The uprisings in the Arab countries appears to bode well for Democracy; or it can open the door wider to radical Islam. According to what we see via the media, is that the people of Egypt and Tunisia have had enough of the corrupt regimes in their respective countries and want a free and democratic society. This implies that they, although mainly Muslim, are not looking toward radical Islam.
The recent decade has opened the world to the Internet. The availablity of information regarding the disparity of life in the west versus life in the repressive countries mainly through social media such as Facebook, Twitter, various blogs and email, has opened the floodgates of truth and freedom within those countries.
The United States needs to be wary of interference - either overt or covert - in that it might resurrect the idea of the debacle with the Shah of Iran which lead to hatred of the United States by the Arab countries, and may well have fed the rise of radical Islam. The concern is that the new government in Egypt continues to be an ally of the United States and of Israel.
This may be a turning point as dominos fall regarding the rise of democracy in the Arab countries, and could diminish the rise of radical Islam. We can only hope.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Response to a mailing from Mark Kirk
I received your mailing requesting a response as to what the U.S. should do about the political upheaval in Egypt. I am responding this way because the limited responses did not satisfy my feelings on this issue.
I believe that the U.S. response must be measured so that we are not perceived as interfering, especially since the possible fate of Israel could be compromised. Obviously, we would want Egypt to become a democratic state with freedom and human rights, but the risk of overt interference could give credence to the fundamentalist Islamic movement.
The primary issue, in my opinion, is that the new leader of Egypt must be pro-democracy and a supporter of Israel. Since there is no clear candidate at this time, we need to proceed with diplomacy and hope that a suitable candidate comes to the fore. It seems that the youth of Egypt would support a democratic society as opposed to an Islamic state.
I believe that the U.S. response must be measured so that we are not perceived as interfering, especially since the possible fate of Israel could be compromised. Obviously, we would want Egypt to become a democratic state with freedom and human rights, but the risk of overt interference could give credence to the fundamentalist Islamic movement.
The primary issue, in my opinion, is that the new leader of Egypt must be pro-democracy and a supporter of Israel. Since there is no clear candidate at this time, we need to proceed with diplomacy and hope that a suitable candidate comes to the fore. It seems that the youth of Egypt would support a democratic society as opposed to an Islamic state.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Is our way of life doomed??
I just viewed a long sales hype from Stansberry Associates regarding the imminent collapse of the United States. Most of the sales pitch was the lack of confidence in the dollar by other countries, especially oil rich countries. Stansberry made the point that as the dollar is devalued, other currency such as the Euro, Yen, or Chinese Yuan will become the monetary standard of the world, or possibly a new world currency 'Bancor'. After about an hour of hype, he said that following his plan, that we could become quite wealthy in the failing economy. Sounds like a contradiction here. Here is some of the other issues in his statements - some are basically true:
The federal government is deeply in debt (about 13 trillion), and many states (including Illinois, of course) are pretty much bankrupt. Gas prices will go up substantially, as will other prices since transportation is a large part of our economy. However, I feel that the demise of the US Government is a bit over-hyped. The value of the dollar is taking a serious hit due to the failing economy, but we have recovered before (depression in 1938) and we returned to a booming economy. The problem currently is that we will not see a recovery for several years, and during that time unemployment will remain high and businesses will continue to fail. What I am most concerned about is that government's solution to the current crisis is to take over businesses and banks. That can be a dangerous precedent and smacks of socialism. If we, as citizens, are told it is to save the economy, while at the same time greatly increasing our debt, simple accounting tells you it is not true. However, I wish I would have bought gold when it was $32 an ounce in the 1960's. Inflated gold is common in times of a down market.
The same banks (too big to fail) who were "loaned" enormous amounts of money have reduced interest on savings and CD's to minuscule amounts - often less than 1% while shutting off mortgage loans to most borrowers because the interest rate for the loan is too low for their profit margin. That was not an issue when they could rake in the undervalued mortgages. Also credit card interest is climbing - often to 20% or better when they are paying their good customers less than 1%. The banks are not hurting - the investors and savers are. And, with government running the big banks, we are in danger of a worse economy. This is a Capitalist society where competition drives the economy by forcing businesses to build better products at reasonable costs. That is why we have been the economic leader in the free world. Hopefully, although we are losing the economic advantage, we will not lose our tenuous position as the beacon of Democracy in the free world.
The federal government is deeply in debt (about 13 trillion), and many states (including Illinois, of course) are pretty much bankrupt. Gas prices will go up substantially, as will other prices since transportation is a large part of our economy. However, I feel that the demise of the US Government is a bit over-hyped. The value of the dollar is taking a serious hit due to the failing economy, but we have recovered before (depression in 1938) and we returned to a booming economy. The problem currently is that we will not see a recovery for several years, and during that time unemployment will remain high and businesses will continue to fail. What I am most concerned about is that government's solution to the current crisis is to take over businesses and banks. That can be a dangerous precedent and smacks of socialism. If we, as citizens, are told it is to save the economy, while at the same time greatly increasing our debt, simple accounting tells you it is not true. However, I wish I would have bought gold when it was $32 an ounce in the 1960's. Inflated gold is common in times of a down market.
The same banks (too big to fail) who were "loaned" enormous amounts of money have reduced interest on savings and CD's to minuscule amounts - often less than 1% while shutting off mortgage loans to most borrowers because the interest rate for the loan is too low for their profit margin. That was not an issue when they could rake in the undervalued mortgages. Also credit card interest is climbing - often to 20% or better when they are paying their good customers less than 1%. The banks are not hurting - the investors and savers are. And, with government running the big banks, we are in danger of a worse economy. This is a Capitalist society where competition drives the economy by forcing businesses to build better products at reasonable costs. That is why we have been the economic leader in the free world. Hopefully, although we are losing the economic advantage, we will not lose our tenuous position as the beacon of Democracy in the free world.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
The Lawyers' Party by Bruce Walker.
The Democratic Party has become the Lawyers’ Party.
Barack Obama is a lawyer.
Michelle Obama is a lawyer.
Hillary Clinton is a lawyer.
Bill Clinton is a lawyer.
John Edwards is a lawyer.
Elizabeth Edwards is a lawyer.
Every Democrat nominee since 1984 went to law school (although Gore did not graduate).
Every Democrat vice presidential nominee since 1976, except for Lloyd Bentsen, went to law school.
Look at leaders of the Democrat Party in Congress: Harry Reid is a lawyer. Nancy Pelosi is a lawyer.
The Republican Party is different.
President Bush is a businessman.
Vice President Cheney is a businessman.
The leaders of the Republican Revolution:
Newt Gingrich was a history professor.
Tom Delay was an exterminator.
Dick Armey was an economist.
House Minority Leader Boehner was a plastic manufacturer.
The former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is a heart surgeon.
Who was the last Republican president who was a lawyer?
Gerald Ford, who left office 31 years ago and who barely won the Republican nomination as a sitting president, running against Ronald Reagan in 1976.
The Republican Party is made up of real people doing real work, who are often the targets of lawyers.
The Democrat Party is made up of lawyers. Democrats mock and scorn men who create wealth, like Bush and Cheney, or who heal the sick, like Frist, or who immerse themselves in history, like Gingrich.
The Lawyers’ Party sees these sorts of people, who provide goods and services that people want, as the enemies of America. And, so we have seen the procession of official enemies, in the eyes of the Lawyers’ Party, grow.
Against whom do Hillary and Obama rail? Pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, hospitals, manufacturers, fast food restaurant chains, large retail businesses, bankers, and anyone producing anything of value in our nation.
This is the natural consequence of viewing everything through the eyes of lawyers. Lawyers solve problems by successfully representing their clients, in this case the American people. Lawyers seek to have new laws passed, they seek to win lawsuits, they press appellate courts to overturn precedent, and lawyers always parse language to favor their side.
Confined to the narrow practice of law, that is fine. But it is an awful way to govern a great nation. When politicians as lawyers begin to view some Americans as clients and other Americans as opposing parties, then the role of the legal system in our life becomes all-consuming.
Some Americans become “adverse parties” of our very government. We are not all litigants in some vast social class-action suit. We are citizens of a republic that promises us a great deal of freedom from laws, from courts, and from lawyers.
Today, we are drowning in laws; we are contorted by judicial decisions; we are driven to distraction by omnipresent lawyers in all parts of our once private lives.
America has a place for laws and lawyers, but that place is modest and reasonable, not vast and unchecked.
When the most important decision for our next president is whom he will appoint to the Supreme Court, the role of lawyers and the law in America is too big.
When lawyers use criminal prosecution as a continuation of politics by other means, as happened in the lynching of Scooter Libby and Tom Delay, then the power of lawyers in America is too great.
When House Democrats sue America in order to hamstring our efforts to learn what our enemies are planning to do to us, then the role of litigation in America has become crushing.
We cannot expect the Lawyers’ Party to provide real change, real reform or real hope in America Most Americans know that a republic in which every major government action must be blessed by nine unelected judges is not what Washington intended in 1789.
Most Americans grasp that we cannot fight a war when ACLU lawsuits snap at the heels of our defenders. Most Americans intuit that more lawyers and judges will not restore declining moral values or spark the spirit of enterprise in our economy.
Perhaps Americans will understand that change cannot be brought to our nation by those lawyers who already largely dictate American society and business.
Perhaps Americans will see that hope does not come from the mouths of lawyers but from personal dreams nourished by hard work.
Perhaps Americans will embrace the truth that more lawyers with more power will only make our problems worse.
The United States has 5% of the world’s population and 66% of the world’s lawyers!
Tort (Legal) reform legislation has been introduced in congress several times in the last several years to limit punitive damages in ridiculous lawsuits such as “spilling hot coffee on yourself and suing the establishment that sold it to you” and also to limit punitive damages in huge medical malpractice lawsuits. This legislation has continually been blocked from even being voted on by the Democrat Party.
When you see that 97% of the political contributions from the American Trial Lawyers Association goes to the Democrat Party, then you realize who is responsible for our medical and product costs being so high!
Barack Obama is a lawyer.
Michelle Obama is a lawyer.
Hillary Clinton is a lawyer.
Bill Clinton is a lawyer.
John Edwards is a lawyer.
Elizabeth Edwards is a lawyer.
Every Democrat nominee since 1984 went to law school (although Gore did not graduate).
Every Democrat vice presidential nominee since 1976, except for Lloyd Bentsen, went to law school.
Look at leaders of the Democrat Party in Congress: Harry Reid is a lawyer. Nancy Pelosi is a lawyer.
The Republican Party is different.
President Bush is a businessman.
Vice President Cheney is a businessman.
The leaders of the Republican Revolution:
Newt Gingrich was a history professor.
Tom Delay was an exterminator.
Dick Armey was an economist.
House Minority Leader Boehner was a plastic manufacturer.
The former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is a heart surgeon.
Who was the last Republican president who was a lawyer?
Gerald Ford, who left office 31 years ago and who barely won the Republican nomination as a sitting president, running against Ronald Reagan in 1976.
The Republican Party is made up of real people doing real work, who are often the targets of lawyers.
The Democrat Party is made up of lawyers. Democrats mock and scorn men who create wealth, like Bush and Cheney, or who heal the sick, like Frist, or who immerse themselves in history, like Gingrich.
The Lawyers’ Party sees these sorts of people, who provide goods and services that people want, as the enemies of America. And, so we have seen the procession of official enemies, in the eyes of the Lawyers’ Party, grow.
Against whom do Hillary and Obama rail? Pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, hospitals, manufacturers, fast food restaurant chains, large retail businesses, bankers, and anyone producing anything of value in our nation.
This is the natural consequence of viewing everything through the eyes of lawyers. Lawyers solve problems by successfully representing their clients, in this case the American people. Lawyers seek to have new laws passed, they seek to win lawsuits, they press appellate courts to overturn precedent, and lawyers always parse language to favor their side.
Confined to the narrow practice of law, that is fine. But it is an awful way to govern a great nation. When politicians as lawyers begin to view some Americans as clients and other Americans as opposing parties, then the role of the legal system in our life becomes all-consuming.
Some Americans become “adverse parties” of our very government. We are not all litigants in some vast social class-action suit. We are citizens of a republic that promises us a great deal of freedom from laws, from courts, and from lawyers.
Today, we are drowning in laws; we are contorted by judicial decisions; we are driven to distraction by omnipresent lawyers in all parts of our once private lives.
America has a place for laws and lawyers, but that place is modest and reasonable, not vast and unchecked.
When the most important decision for our next president is whom he will appoint to the Supreme Court, the role of lawyers and the law in America is too big.
When lawyers use criminal prosecution as a continuation of politics by other means, as happened in the lynching of Scooter Libby and Tom Delay, then the power of lawyers in America is too great.
When House Democrats sue America in order to hamstring our efforts to learn what our enemies are planning to do to us, then the role of litigation in America has become crushing.
We cannot expect the Lawyers’ Party to provide real change, real reform or real hope in America Most Americans know that a republic in which every major government action must be blessed by nine unelected judges is not what Washington intended in 1789.
Most Americans grasp that we cannot fight a war when ACLU lawsuits snap at the heels of our defenders. Most Americans intuit that more lawyers and judges will not restore declining moral values or spark the spirit of enterprise in our economy.
Perhaps Americans will understand that change cannot be brought to our nation by those lawyers who already largely dictate American society and business.
Perhaps Americans will see that hope does not come from the mouths of lawyers but from personal dreams nourished by hard work.
Perhaps Americans will embrace the truth that more lawyers with more power will only make our problems worse.
The United States has 5% of the world’s population and 66% of the world’s lawyers!
Tort (Legal) reform legislation has been introduced in congress several times in the last several years to limit punitive damages in ridiculous lawsuits such as “spilling hot coffee on yourself and suing the establishment that sold it to you” and also to limit punitive damages in huge medical malpractice lawsuits. This legislation has continually been blocked from even being voted on by the Democrat Party.
When you see that 97% of the political contributions from the American Trial Lawyers Association goes to the Democrat Party, then you realize who is responsible for our medical and product costs being so high!
Why I cannot vote Democratic, and why I joined the Tea Party
Freedomworks.org Friday, December 17, 2010
Tea Party Stops $1.3 Trillion Pork Bill
Yesterday, on the 237th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, pressure from grassroots activists forced Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to withdraw his pork-laden Omnibus spending bill from further consideration. Not only was the bill chock-full of earmarks, but it also sought to provide funding to key provisions of Obama's health care law. Its defeat was an early holiday gift and a story Hollywood couldn't have scripted any better.
When the Sons of Liberty stormed Boston Harbor that 16th day of December in 1773, they set in motion a chain of events that eventually led to the American Revolution. This year, the Tea Party movement proved that there has been a seismic shift in the politics of spending.
This victory wouldn't have been possible, of course, without the tireless efforts of activists like you, who helped usher in November's congressional landslide. Your desire to fulfill the timeless vision of the Boston Tea Party continues to sustain and grow this decentralized, grassroots movement.
Federal Judge: Obamacare Is Unconstitutional
U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson struck down the individual mandate of Obama's health care law on Monday, finding the measure which requires citizens to purchase health care by 2014 to be unconstitutional. This is a big early victory in a long fight which will now move to federal appeals court and will likely be finally decided by the Supreme Court.
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who spoke at FreedomWorks' 9/12 Taxpayer March on Washington, has been instrumental in the fight against Obamacare.
"I am gratified we prevailed," Cuccinelli told CNN. "This won't be the final round, as this will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, but today is a critical milestone in the protection of the Constitution."
Already, support for Cuccinelli has been voiced by thousands on our FreedomWorks Facebook page. Please become a fan of FreedomWorks on Facebook to "like", "comment" and "share" our stories. Don't forget to click the suggest friends link to invite your friends to join our page. This is critical in helping us spread the word about lower taxes, less government and more freedom.
Tea Party Stops $1.3 Trillion Pork Bill
Yesterday, on the 237th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, pressure from grassroots activists forced Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to withdraw his pork-laden Omnibus spending bill from further consideration. Not only was the bill chock-full of earmarks, but it also sought to provide funding to key provisions of Obama's health care law. Its defeat was an early holiday gift and a story Hollywood couldn't have scripted any better.
When the Sons of Liberty stormed Boston Harbor that 16th day of December in 1773, they set in motion a chain of events that eventually led to the American Revolution. This year, the Tea Party movement proved that there has been a seismic shift in the politics of spending.
This victory wouldn't have been possible, of course, without the tireless efforts of activists like you, who helped usher in November's congressional landslide. Your desire to fulfill the timeless vision of the Boston Tea Party continues to sustain and grow this decentralized, grassroots movement.
Federal Judge: Obamacare Is Unconstitutional
U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson struck down the individual mandate of Obama's health care law on Monday, finding the measure which requires citizens to purchase health care by 2014 to be unconstitutional. This is a big early victory in a long fight which will now move to federal appeals court and will likely be finally decided by the Supreme Court.
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who spoke at FreedomWorks' 9/12 Taxpayer March on Washington, has been instrumental in the fight against Obamacare.
"I am gratified we prevailed," Cuccinelli told CNN. "This won't be the final round, as this will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, but today is a critical milestone in the protection of the Constitution."
Already, support for Cuccinelli has been voiced by thousands on our FreedomWorks Facebook page. Please become a fan of FreedomWorks on Facebook to "like", "comment" and "share" our stories. Don't forget to click the suggest friends link to invite your friends to join our page. This is critical in helping us spread the word about lower taxes, less government and more freedom.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
A government of the people, by the people, and for the people
There are members of Congress who need to understand about the will of the people. The people of this great country want to remain in a free and democratic society, and to maintain the Constitution that has succeeded in guiding us for more than two hundred years.
Our forefathers had the wisdom and courage to establish this new country in a way that allowed for peaceful transition of leadership based on the judgment of the electorate and the electoral college. That leadership involves primarily two of the three branches of our government: the Executive and the Legislative. When either of these branches does not act in the best interest of the people of this country, the people need to speak out and demand that we are being served in our best interests and not for the convenience of the elected.
This administration and several of the those elected to Congress appear not to be sensitive to the will of the people. It is not a contest of which party is right, but what best serves the people. Each issue needs to be dealt with in a manner which answers the question without regard to the party: "What is in the best interest of the people that we serve?"
Every social system has it's benefits and it's flaws: Ours being that members of our government are elected, and in order to stay in office, they must be reelected. But at the same time they must be loyal to their party. That often results in a conflict of interest. In addition, there is pressure from lobbyists and the corruption of bills by earmarks which have no relation to the bill, but add additional costs. Talk of bipartisanship is often hollow, and unbridled power can lead to corruption.
The current administration needs to heed the will of the people. We need a smaller, more efficient government with greater fiscal responsibility. More government control is expensive and is contradictory to our democracy. The elected need to remember the words of Abraham Lincoln at the close of the Gettysburg Address: "... a government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish for the earth."
Our forefathers had the wisdom and courage to establish this new country in a way that allowed for peaceful transition of leadership based on the judgment of the electorate and the electoral college. That leadership involves primarily two of the three branches of our government: the Executive and the Legislative. When either of these branches does not act in the best interest of the people of this country, the people need to speak out and demand that we are being served in our best interests and not for the convenience of the elected.
This administration and several of the those elected to Congress appear not to be sensitive to the will of the people. It is not a contest of which party is right, but what best serves the people. Each issue needs to be dealt with in a manner which answers the question without regard to the party: "What is in the best interest of the people that we serve?"
Every social system has it's benefits and it's flaws: Ours being that members of our government are elected, and in order to stay in office, they must be reelected. But at the same time they must be loyal to their party. That often results in a conflict of interest. In addition, there is pressure from lobbyists and the corruption of bills by earmarks which have no relation to the bill, but add additional costs. Talk of bipartisanship is often hollow, and unbridled power can lead to corruption.
The current administration needs to heed the will of the people. We need a smaller, more efficient government with greater fiscal responsibility. More government control is expensive and is contradictory to our democracy. The elected need to remember the words of Abraham Lincoln at the close of the Gettysburg Address: "... a government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish for the earth."
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Republicans In Name Only
Now that the House of Representatives has a narrow conservative majority, we need to ensure that remaining RINO's (Republicans In Name Only) like Rep. Fred Upton (Michigan 6th District) do not sabotage the conservative agenda. Rep. Upton's voting record indicates that he often favors the progressive policies.
Rep. Upton aspires to the chairmanship of the Energy and Commerce Committee which has major influence on a broad swath of domestic policy issues. However, he has voted against tax cuts and for Pelosi's Omnibus Spending Bill. He voted against federal deficit reduction and for increased welfare. He voted for bailouts and increased government regulation; against offshore drilling and for increased taxes on domestic energy companies. Those policies are indicative of a legislator who is not in touch with what the country wants.
Many people, including myself, feel that he should not become chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee since he is far out of step with the Tea Party values, the GOP, and America as a whole.
Rep. Upton aspires to the chairmanship of the Energy and Commerce Committee which has major influence on a broad swath of domestic policy issues. However, he has voted against tax cuts and for Pelosi's Omnibus Spending Bill. He voted against federal deficit reduction and for increased welfare. He voted for bailouts and increased government regulation; against offshore drilling and for increased taxes on domestic energy companies. Those policies are indicative of a legislator who is not in touch with what the country wants.
Many people, including myself, feel that he should not become chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee since he is far out of step with the Tea Party values, the GOP, and America as a whole.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)