUST THE OPPOSITE. Why do you think the 4th amendment exists? Because if King George or the territory governor or just some cop didn't like you, the police would enter your home looking for contriband, which also gave them free opportunity to plant something if they didn't find it and arrest you. That's why the rules are LIMITING. Opening one door opens other doors to tyranny.Look at the Steve Bierfeldt case. (Youtube it.) The Patriot Act created the TSA, which searches passengers before they board a plane. Then the vague definition of "terrorists" expanded to include basically anyone whose beliefs did not coincide with the government's, i.e. Ron Paulers, pro-lifers, Green party people, constitutionalists, etc. These instructions came from TSA leadership, not just some cop with an attitude. Bierfeldt was questioned about things that had NOTHING TO DO WITH AIRLINE SAFETY, was threatened to be turned over to the DEA because he had MONEY and was drug off to the police station. It was only after he recorded the incident and released it that eyebrows were raised. THIS is what happens when you open doors.As far as your assertion about safety since 9/11 goes, consider this. All Bush and co. ever said was that the terrorists are out to get us because we're free, Christian, whatever. Do you think Bin Laden is a "politically correct" kinda guy? In other words, do you think he'd softpedal what he said and publicly not say what he really thinks? He doesn't strike me as that kinda guy.A study was done that examined EVERY SENTENCE Bin Laden has said either in writings or speeches about why he hates the US. Once, he did kinda, but not exactly say that he hated us because we were not Muslims. But well over 1000 times (many times more than the next most prevalent reason) he has directly stated that he hates the US because we're over there, killing people and getting involved in the business of the Middle East. Now if you accept the initial premise, you have to accept that the evidence shows that what he wants is us out of there and that's far and away the highest priority reason. The author of the study suggests that they still would probably hate us if we left, but not enough that guys would be volunteering to kill themselves to get back at us.And isn't that a logical position? If China was over here dropping bombs and trying to overthrow our government, wouldn't you be ready to take up arms and fight?Another key point that people today miss... The founding fathers' position on foreign policy was to "avoid tangling alliances" with other countries, so we would be on friendly terms and able to trade with EVERYONE.War by the numbers... About 3000 people were killed on 9/11. Over 5000 soldiers have died and taken over $1 TRILLION with them in an unsuccessful effort to avenge what happened that day.Further still, the reality is that our country is broke. We're up to our eyeballs in debt and in the middle of either the greatest recession since the great depression or the second great depression. And yet, we have thousands of troops in Iraq, Obama ordered more troops into Afghanistan and we have military bases in 130 other countries. We have 10's of thousands of troops in conflict hot spots like South Korea, Germany and Japan.Another stupid question... I keep hearing that the reason we're there is "oil". And that makes sense, since oil is very important to us. But if we leave there, will our $$$ no longer be good to buy it from them? I'd think they'd still take our money.Considering all of this, my position is that we listen to the founding fathers, quit bombing people and ticking everyone off and COME HOME. I believe that will make us SAFER for reasons I stated earlier. Now if we make a focused effort to get Bin Laden that avoids bombing civilians, I might be OK with that. But what I've seen is a lot of mass destruction, sometimes in populated areas when the perpetrators are hiding in caves.As a side note, did you know that the only way for the US to declare war is via Congressional act? And did you know that a war against Iraq or Bin Laden has never been declared, even though we aggressively took out Iraq's army and overthrew their government? How is that possible? Oh yeah, that optional Constitution thing.And if you're OK with the extra-Constitutional Patriot Act, for how long is this OK? At this point, we're 6 years into it with no end in sight. What if we don't catch Bin Laden by 2013? Do we get our God given, Constitutionally protected rights back then after 10 years? At what point do we say enough is enough? What if it's like the Alien Enemies Act and it's never?Your response is appreciated.
Me:
Mike, you are completely off base and I avidly resent and reject your statement that I am naive. Quite the contrary, I have had both a formal and practical education in politics, political science, political theory, and international relations. I am an adept writer and have published and presented materials dealing with the above said subjects and I am currently enrolled in one of the greatest research institutions in the world. With that said, I believe that I have a much wider and more in-depth background in politics than the average American and perhaps even you.
Now, in dealing with the Alien and Sedition Act, you must understand that Jefferson was an avowed 'Republican' meaning that he stood for the French Republic (tyrannical in its own right). Adams wanted to protect America from French influence since the French had previously tried building a 5th column in the US. If you recall, citizen Genet, a Frenchman, was sent to the US in the late 1700s to recruit men for the Republican Army, so the threat of French intervention and war was real. Furthermore, the Quasi-War did end during Adams' term due to negotiaions with Bonaparte, and thus the war was over when Jefferson took office, creating precedent which allows the government to create repressive laws during wartime as long as they are repealed afterwards.
As for the Alien Enemies Act, it needs to be on the books since we have since Adams' time been fighting off enemy agents in our midst. Did you not hear of the recent discovery of Cuban agents living in America? or how about Alger Hiss et al? Yes, I truly believe that during time of war, the government has the right and responsibility to subject its citizens to some extraordinary restrictions. Does a little extra time in the airport line really constitute a breech of the Constitution?
The Constitution is not explicit on war powers, in fact, its not really explicit on anything and that is why, to understand the Constitution one must also look at the writings of the Founding Fathers and those who they relied on for philopsophy and knowledge. The power to declare war was given to Congress, but the power to make war was never mentioned... and finding that the President is the Commander in Chief of the military it is only right for him to retain the right to make war. This is important and it is also important that the President has this right without the consent of Congress. Whenever Congress declares war, such as WWI, those acts which are passed to defent the US, i.e. Sedition Act are much more actively pursued and repress many more freedoms than those of the Patriot Act. In that regard I believe the Founders would agree since they understood freedom of speech to be one of the most important rights of man and they knew full well how dangerous a powerful legislature would be....their generation was only a few removed from the Cromwellian era and the rise of the parliament in England.
Alexander Hamilton wrote, "Constitutions should consist only of general provisions; the reason is that they must necessarily be permanent, and that they cannot calculate for the possible change of things." This quote really sums up the general consensus of the Founders as they all knew that times would change. And with time the US grew into something larger and more powerful than any other nation in the world. And with that power we gained responsibility to spread freedom and democracy about the globe, whether our help was asked for or not. Take Iraq for example...we were much needed there in order to establish a true democratic republic..we succeeded for the most part, however we definitely should have stayed longer...100 years in necessary.
As for alliances, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Fed 15, "There is nothing absurd or impracticable in the idea of a league or alliance between independent nations for certain defined purposes precisely stated in a treaty regulating all the details of time, place, circumstance, and quantity; leaving nothing to future discretion; and depending for its execution on the good faith of the parties. " The Founders only understood war on a European scale and they did not have the resources to fight such a war. However, since we gained those resources in the early 20th century, we have since allied with many nations and have had many fruitful benefits come from such relationships. And we have saved humanity from the likes of Hitler and other totalitarian leaders.
What it boils down to is that government was created for just a few reasons: 1.) to protect the citizens from enemies both domestic and foreign, even if it means some short-term repressive measures, 2.) to provide a civilian police force to protect citizens in their lives, freedoms and properties, and 3.) to provide a venue for the settling of disputes. That is all. But more important is that government must be given those provisions in order for it to do its job. If the government is no longer allowed to do either of those 3 aforementioned things, then government has become useless and society has dove into the State of Nature...Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.
Mike:
"Mike, you are completely off base and I avidly resent and reject your statement that I am naive. Quite the contrary, I have had both a formal and practical education in politics, political science, political theory, and international relations. I am an adept writer and have published and presented materials dealing with the above said subjects and I am currently enrolled in one of the greatest research institutions in the world. With that said, I believe that I have a much wider and more in-depth background in politics than the average American and perhaps even you."
It is clear that you are educated and an adept writer. That does not change my view, however. Barack Obama and Barney Frank have very good credentials as well.
"Now, in dealing with the Alien and Sedition Act, you must understand that Jefferson was an avowed 'Republican' meaning that he stood for the French Republic (tyrannical in its own right). Adams wanted to protect America from French influence since the French had previously tried building a 5th column in the US. If you recall, citizen Genet, a Frenchman, was sent to the US in the late 1700s to recruit men for the Republican Army, so the threat of French intervention and war was real. Furthermore, the Quasi-War did end during Adams' term due to negotiaions with Bonaparte, and thus the war was over when Jefferson took office, creating precedent which allows the government to create repressive laws during wartime as long as they are repealed afterwards."
From my readings, "Republican" means that he was an advocate of state powers with limited federal powers, i.e. the 10th Amendment. The correct term at that time was "Federalist", but that term had already been commendeered by the opposing political group, who were really statists (which included John Adams), ironically enough. I am unfamiliar with a tie in with France.
"As for the Alien Enemies Act, it needs to be on the books since we have since Adams' time been fighting off enemy agents in our midst. Did you not hear of the recent discovery of Cuban agents living in America? or how about Alger Hiss et al?"
I'm not opposed to the Alien Enemies act because it is directed at non-US citizens. Which brings us to another interesting point... The guys who flew the planes into the towers and pentagon and Pennsylvanian dirt on 9/11 were all aliens. So EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN must have their rights taken away because a bunch of non-Americans did bad things. That doesn't make sense.
"Yes, I truly believe that during time of war, the government has the right and responsibility to subject its citizens to some extraordinary restrictions. Does a little extra time in the airport line really constitute a breech of the Constitution?"
You obviously didn't address or review the example I gave.
"The Constitution is not explicit on war powers, in fact, its not really explicit on anything and that is why, to understand the Constitution one must also look at the writings of the Founding Fathers and those who they relied on for philopsophy and knowledge."
I agree.
"The power to declare war was given to Congress, but the power to make war was never mentioned... and finding that the President is the Commander in Chief of the military it is only right for him to retain the right to make war."
This is doubletalk. If war is not declared by the only lawful entity that can do so, how can the action of war be legally taken? By this statement, declaring war is pointless. Further, the founding fathers created checks and balances in the system to preclude single entities like the President from having unbridled power. But you say that it is right that the President has unchecked power to make war (below). This is a clear deviation from the Constitutional separation of powers.
"This is important and it is also important that the President has this right without the consent of Congress. Whenever Congress declares war, such as WWI, those acts which are passed to defent the US, i.e. Sedition Act are much more actively pursued and repress many more freedoms than those of the Patriot Act. In that regard I believe the Founders would agree since they understood freedom of speech to be one of the most important rights of man and they knew full well how dangerous a powerful legislature would be....their generation was only a few removed from the Cromwellian era and the rise of the parliament in England. "
Any Act that conflicts with the Constitution must be null and void, since the Constitution is the SUPREME law of the land. That includes the Sedition Act.(continued)
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
With Friends Like Us, Who Needs Enemies?
Israel, since its very beginning in the 20th century, has been a beacon in an otherwise foggy and desolate region. The only Jewish state in the world, and the only democracy in the Middle East, Israel has been the proverbial " City Upon a Hill", a state to be recognized and looked up to by those militant and repressive Islamic regimes which surround Israel on all sides. And in that capacity, Israel has survived quite well considering that its enemies are everywhere and at every moment planning her demise.
The early 1900s witnessed a huge rise in Anti-Semitism, especially in Europe (simply recall the Dreyfus Affair in France). Soon, Hitler and his goons played on these racist sentiments and began the Final Solution, pushing to eliminate all Jews. Stalin, who often joked about having killed more Jews than Hitler, did his part too in his frequent purges and massacres. And while many people were killed either in WWII or in the few years before and after, the Jews undoubtedly suffered the most. That is why in 1948, Britain adopted the Balfour Plan, establishing a Jewish state in the traditionally Jewish area of "palestine". Since its establishment, Israel has been constantly attacked by numerous states and individuals claiming that Jerusalem and other parts (Golon Height, West Bank, Gaza, etc) of her territory belong to the Arabs (be it the PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, etc).
With that background, fast forward to today. The US has long been the primary supporter of Israel since she is the only bastion of freedom in the Radical Muslim-populated Middle East and she is the only Middle Eastern state which even resembles a 21st century civilization. However, now that Obama has taken office, he seems hell bent on destroying our good terms with Israel by forcing concessions down her throat and pandering with Muslim states like Iran.
He has frequently told Israel that she must stop building settlements in contested lands in order for any peace process to work. What's more, Obama supports Israel giving up some of her territory in order to appease the Palestinians and other groups.
This is beyond ridiculous. Israel has been a faithful and loyal ally of the US and doesn't deserve the treatment she is now receiving, she receives enough such treatment from the rest of the world. While the Palestinians bomb and harass an Israel which they refuse to recognize and while Muslim states like Syria and Iran make announcements that they would like to see Israel wiped off the face of the earth, and while all of the Arab states retain the position that Israel must relinquish East Jerusalem et al. to the Palestinians, it is interesting to note that none of the Arab states have ever offered to relocate the Palestinians within their territory. So much for Muslim brotherhood.
The fact is that Obama, if not a Muslim himself, is a Muslim sympathizer and an American apologist. That is that he is of the Left-Wing school of American thought which states that America is to blame for all of the world's ills... Well with great power, comes great responsibility and also great criticism from the peanut gallery, so it is understood that such schools of thought exist. However, people from such schools should never become president. And now that the biggest apologist of them all has taken office, changes are being made which no doubt will have huge negative effects on the US's power and influence in the world.
Obama has been offering his hand to Iran for some time, however Iran has yet to accept his proposal. They instead went full steam ahead in violently repressing peaceful protests and fixing an already fixed election. Obama countered by taking nearly a week to even hint at criticizing the radical Muslim regime. These (the Supreme Leader and his cronies) are not the people who need to be negotiated with, these are people that must be killed. They are hurrying to finish building their first nuclear weapons, capable of destroying Israel, while Obama looks on. Once they gain this boost, they will undoubtedly become the hegemon of the Middle East and a new arms race will begin there, putting Israel at the hands of Radical Muslims (not a safe place to be).
Some may say that our alliance with Israel is out of date...that the Jewish lobby is too strong and it determines too much of our foreign policy (Mearsheimer et al.). Some even go as far as to say that out Founding Fathers warned of such entangling alliances, however, that is untrue. Our Founding Fathers did not want to get involved politically or militarily with foreign powers. But that's because they understood that America was in its infancy and had neither money nor men to devote to a full-scale European war. This idea is best summed up by Ben Franklin
"I think that a young state, like a young virgin, should modestly stay at home, and wait the application of suitors for an alliance with her; and not run about offering her amity to all the world; and hazarding their refusal. Our virgin is a jolly one; and tho at present not very rich, will in time be a great fortune, and where she has a favorable predisposition, it seems to me well worth cultivating."
As long as Israel remain the sole democracy in the Middle East, and as long as her enemies continue in search of ways to destroy to her, the US needs to support Israel whole-heartedly. Our alliance secures us some stability in the Middle East and a first-responder to instability and danger. If the Palestinians want peace, then they should stop sending their rockets into Israel. Perhaps they may even finally recognize the state and open up true non-violent political dialogue similar to the IRA of 1998-2005. And if the Arabs are so worried about the Palestinians, then they should slice off a nice chunk of their own territory and offer it up as a good-will gesture to their Muslim brothers.
The early 1900s witnessed a huge rise in Anti-Semitism, especially in Europe (simply recall the Dreyfus Affair in France). Soon, Hitler and his goons played on these racist sentiments and began the Final Solution, pushing to eliminate all Jews. Stalin, who often joked about having killed more Jews than Hitler, did his part too in his frequent purges and massacres. And while many people were killed either in WWII or in the few years before and after, the Jews undoubtedly suffered the most. That is why in 1948, Britain adopted the Balfour Plan, establishing a Jewish state in the traditionally Jewish area of "palestine". Since its establishment, Israel has been constantly attacked by numerous states and individuals claiming that Jerusalem and other parts (Golon Height, West Bank, Gaza, etc) of her territory belong to the Arabs (be it the PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, etc).
With that background, fast forward to today. The US has long been the primary supporter of Israel since she is the only bastion of freedom in the Radical Muslim-populated Middle East and she is the only Middle Eastern state which even resembles a 21st century civilization. However, now that Obama has taken office, he seems hell bent on destroying our good terms with Israel by forcing concessions down her throat and pandering with Muslim states like Iran.
He has frequently told Israel that she must stop building settlements in contested lands in order for any peace process to work. What's more, Obama supports Israel giving up some of her territory in order to appease the Palestinians and other groups.
This is beyond ridiculous. Israel has been a faithful and loyal ally of the US and doesn't deserve the treatment she is now receiving, she receives enough such treatment from the rest of the world. While the Palestinians bomb and harass an Israel which they refuse to recognize and while Muslim states like Syria and Iran make announcements that they would like to see Israel wiped off the face of the earth, and while all of the Arab states retain the position that Israel must relinquish East Jerusalem et al. to the Palestinians, it is interesting to note that none of the Arab states have ever offered to relocate the Palestinians within their territory. So much for Muslim brotherhood.
The fact is that Obama, if not a Muslim himself, is a Muslim sympathizer and an American apologist. That is that he is of the Left-Wing school of American thought which states that America is to blame for all of the world's ills... Well with great power, comes great responsibility and also great criticism from the peanut gallery, so it is understood that such schools of thought exist. However, people from such schools should never become president. And now that the biggest apologist of them all has taken office, changes are being made which no doubt will have huge negative effects on the US's power and influence in the world.
Obama has been offering his hand to Iran for some time, however Iran has yet to accept his proposal. They instead went full steam ahead in violently repressing peaceful protests and fixing an already fixed election. Obama countered by taking nearly a week to even hint at criticizing the radical Muslim regime. These (the Supreme Leader and his cronies) are not the people who need to be negotiated with, these are people that must be killed. They are hurrying to finish building their first nuclear weapons, capable of destroying Israel, while Obama looks on. Once they gain this boost, they will undoubtedly become the hegemon of the Middle East and a new arms race will begin there, putting Israel at the hands of Radical Muslims (not a safe place to be).
Some may say that our alliance with Israel is out of date...that the Jewish lobby is too strong and it determines too much of our foreign policy (Mearsheimer et al.). Some even go as far as to say that out Founding Fathers warned of such entangling alliances, however, that is untrue. Our Founding Fathers did not want to get involved politically or militarily with foreign powers. But that's because they understood that America was in its infancy and had neither money nor men to devote to a full-scale European war. This idea is best summed up by Ben Franklin
"I think that a young state, like a young virgin, should modestly stay at home, and wait the application of suitors for an alliance with her; and not run about offering her amity to all the world; and hazarding their refusal. Our virgin is a jolly one; and tho at present not very rich, will in time be a great fortune, and where she has a favorable predisposition, it seems to me well worth cultivating."
As long as Israel remain the sole democracy in the Middle East, and as long as her enemies continue in search of ways to destroy to her, the US needs to support Israel whole-heartedly. Our alliance secures us some stability in the Middle East and a first-responder to instability and danger. If the Palestinians want peace, then they should stop sending their rockets into Israel. Perhaps they may even finally recognize the state and open up true non-violent political dialogue similar to the IRA of 1998-2005. And if the Arabs are so worried about the Palestinians, then they should slice off a nice chunk of their own territory and offer it up as a good-will gesture to their Muslim brothers.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Socialism and labor
JoAnn Ailes, writing in the Gary Post (July 24), is completely misguided on her thoughts about Socialism and trade unions. If you believe that Socialism and unions have a healthy relationship, just look at Cuba, where the union members (98% of the pop.) make pitiful government-set wages and remain well below the poverty line. What she fails to understand is that human greed is what fuels a successful economy. In the marketplace, this proves beneficial as it pushes entrepreneurs to develop new and more efficient technology and expand companies so as to create more jobs.
The unions have a necessary role to play in providing clean and safe workplaces. However, unions have a tendency to become more powerful than private companies and have in many cases done more harm than good. They put workers out of jobs by forcing companies to offer impossible pay and benefits and they often employ scare tactics and restrictive measures to keep non-union workers from finding employment in their fields.
What’s often forgotten is that companies are expensive to run. Not only does the employer have to pay the property tax and lease, but also wages and benefits and a number of other taxes just to operate in the US. Most significantly, employers have to pay the exorbitant US corporate tax, one of the highest in the world, at nearly 40%. This is the reason why companies move overseas: workers there will work for less, and most importantly, other nations have lower corporate taxes so companies can afford to hire employees.
The Isle of Man, a small island off the British coast will actually pay companies to relocate there and they enforce no capital gains tax on them. IOM is currently celebrating their 26th consecutive year of growth! Just goes to show that people prosper where corporate greed succeeds.
The unions have a necessary role to play in providing clean and safe workplaces. However, unions have a tendency to become more powerful than private companies and have in many cases done more harm than good. They put workers out of jobs by forcing companies to offer impossible pay and benefits and they often employ scare tactics and restrictive measures to keep non-union workers from finding employment in their fields.
What’s often forgotten is that companies are expensive to run. Not only does the employer have to pay the property tax and lease, but also wages and benefits and a number of other taxes just to operate in the US. Most significantly, employers have to pay the exorbitant US corporate tax, one of the highest in the world, at nearly 40%. This is the reason why companies move overseas: workers there will work for less, and most importantly, other nations have lower corporate taxes so companies can afford to hire employees.
The Isle of Man, a small island off the British coast will actually pay companies to relocate there and they enforce no capital gains tax on them. IOM is currently celebrating their 26th consecutive year of growth! Just goes to show that people prosper where corporate greed succeeds.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
The End of the Liberal Arts Education
Since the 5th century, a formal education has consisted of what is known as the liberal arts. These arts consisted of diverse disciplines: arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, rhetoric, grammar, natural sciences, music and the like. The great European universities of the 11th and 12th centuries were steeped in these arts and all great students were held responsible for learning them. A number of such students became famous philosophers, mathematicians, musicians, poets, theologists, political scientists, psychologists, archaeologists, etc. And the world is no doubt better for having known them.
Unfortunately, since the dawning of the 21st century the liberal arts students have increasingly become viewed as unnecessary and unskilled. Seemingly, these students that spent over $40,000 for their undergraduate careers, are simply not able to function at the level needed to succeed in this world. So, slowly, BAs and BSs are becoming a thing of the past and in their place, the A.A. and other community college degrees have stepped.
Now, in some cases, community colleges can be helpful. They teach certifications in areas that are rapidly hiring. But in many cases, these schools are simply for those who don't know what they want to do with their life and would rather not spend the money and time to go to a real 4-year school. In short, these schools are for those who can't accept a challenge.
Garden Design, Fire Science, and Cabinetry are all classes taught at Ivy Tech and there are many more that honestly should not be a part of any degree. And while some Ivy Tech graduates have a necessary place in the world, it seems that now they are more important than those who spend twice as much time and money learning substance. This view is now being upheld by our dear General Secretary Obama as he announced last week his hope that $12 billion dollars be spent to help support community colleges.
This all while state institutions across the country raise their tuition rates 5-6% and private institutions suffer from lack of state funding. Many people vastly underestimate the importance of the liberal arts education. To some folks, courses such as philosophy, political science, western civilization, American history, etc. are simply a waste of time and teach nothing of significance to students. However, it is not so much the content of such courses that is significant, it is the thought processes which are formulated by advanced study and thought. Such processes, once learned, are invaluable to students who use them to make tough, last-minute decisions in the real world. What's more, they teach students to think in the abstract, develop models and formulas and strive to conduct new research. What research possibilities are granted at community colleges? What new techniques or theories have come from the halls of Ivy Tech? None. But they do turn out a large number of cabinet makers!
College is not for everyone, and community college is for those who can't hack it at the 4-year level. No one great has ever come from a community college and it is doubtful that they ever will. Instead of pushing childrentowards community college, Obama should support high -schools in briefing them in their myriad options: military service, trade school, peace corp, civil service, the workforce and...the 4-year undergraduate college.
Unfortunately, since the dawning of the 21st century the liberal arts students have increasingly become viewed as unnecessary and unskilled. Seemingly, these students that spent over $40,000 for their undergraduate careers, are simply not able to function at the level needed to succeed in this world. So, slowly, BAs and BSs are becoming a thing of the past and in their place, the A.A. and other community college degrees have stepped.
Now, in some cases, community colleges can be helpful. They teach certifications in areas that are rapidly hiring. But in many cases, these schools are simply for those who don't know what they want to do with their life and would rather not spend the money and time to go to a real 4-year school. In short, these schools are for those who can't accept a challenge.
Garden Design, Fire Science, and Cabinetry are all classes taught at Ivy Tech and there are many more that honestly should not be a part of any degree. And while some Ivy Tech graduates have a necessary place in the world, it seems that now they are more important than those who spend twice as much time and money learning substance. This view is now being upheld by our dear General Secretary Obama as he announced last week his hope that $12 billion dollars be spent to help support community colleges.
This all while state institutions across the country raise their tuition rates 5-6% and private institutions suffer from lack of state funding. Many people vastly underestimate the importance of the liberal arts education. To some folks, courses such as philosophy, political science, western civilization, American history, etc. are simply a waste of time and teach nothing of significance to students. However, it is not so much the content of such courses that is significant, it is the thought processes which are formulated by advanced study and thought. Such processes, once learned, are invaluable to students who use them to make tough, last-minute decisions in the real world. What's more, they teach students to think in the abstract, develop models and formulas and strive to conduct new research. What research possibilities are granted at community colleges? What new techniques or theories have come from the halls of Ivy Tech? None. But they do turn out a large number of cabinet makers!
College is not for everyone, and community college is for those who can't hack it at the 4-year level. No one great has ever come from a community college and it is doubtful that they ever will. Instead of pushing childrentowards community college, Obama should support high -schools in briefing them in their myriad options: military service, trade school, peace corp, civil service, the workforce and...the 4-year undergraduate college.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Caudillo or Hero?
June 28th was a great day for democracy...at least until the events of that day pan out. On June 28th, the Leftist president of Honduras, Mr. Manuel Zelaya, was dismissed from office by the Honduran Army, an army loyal to the state rather than the president. While Hondurans cheered at the subsequent swearing in of Mr. Roberto Micheletti as the new president, Zelaya had already begun collecting his international allies in an offensive of words and sanctions that have been rarely used. As the leaders of the 'free world' bore down on the small Central American state, Micheletti and his people refused to allow Zelaya back into the country, even with reduced powers.
The Latin American republics have often been trivialized by army tough-men, called Caudillos, taking power at will from democratically elected leaders. However, this case does not fit that typical Latin American model. The Honduran Army acted on orders from the Congress in deposing Zelaya and, in a shocking move, placed Zelaya's proper successor in power instead of seizing it for itself.
But, why would the Army oust a sitting president? Well, that may be for many reasons, some unknown. Zelaya had tried to hold a plebiscite concerning proposed changes to the Honduran Constitution, which, as many have stated, would have led to the Constitution being fundamentally altered to offer the president unlimited terms in office. Such moves on behalf of Latin American presidents, especially members of the New Left, are frequent, i.e. Hugo Chavez. However, in this case, the Supreme Court of Honduras declared such a vote illegal and issued orders for the detention of Zelaya. Zelaya was then jetted out of the country and barred from reentry.
Since then, the US and many other nations have condemned Micheletti and the Honduran Army, and have aided Zelaya in trying to regain his position. Economic sanctions have been imposed by the US and the OAS, cutting down on valuable trade for the Honduran economy.
This is wrong. To say that a president is so just because he was democratically elected is farcical at best. Wasn't Hitler democratically elected? And it would have been applauded in 1943 if the German Army deposed Hitler. However, the so-called democrats of today, most of them Democrats with a big 'd', feel that such leaders have a mandate from the people and should be left to serve in their capacity, even if that means taking a little illegal initiative and altering the constitution so as to become a modern-day dictator. Such thoughts are dangerous and ignorant.
Micheletti should be recognized by the international community as the true president of Honduras. Zelaya should remain exiled. And the Army of Honduras should be applauded for saving democracy from itself.
The Latin American republics have often been trivialized by army tough-men, called Caudillos, taking power at will from democratically elected leaders. However, this case does not fit that typical Latin American model. The Honduran Army acted on orders from the Congress in deposing Zelaya and, in a shocking move, placed Zelaya's proper successor in power instead of seizing it for itself.
But, why would the Army oust a sitting president? Well, that may be for many reasons, some unknown. Zelaya had tried to hold a plebiscite concerning proposed changes to the Honduran Constitution, which, as many have stated, would have led to the Constitution being fundamentally altered to offer the president unlimited terms in office. Such moves on behalf of Latin American presidents, especially members of the New Left, are frequent, i.e. Hugo Chavez. However, in this case, the Supreme Court of Honduras declared such a vote illegal and issued orders for the detention of Zelaya. Zelaya was then jetted out of the country and barred from reentry.
Since then, the US and many other nations have condemned Micheletti and the Honduran Army, and have aided Zelaya in trying to regain his position. Economic sanctions have been imposed by the US and the OAS, cutting down on valuable trade for the Honduran economy.
This is wrong. To say that a president is so just because he was democratically elected is farcical at best. Wasn't Hitler democratically elected? And it would have been applauded in 1943 if the German Army deposed Hitler. However, the so-called democrats of today, most of them Democrats with a big 'd', feel that such leaders have a mandate from the people and should be left to serve in their capacity, even if that means taking a little illegal initiative and altering the constitution so as to become a modern-day dictator. Such thoughts are dangerous and ignorant.
Micheletti should be recognized by the international community as the true president of Honduras. Zelaya should remain exiled. And the Army of Honduras should be applauded for saving democracy from itself.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Welcome students to the Lake County Gulag!
While attending a NIRPC meeting this last week, I was first introduced to a matter which I had somehow not heard of before, that is of course, mandatory volunteer service for high school students. Now this struck me as odd...I never would have thought that such a policy would ever be implemented by a school corporation in America. I admit my naivety.
Having looked into the matter I found that a number of high schools in the Region have such policies which dictate that high school students must complete a set number of volunteer hours, sometimes upward of 20 per year, in order to graduate. I am not alone in noticing something very wrong with this.
Firstly, I must make it clear that I hate the American education system. The school days are too short, the school weeks are too short, and the summer and winter vacation periods are too long. Oftentimes, students forget all that they learn within just a few weeks. Speaking from experience, I will admit that I will never remember high school algebra or calculus, neither will I be able to even remotely describe the periodic table. Students are not taught nearly enough of the important subjects, such as reading and writing (creative writing and journalism do not count since they do not compare even slightly with the intensity of college writing) and the classics have been shunned in order to implement ISTEP programming and other nonsense.
The real problem, however, is that the schools have begun taking more and more power from the parents. They teach sex education at least 3 times throughout K-12 and that's not including Health and Safety class. What's more, they teach home economics, child development and other courses of which the curriculum is more the responsibility of parents to teach rather than the state. True, many parents have no idea how to raise kids, and they themselves lack etiquette and manners (not to mention a firm grasp of the English language), but it is nonetheless their responsibility to teach their children about sex, growing up, and general common sense. Now, with the policy of mandatory volunteerism, the school has taken away even the parents' right to decide how much work their child shall do outside of school.
Students have one primary responsibility: to learn. This learning cannot be done if enough time is not allocated for studying. Taking students out of the classroom and putting them to work, no matter how long, deprives them of precious time for which they should be devoting their focus to their books. So the supporters of this mandatory volunteerism will state that volunteering will also teach. I disagree. I have worked nearly 8 different jobs and the only time that I ever learned something was my time spent as a horseman on a working horse farm. Jobs do not offer learning, books and lectures do.
But all that aside, this policy of forcing children to volunteer is blatantly illegal. According to the US Constitution (I know, it's been much forgotten as of late), Amendment XIII, Section 1: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." By making volunteer service mandatory, and by not paying the students for their work, the schools have broken the law. They have enslaved students. This method of slavery was often used in the Soviet gulags under Stalin, when people were forced to "volunteer" their service for the betterment of the "community," i.e. communtiy service.
If the schools wish to teach children to become better people, first they should practice following the law and asking students to volunteer instead of mandating that they do. Then, perhaps, the Region will begin to look more like 21st century America and not the 20th century Soviet Union.
Having looked into the matter I found that a number of high schools in the Region have such policies which dictate that high school students must complete a set number of volunteer hours, sometimes upward of 20 per year, in order to graduate. I am not alone in noticing something very wrong with this.
Firstly, I must make it clear that I hate the American education system. The school days are too short, the school weeks are too short, and the summer and winter vacation periods are too long. Oftentimes, students forget all that they learn within just a few weeks. Speaking from experience, I will admit that I will never remember high school algebra or calculus, neither will I be able to even remotely describe the periodic table. Students are not taught nearly enough of the important subjects, such as reading and writing (creative writing and journalism do not count since they do not compare even slightly with the intensity of college writing) and the classics have been shunned in order to implement ISTEP programming and other nonsense.
The real problem, however, is that the schools have begun taking more and more power from the parents. They teach sex education at least 3 times throughout K-12 and that's not including Health and Safety class. What's more, they teach home economics, child development and other courses of which the curriculum is more the responsibility of parents to teach rather than the state. True, many parents have no idea how to raise kids, and they themselves lack etiquette and manners (not to mention a firm grasp of the English language), but it is nonetheless their responsibility to teach their children about sex, growing up, and general common sense. Now, with the policy of mandatory volunteerism, the school has taken away even the parents' right to decide how much work their child shall do outside of school.
Students have one primary responsibility: to learn. This learning cannot be done if enough time is not allocated for studying. Taking students out of the classroom and putting them to work, no matter how long, deprives them of precious time for which they should be devoting their focus to their books. So the supporters of this mandatory volunteerism will state that volunteering will also teach. I disagree. I have worked nearly 8 different jobs and the only time that I ever learned something was my time spent as a horseman on a working horse farm. Jobs do not offer learning, books and lectures do.
But all that aside, this policy of forcing children to volunteer is blatantly illegal. According to the US Constitution (I know, it's been much forgotten as of late), Amendment XIII, Section 1: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." By making volunteer service mandatory, and by not paying the students for their work, the schools have broken the law. They have enslaved students. This method of slavery was often used in the Soviet gulags under Stalin, when people were forced to "volunteer" their service for the betterment of the "community," i.e. communtiy service.
If the schools wish to teach children to become better people, first they should practice following the law and asking students to volunteer instead of mandating that they do. Then, perhaps, the Region will begin to look more like 21st century America and not the 20th century Soviet Union.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Iran: The Green Revolution
This being the 20th year since the fall of the Berlin Wall, it is an opportune time to reflect on what brought about the demise of that wall and the regime which had built it. Glancing at the protests which have been taking place throughout the last week in Tehran and other large cities in Iran, one can sense that perhaps again totalitarianism is doomed to failure.
Indeed, as history has proved, totalitarianism is always doomed to failure. The reason being that government was never meant to control the day-to-day actions of peoples' lives. As Thomas Hobbes pointed out in The Leviathan, the government of man was created in order to protect man from all others, to secure man in life and property, to protect his inalienable rights. Man, the creator of the social contract, has been provided with these inalienable rights from the beginning of time and thus cannot give said rights away. Though they may be taken away from time to time, such theft often causes friction between man and the sovereign (government) which he created with the social contract. The sovereign, while not beholden to the people, is beholden to the Law of Nature which, as Hobbes described, dictates that an object without support cannot stand, and thus, once the sovereign treats his people so cruelly as to wither their support for him, the people have the right to overthrow him.
However, it must be remembered that revolution is not so simple, as the sovereign has ways to retain power: 1) Having historical or ideological ties with the population, 2) Having charisma and 3) Controlling the security forces.Many leaders have come to power and maintained their rule due to their historical significance which created an almost cult-like following, George Washington for example, and Mao Tse-tung. These men were not altogether charismatic, but they held historical or ideological meaning respectively to their followers. Charisma has aided many leaders, especially Adolf Hitler and Fidel Castro. Fortunately, both sentimentality and charisma both wear off once the brutality of totalitarianism is made obvious. This is why all totalitarian leaders must eventually resort to using force of arms to control the population.
The use of such force is interesting because it plays on human nature. According to Hobbes, man is driven by passions, chief among them the fear of violent death. This fear is what pushed man to create the social contract in the first place. Once the leader begins using force, he reneges on the rules of the contract and replaces mans' fear of man with mans' fear of the regime. Machiavelli admitted that fear was a useful tool of any great leader, but he understood that fear was meant to be used in order to keep the peace, not to repress people completely, for once the leader loses the sentiment of the people, he has backed himself into a corner, destined to use force or risk losing power. The repeated use of such force during the beginning of the leader's reign and the fear which it creates, pressures the totalitarian regime to rely on force and coercion instead of consent, thus alienating the population. This process may take anywhere from a few days to a number of decades, but once the process has completely stripped the people of their rights and freedoms, the regime has no choice but crush every semblance of rebellion immediately, since reform is out of the question.
Hobbes wrote that the sovereign can only rule by consent of the people; in essence, the people hold the right to depose their sovereign if he is not fit for duty. This universal right of man is what eventually destroys totalitarian regimes. It is not outside influences, such as economic sanctions, that destroy totalitarianism, it is internal influences, such as the weakness of the regime and the will of the people. Eventually, once the people have been completely marginalized by the regime, and once an opportunity for rebellion shows itself, the people will rise up against the regime, ready to reorganize the social contract. At that point the regime has to make a decision: 1) reform by giving in to a few of the people's demands and die a slow death, 2) give in completely and lose their power or 3) use force to suppress revolt and remain in power.More often than not the regime chooses the latter. Such force was used in the Prague Spring of 1968, Tiananmen Square of 1989 and in many other places.
However, the use of such force relies on the loyalty of the security forces. In East Berlin, the government relied on the border guards to protect the wall which had divided the city for decades. The guards had direct orders to shoot to kill any person who crossed the border into West Berlin illegally. In similar fashion they successfully crushed a number of labor strikes and other protests. The change came in November of 1989 when for whatever reason, be it confusion or a sudden strike of humanity, the East German border guards refused to use force to stop the flow of people from East and West Berlin streaming through the wall. This refusal to use force motivated the people.Emboldened by Gunter Schabowski's gaffe which basically gave East Berliners the ability to legally cross the border, thousands of people stormed the wall and were allowed through. While the wall did not officially fall until the following year, the permissiveness of the guards effectively exhibited the weakness of the East German regime. Once that weakness was made public and the people realized they were no longer in danger from the security force, it was only months until the wall fell completely and West and East Germany were made one.
The totalitarian regime of the Supreme Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Iran is an abomination to all mankind. It stands for religious intolerance, repression of women, the destruction of free speech and the right to due process among many other rights. Thus, it is destined to fail. This Ayatollah does not have the historical and ideological aura which the late Supreme Leader held. Also, he has no overpowering charm or charisma with which he can woo the population. He has taken away many of the rights which Iranians would like to enjoy and he has been particularly cruel to the habits of young Iranians who wish to adopt Western ideals, clothes, music, literature, etc. The only thing which the Ayatollah does have is control of the armed forces: the Artesh (regular army) and the Revolutionary Guard (Qud's Force, specials and Basij militia). This gives the Ayatollah the power to use force to quell the dissent which is currently spreading throughout Iran.
By examining this event and comparing it to history, one notices that, unlike many totalitarian powers, the Ayatollah has been slow to unleash the power of his army. This may be for one or another reason, but it raises the question: if unleashed, would the Iranian Army kill its own?The army is completely under the direction of the Ayatollah, however it is not necessarily loyal to him as much of the army acts independently under the authority of numerous commanders. What’s more, frequent unconfirmed reports have been coming from Iran hinting that the army is not ready to attack fellow Iranians. While the police seem to be quite active in countering the protesters, they have not been as cruel as expected and have (according to current reports) killed less that a couple dozen people. True, they have resorted to using tear gas, water cannons, batons and media restriction, but they are definitely not rolling Iranians over with tanks. The real threat to the protesters has come from the Basij militia, a group of plain-clothes trained thugs used by the Ayatollah to infiltrate and destabilize protests. While this group is extremely violent, its tactics have killed relatively few and only help to fuel the fire. This is hardly overwhelming force.
The picture that this illustrates is one of a nation with a large youth (and that is to say politically active) population which has been repressed throughout much of its existence. Dissent has been bubbling up as students have asked for more and more rights within their nation. In 2003, Iranian students led a protest for government reform and were severely subdued by the regime. Then, the 2009 presidential elections offered Iranians a chance to voice their opinions in the form of votes. The election was rigged. The Supreme Leader placed the last straw on the camel's back, he created an event which took the last freedom, the right to vote, away from the Iranian people. The candidate which they voted for, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, was tallied at a loss to the irrational and possibly insane Muhammad Ahmadinejad, the lit fuse who repeatedly denies the Holocaust and hopes for the destruction of Israel. While the protests of this last week originally only asked for a recount of the votes, they now seem to be asking for much more and may soon foment into a mass protest for the end of the totalitarian Iranian regime.
For now it is unclear what will happen, however, if history is due to repeat itself, the Ayatollah will soon order the army to silence the protests, and if they refuse, which they may very well do, the Iranian regime has its days numbered. On the other hand, it is completely possible that the protests may wither as the days drag on; or perhaps the Ayatollah will give in (which will seal his fate); or the army just might decide to follow their orders which would certainly end in the deaths of hundreds.One thing is certain and that is that events have been set in motion, and thus the laws of physics state that they will remain in motion until some force stops them. A free and democratic Iran could possibly come into being within the next few months.
While it is true that freedom must come from inside the nation, it is also important for the protesters to realize the support of all democratic states, most prominently the US. Drawing from the media coverage of the Iranian protests, it is clear that the protesters are seeking US support; it is not a secret that a large portion of their picket signs are written in English. The US should certainly not intervene militarily, but its solidarity with the Iranian people must be made public, along with a strong condemnation of the totalitarian regime of the Ayatollah. Such solidarity was shown by Reagan in the 1987 'Berlin Wall Speech' and in his frequent condemnations of the USSR as an evil empire. The East Berliners knew they had the moral backing of the world and it is highly likely that international support helped bolster those Germans as they crossed the wall which had kept them from their family, friends and freedom for so long. If the world truly cares about a free Iran, which it should, it needs to make a firm stance against the Ayatollah and make it clear to the Iranians that the international community respects and supports their sovereignty and their cause. If ever there was a time to put the squeeze on the regime, it is now.
With November and the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall quickly approaching, such support and assistance would be an added boon to the thousands of courageous Iranians now fighting for their God-given rights.
Indeed, as history has proved, totalitarianism is always doomed to failure. The reason being that government was never meant to control the day-to-day actions of peoples' lives. As Thomas Hobbes pointed out in The Leviathan, the government of man was created in order to protect man from all others, to secure man in life and property, to protect his inalienable rights. Man, the creator of the social contract, has been provided with these inalienable rights from the beginning of time and thus cannot give said rights away. Though they may be taken away from time to time, such theft often causes friction between man and the sovereign (government) which he created with the social contract. The sovereign, while not beholden to the people, is beholden to the Law of Nature which, as Hobbes described, dictates that an object without support cannot stand, and thus, once the sovereign treats his people so cruelly as to wither their support for him, the people have the right to overthrow him.
However, it must be remembered that revolution is not so simple, as the sovereign has ways to retain power: 1) Having historical or ideological ties with the population, 2) Having charisma and 3) Controlling the security forces.Many leaders have come to power and maintained their rule due to their historical significance which created an almost cult-like following, George Washington for example, and Mao Tse-tung. These men were not altogether charismatic, but they held historical or ideological meaning respectively to their followers. Charisma has aided many leaders, especially Adolf Hitler and Fidel Castro. Fortunately, both sentimentality and charisma both wear off once the brutality of totalitarianism is made obvious. This is why all totalitarian leaders must eventually resort to using force of arms to control the population.
The use of such force is interesting because it plays on human nature. According to Hobbes, man is driven by passions, chief among them the fear of violent death. This fear is what pushed man to create the social contract in the first place. Once the leader begins using force, he reneges on the rules of the contract and replaces mans' fear of man with mans' fear of the regime. Machiavelli admitted that fear was a useful tool of any great leader, but he understood that fear was meant to be used in order to keep the peace, not to repress people completely, for once the leader loses the sentiment of the people, he has backed himself into a corner, destined to use force or risk losing power. The repeated use of such force during the beginning of the leader's reign and the fear which it creates, pressures the totalitarian regime to rely on force and coercion instead of consent, thus alienating the population. This process may take anywhere from a few days to a number of decades, but once the process has completely stripped the people of their rights and freedoms, the regime has no choice but crush every semblance of rebellion immediately, since reform is out of the question.
Hobbes wrote that the sovereign can only rule by consent of the people; in essence, the people hold the right to depose their sovereign if he is not fit for duty. This universal right of man is what eventually destroys totalitarian regimes. It is not outside influences, such as economic sanctions, that destroy totalitarianism, it is internal influences, such as the weakness of the regime and the will of the people. Eventually, once the people have been completely marginalized by the regime, and once an opportunity for rebellion shows itself, the people will rise up against the regime, ready to reorganize the social contract. At that point the regime has to make a decision: 1) reform by giving in to a few of the people's demands and die a slow death, 2) give in completely and lose their power or 3) use force to suppress revolt and remain in power.More often than not the regime chooses the latter. Such force was used in the Prague Spring of 1968, Tiananmen Square of 1989 and in many other places.
However, the use of such force relies on the loyalty of the security forces. In East Berlin, the government relied on the border guards to protect the wall which had divided the city for decades. The guards had direct orders to shoot to kill any person who crossed the border into West Berlin illegally. In similar fashion they successfully crushed a number of labor strikes and other protests. The change came in November of 1989 when for whatever reason, be it confusion or a sudden strike of humanity, the East German border guards refused to use force to stop the flow of people from East and West Berlin streaming through the wall. This refusal to use force motivated the people.Emboldened by Gunter Schabowski's gaffe which basically gave East Berliners the ability to legally cross the border, thousands of people stormed the wall and were allowed through. While the wall did not officially fall until the following year, the permissiveness of the guards effectively exhibited the weakness of the East German regime. Once that weakness was made public and the people realized they were no longer in danger from the security force, it was only months until the wall fell completely and West and East Germany were made one.
The totalitarian regime of the Supreme Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Iran is an abomination to all mankind. It stands for religious intolerance, repression of women, the destruction of free speech and the right to due process among many other rights. Thus, it is destined to fail. This Ayatollah does not have the historical and ideological aura which the late Supreme Leader held. Also, he has no overpowering charm or charisma with which he can woo the population. He has taken away many of the rights which Iranians would like to enjoy and he has been particularly cruel to the habits of young Iranians who wish to adopt Western ideals, clothes, music, literature, etc. The only thing which the Ayatollah does have is control of the armed forces: the Artesh (regular army) and the Revolutionary Guard (Qud's Force, specials and Basij militia). This gives the Ayatollah the power to use force to quell the dissent which is currently spreading throughout Iran.
By examining this event and comparing it to history, one notices that, unlike many totalitarian powers, the Ayatollah has been slow to unleash the power of his army. This may be for one or another reason, but it raises the question: if unleashed, would the Iranian Army kill its own?The army is completely under the direction of the Ayatollah, however it is not necessarily loyal to him as much of the army acts independently under the authority of numerous commanders. What’s more, frequent unconfirmed reports have been coming from Iran hinting that the army is not ready to attack fellow Iranians. While the police seem to be quite active in countering the protesters, they have not been as cruel as expected and have (according to current reports) killed less that a couple dozen people. True, they have resorted to using tear gas, water cannons, batons and media restriction, but they are definitely not rolling Iranians over with tanks. The real threat to the protesters has come from the Basij militia, a group of plain-clothes trained thugs used by the Ayatollah to infiltrate and destabilize protests. While this group is extremely violent, its tactics have killed relatively few and only help to fuel the fire. This is hardly overwhelming force.
The picture that this illustrates is one of a nation with a large youth (and that is to say politically active) population which has been repressed throughout much of its existence. Dissent has been bubbling up as students have asked for more and more rights within their nation. In 2003, Iranian students led a protest for government reform and were severely subdued by the regime. Then, the 2009 presidential elections offered Iranians a chance to voice their opinions in the form of votes. The election was rigged. The Supreme Leader placed the last straw on the camel's back, he created an event which took the last freedom, the right to vote, away from the Iranian people. The candidate which they voted for, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, was tallied at a loss to the irrational and possibly insane Muhammad Ahmadinejad, the lit fuse who repeatedly denies the Holocaust and hopes for the destruction of Israel. While the protests of this last week originally only asked for a recount of the votes, they now seem to be asking for much more and may soon foment into a mass protest for the end of the totalitarian Iranian regime.
For now it is unclear what will happen, however, if history is due to repeat itself, the Ayatollah will soon order the army to silence the protests, and if they refuse, which they may very well do, the Iranian regime has its days numbered. On the other hand, it is completely possible that the protests may wither as the days drag on; or perhaps the Ayatollah will give in (which will seal his fate); or the army just might decide to follow their orders which would certainly end in the deaths of hundreds.One thing is certain and that is that events have been set in motion, and thus the laws of physics state that they will remain in motion until some force stops them. A free and democratic Iran could possibly come into being within the next few months.
While it is true that freedom must come from inside the nation, it is also important for the protesters to realize the support of all democratic states, most prominently the US. Drawing from the media coverage of the Iranian protests, it is clear that the protesters are seeking US support; it is not a secret that a large portion of their picket signs are written in English. The US should certainly not intervene militarily, but its solidarity with the Iranian people must be made public, along with a strong condemnation of the totalitarian regime of the Ayatollah. Such solidarity was shown by Reagan in the 1987 'Berlin Wall Speech' and in his frequent condemnations of the USSR as an evil empire. The East Berliners knew they had the moral backing of the world and it is highly likely that international support helped bolster those Germans as they crossed the wall which had kept them from their family, friends and freedom for so long. If the world truly cares about a free Iran, which it should, it needs to make a firm stance against the Ayatollah and make it clear to the Iranians that the international community respects and supports their sovereignty and their cause. If ever there was a time to put the squeeze on the regime, it is now.
With November and the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall quickly approaching, such support and assistance would be an added boon to the thousands of courageous Iranians now fighting for their God-given rights.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
GOP to Embrace Hip-Hop?
Choosing a black American for the GOP chair was a good idea, and I really feel that the man was chosen because of his successes and also because of his color. Many urban Americans feel that the GOP stands for three things: racism, male chauvinism and big business. This view is EXTREMELY wrong and is racist and chauvinist in its own respect.
The GOP is trying to make up for all those voters who feel the way I described above, but they're going about it the wrong way. Why should the Republican Party try to appeal to urbanites through hip-hop? The GOP stands for traditional values, conservatism, responsibility, accountability and respect for women. Many hip-hop songs largely attack such values by demeaning women and teaching children to take up the life of a drug-dealer, pimp or baller. The GOP should not appease such people by lowering itself to their level. Instead, the GOP should lobby for comprehensive education packages which incease funding for university-level education in all areas of the US. Then, instead of looking like fools, the GOP can help America overcome its recession by increasing intelligence and accountability.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/02/19/2009-02-19_gop_head_michael_steele_promises_pr_blit.html
The GOP is trying to make up for all those voters who feel the way I described above, but they're going about it the wrong way. Why should the Republican Party try to appeal to urbanites through hip-hop? The GOP stands for traditional values, conservatism, responsibility, accountability and respect for women. Many hip-hop songs largely attack such values by demeaning women and teaching children to take up the life of a drug-dealer, pimp or baller. The GOP should not appease such people by lowering itself to their level. Instead, the GOP should lobby for comprehensive education packages which incease funding for university-level education in all areas of the US. Then, instead of looking like fools, the GOP can help America overcome its recession by increasing intelligence and accountability.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/02/19/2009-02-19_gop_head_michael_steele_promises_pr_blit.html
Monday, February 9, 2009
Another Attempt to Silence Ms. Coulter
Typical liberal posturing: try to silence conservative opinions by citing marginal or irrelevant crimes such as voting fraud. Thousands in Lake County, IN and Chicago commit voting fraud every two years. But then again, dead people have the right to vote too!
All that aside, this investigation is simply another feeble attempt to discredit a female conservative. Unfortunately, liberals cannot stand when a woman takes a stand against pro-choicers, socialists and atheists. Let's be honest, this investigation will probably end without any result, but it's time that the media find a new way to defeat Ms. Coulter. Stop the legal banter and find a way to defeat her with honest rhetoric and facts.
Always,
C.D. Mercado
All that aside, this investigation is simply another feeble attempt to discredit a female conservative. Unfortunately, liberals cannot stand when a woman takes a stand against pro-choicers, socialists and atheists. Let's be honest, this investigation will probably end without any result, but it's time that the media find a new way to defeat Ms. Coulter. Stop the legal banter and find a way to defeat her with honest rhetoric and facts.
Always,
C.D. Mercado
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Welcome
Welcome everyone! As both a political scientist and an historian, I wish to use this blog to promote traditional American values of piety, education, family, freedom, free-market capitalism, private property, human rights, etc. I am a conservative and a Republican, yet I am always open to intelligent debate and constructive criticism. Feel free to actively participate in discussion and learn from my posts, no matter your experience, age, political stance, etc. This blog is open to all comments, however, I ask that you please follow 3 simple rules:
1.) You must remain civil and courteous; no profanity
2.) You must be open-minded and repectful of others' views; I cannot stand incompetence or irrationality
3.) You must be able to support your views with facts and sources
Always,
C. D. Mercado
1.) You must remain civil and courteous; no profanity
2.) You must be open-minded and repectful of others' views; I cannot stand incompetence or irrationality
3.) You must be able to support your views with facts and sources
Always,
C. D. Mercado
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
