Working for logical immigation reform based on a stable population, a recognition of the finite nature of our natural resources and the adverse impact of continued growth on our quality of life, standard of living, national interest, character, language, sovereignty and the rule of law. Pushing back and countering the disloyal elements in American society and the anti-American rhetoric of the leftwing illegal alien lobbies. In a debate, when your opponents turn to name calling, it's a good sign you've already won.

Monday, May 26, 2008

The Attack on Western Civilization

There are three major monotheistic religions in the world: Christianity, Judaism and Islam. In the 16th century, Judaism and Christianity reconciled with the modern world. The rabbis, priests and scholars found a way to settle up and pave the way forward. Religion remained at the center of life, church and state became separate. Rule of law, the idea of economic liberty, individual rights, and human rights - all these are defining points of modern Western civilization. These concepts started with the Greeks but didn’t take off until the 15th and 16th century when Judaism and Christianity found a way to reconcile with the modern world. When that happened, it unleashed the scientific revolution and the greatest outpouring of art, literature and music the world has ever known.
Islam, which developed in the 7th century, counts millions of Muslims around the world who are normal people. However, there is a radical streak within Islam. When the radicals are in charge, Islam attacks Western civilization. Islam first attacked Western civilization in the 7th century, and later in the 16th and 17th centuries. By 1683, the Muslims (Turks from the Ottoman Empire) were literally at the gates of Vienna. It was in Vienna that the climatic battle between Islam and Western civilization took place. The West won and went forward. Islam lost and went backward. Interestingly, the date of that battle was September 11. Since them, Islam has not found a way to reconcile with the modern world.

Today, terrorism is the third attack on Western civilization by radical Islam. To deal with terrorism, the U.S. is doing two things. First, units of our armed forces are in 30 countries around the world hunting down terrorist groups and dealing with them. This gets very little publicity. Second we are taking military action in Afghanistan and Iraq.

These actions are covered relentlessly by the media. People can argue about whether the war in Iraq is right or wrong. However, the underlying strategy behind the war is to use our military to remove the radicals from power and give the moderates a chance. Our hope is that, over time, the
moderates will find a way to bring Islam forward into the 21st century. That’s what our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is all about.

The lesson of 9/11 is that we live in a world where a small number of people can kill a large number of people very quickly. They can use airplanes, bombs, anthrax, chemical weapons or dirty bombs. Even with a first-rate intelligence service (which the U.S. does not have), you can’t stop every attack. That means our tolerance for political horseplay has dropped to zero. No longer will we play games with terrorists or weapons of mass destructions.

Most of the instability and horseplay is coming from the Middle East. That’s why we have thought that if we could knock out the radicals and give the moderates a chance to hold power; they might find a way to reconcile Islam with the modern world. So when looking at Afghanistan or Iraq, it’s important to look for any signs that they are modernizing.
For example: women being brought into the work force and colleges in Afghanistan is good. The Iraqis stumbling toward a constitution is good. People can argue about what the U.S. is doing and how we’re doing it, but anything that suggests Islam is finding its way forward is good.

Sunday, May 25, 2008

The Beltway Bill

The Editors, The Wall Street Journal, Regarding Congress and the Farm Bill:

“President Bush vetoed the $300 billion farm bill yesterday, and a bipartisan throng in the House promptly voted to override. The Senate is expected to follow shortly. Every one of these Congressional worthies purports to be an advocate of ‘change.’

“Yet you couldn't write a piece of legislation that more thoroughly represents the Beltway status quo than this one. In every way imaginable, and even a few more, it repeats and compounds the spendthrift errors of previous farm bills.”

Did Obama vote for this Beltway Bill? Isn't he always criticizing the Beltway crowd?

Jimmy Obama

Saturday, May 24, 2008

545 PEOPLE By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
I don't ever remember a time when there has been so much unrest and discontent with the entire government in its present state. I do this anyway because I am mean and hateful. No, I really feel one term is enough - it is public service - so don't expect a lot of perks after your term is up - get elected, do the job - then get out. LOL

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, why we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, why we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does and the Congress disposes. You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does. You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does. You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913 , Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red. If the Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ. If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power. They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.

Saturday, May 10, 2008

Some Questions for Presidential Candidates

1. Senator Obama, you got 92% of the Black vote in North Carolina and 36% of the
White vote. What is your candid interpretation of this result? Are Blacks more racially biased than Whites?
2. Do you believe global warming and climate change are real? If so, how do you think 300 million more people will affect the U.S. total output of carbon pollutants? According to the UN at the present rate, 300 million people would add 6 billion more metric tons of to the atmosphere every year.
3. The limit of finite natural resources per capita as population grows without bounds is zero. This means as population grows there is less of these natural resources like water, petroleum, timber, arable land, and other minerals. No one has quarreled with this basic concept. It suggests that population-driven economic growth is unsustainable and that, therefore, we should adopt a national objective of a stable population to be achieved within the next 20 years. Do you agree? Why or why not?
4. What changes would you propose to decrease the rate of depletion of our natural resources and reduce the pressure on others like the supply of water in the arid Southwest?
5. Senator Obama, you have based your campaign on "change" but hasn't every presidential campaign been based on that idea from time immemorial?
6. To achieve a sustainable economy what changes in tax and immigration policies would you favor?
7. As water is usurped by cities with growing populations and arable land is destroyed or developed how will we be able to feed our people?
8. Senator Obama, you have indicated that you will propose tax increases ranging from 12% on income to 164% of dividends to an infinite increase on estates. Yet, you fail to indicate how much of the new revenue you will use to reduce the national debt. Some believe that increasing capital gains taxes by 87% and dividends by 164% will hurt 401k and other retirement plans that are already inadequate in many cases. You defend your position by saying income from 401ks is taxed as ordinary income and therefore is unaffected by an increase in the capital gains tax. While this is true for individuals, is it also true for the mutual funds themselves? Do mutual funds receive favorable tax treatment for capital gains? How about dividends that flow into 401k assets? Why would you want to tax those dividends a second time, once when the related revenues are earned by the companies and again when they are received by the 401k annuitants or other investors? Do you endorse double taxation of dividends? Do you endorse the taxation of phantom capital gains unadjusted for inflation?
9. Senator McCain, you like all presidential candidates have skirted any solution to the illegal aliens problem other than amnesty. Do you believe we can secure our borders without a vigorous and continuous internal enforcement program beginning with work status E-verification and expeditious repatriation?
10. One of the main stumbling blocks to the solution of the illegal alien problem is the current interpretation of the 14th amendment. Would you favor withholding birthright citizenship unless at least one of the parents is a citizen? Would you favor withholding birthright citizenship until the individual reaches age 21 or enlists in the armed forces for not less than 4 years?
11. Everyone says English is our national language but oppose an Official English constitutional amendment to make it so by declaring all government proceedings and publications at all levels of government will be conducted only in English. Can one really be serious about the former without supporting the latter? Are we headed to a wasteful bilingual society?
12. Hispanics are the fastest growing sector of our population. If this continues, isn't it likely that they will in the long run recreate the very conditions they fled their homelands to escape?