-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Sunday, September 30, 2012
U.S. Constitution is a Contract, Not a Rule Book
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Yet another email attack intended to confuse what people think about the United States Constitution has hit the web. The claim is that the idea the U.S. Constitution is a contract is a myth. The message further asserts that the Constitution, rather than being a contract, is a rule book, a set of instructions if you may, given by a bunch of delegates in 1787 to a soon-to-exist federal government.
The argument has been presented to serve as a distraction. The aim by the originators of this falsehood is to get those that support the Constitution to divide and bicker. Such a split enables them to cause distress among conservatives, and ultimately conquer the Constitution as the supporters look the other way because of the battle over whether or not the Constitution is a contract.
I am saddened that those spreading the attack against those that believe in the Constitution count themselves as believers in the principles of the Constitution as well, and have fallen for this attack.
However, the question has been posed, so I believe it is important for it to be answered.
In short, the Constitution is a contract, finding its roots in the concept of a social contract, an agreement by individuals to create a society where they can live together, mutually benefiting each other. Such a contract recognizes the conditions of the society, natural rights, functions of the government, and the pooling of powers for the purpose of protecting the society.
Yet another email attack intended to confuse what people think about the United States Constitution has hit the web. The claim is that the idea the U.S. Constitution is a contract is a myth. The message further asserts that the Constitution, rather than being a contract, is a rule book, a set of instructions if you may, given by a bunch of delegates in 1787 to a soon-to-exist federal government.
The argument has been presented to serve as a distraction. The aim by the originators of this falsehood is to get those that support the Constitution to divide and bicker. Such a split enables them to cause distress among conservatives, and ultimately conquer the Constitution as the supporters look the other way because of the battle over whether or not the Constitution is a contract.
I am saddened that those spreading the attack against those that believe in the Constitution count themselves as believers in the principles of the Constitution as well, and have fallen for this attack.
However, the question has been posed, so I believe it is important for it to be answered.
In short, the Constitution is a contract, finding its roots in the concept of a social contract, an agreement by individuals to create a society where they can live together, mutually benefiting each other. Such a contract recognizes the conditions of the society, natural rights, functions of the government, and the pooling of powers for the purpose of protecting the society.
Once the social contract is accepted, the society determines what their defined territory is. This establishes a right of birthplace, a feature not necessarily present in a society with no territory, such as one that is nomadic.
The social contract's development, in order to create a system of governance, often includes a written contractual agreement known as a constitution. In the case of the United States, the Constitution in 1787 created a federal government. The contract between the States and the new federal government established the governmental institutions, offices, procedures, duties, parameters, limits, and authorities for the new federal government, while also establishing a few prohibitions to the States in an effort to ensure the new federal government could function without interference in the duties granted to it. Through the principles established in the Constitution, the new government was then able to create laws, a defense force, a system of taxation, and the other aspects of government necessary for the proper functioning of a central governmental system.
The U.S. Constitution, while creating the framework of the federal government, also was written in a way to only allow the federal government to exercise the powers delegated to it by the States through the contract known as the Constitution. Whenever the federal government acts in a manner outside the authorities granted as expressly enumerated in the Constitution, the central government is acting illegally, breaching the contract it was established through.
The concept of the social contract was originated by such persons like John Locke, who recognized the existence of natural rights, and the necessity of social contracts for society to prevail as human society develops and expands. Each of us, by birth, are participants in this contract, established the moment we are born in the society, through a kind of social contract called a filial contract. The filial contract exists between the parents and their children, the terms being (according to John Locke) that the child will participate in the parent-child relationship, which includes protection for the children during their childhood, and support for the parents in their later years.
During the growth of the child, they engage with the larger society outside the immediate family unit, establishing a social contract with the other residents of the society. The social contract's terms include living in harmony, adhering to local laws, and adhering to the obligations to the larger community as an individual.
Though largely unwritten, social contracts can extend to written contracts which are more complicated.
In the case of the United States, that written contract is the U.S. Constitution.
In a society populated by people, conflicts arise, and some members of the society aspire to gain power over the society through government dictates and economic manipulation. The Founding Fathers recognized this tendency of human nature, and addressed the problem by creating checks and balances throughout the federal government created by the written contract known as the U.S. Constitution. Three branches of government were created, enjoying a separation of powers. A separation of powers was also established between the States and the federal government. The separation of powers not only created a guard against collusion, but also enabled the ability of the parts of government to be able to check other parts of government against abuses.
Among those abuses is the compromise by government of the rights of individuals. Natural law dictates that rights are God-given, not provided by government, therefore, rights belong to the individual and cannot be taken away by government. Among those rights, according to the Declaration of Independence, is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Preamble of the Constitution reassures the protection of these Blessings of Liberty, and the Constitution expresses that the Congress of the federal government shall make no laws compromising those rights. Government, after all, has no right to these rights, because they are natural, and an integral part of the social contract. Natural rights are unalienable, and are recognized as such in the Constitution. The Constitution does not grant these rights, for they are God-given. The Constitution recognizes these rights, and indicates that no constitutional provision can be created to take away such rights.
Yet, governments intent upon becoming tyrannies attempt to seize the powers necessary to deprive people of their rights. What these tyrannies never realize, however, is that natural rights are never lost. They always belong to the individual members of the society.
Which brings us back to the Constitution, and the fact that it is a contract. To ensure the new federal government did not become a tyranny, and that the experiment of self-governance in America stood the test of time, the delegates of the Constitutional Convention endeavored to create a contract by the States forming a United States central government strong enough to protect the union, yet limited enough in its powers that it did not devour the sovereignty of the individual States.
Rule books are easy to change, and can be changed at ease by the powerful elites in charge. In sports, the all-powerful commissioners can alter the rules. But in a contract, the parties of the agreement must be involved in any changes. If the Constitution is indeed a rule book, then the ruling elite of government can change it at will. If the Constitution is a rule book, then it is a living document that can be manipulated through interpretation. The Constitution is a contract, and therefore cannot be altered so easily. In the case of the Constitution, these changes are brought about by amendment, requiring ratification of the States, the originators of the contract through the delegates of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, and the State ratification process.
The aspects of a contract, according to those claiming the Constitution is not a contract, require:
1. Offer and acceptance, by which one party extends an offer and the other party has an opportunity to freely accept or refuse to accept,
2. Consideration, usually understood to mean that there is an exchange of value for value, but at the very least an exchange of wills in accordance with (1),
3. Legal intent, that is, the contract may not oblige parties to do anything which is illegal
4. Capacity, that is, the parties are both of mind sound enough to give valid consent and agreement
The answers are clear when it comes to the Constitution.
1. The State ratification process offered the new system of government to the States, giving them the opportunity to freely accept or refuse the agreement, which included accepting, or rejecting, forming a federal government that would also be a part of the contract, and ultimately, as created by the contract, a party to the contract.
2. The exchange of value was the legal transfer of authorities as granted by the States to the federal government. In the agreement, the States also retained many authorities.
3. The legal intent was for the States and the federal government to adhere to the authorities held by those governments. The contract not only does not oblige the parties to do anything illegal, it is written in such a manner as to ensure that illegalities against natural law are forbidden.
4. The delegates in the convention, and the State ratifying conventions, were debated soundly, and was regarded as being valid consent and agreement by the States to enter into this contract, and create a federal government which would also be a part of the contract.
Through the concept of a social contract, and the filial contract, We the People are indeed all parties of this Contract, and it is our duty that the contract is kept, and not breached by any parties to the contract, including the federal government.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Forward!!
By Don Jans
Our motto is Forward to the completion of the FUNDEMENTAL TRANSFORMATION from Capitalism to a fair and equitable classless society as proclaimed by Obama in 2008. Our rule for re-election; distort, deceive and lie, but always do it consistently and convincingly.
The American people believe we want to raise taxes on the wealthy to raise revenue to reduce the national debt. We tell them it is a fair and balanced approach. We know this has never worked. When taxes are LOWERED, revenues are increased. This rule has never failed. That is why JFK and others lowered the marginal tax rates.
JFK, and others, had as their real goal to raise revenues and stimulate the economy, this is why they lowered the marginal tax rates. Our goal is not what we lead the public to believe. Our goal is to redistribute wealth and punish those who strive to be financially successful. We know nobody can be successful because of their efforts. Individual financial success is achieved because of the total efforts of the community. The successful must be punished and the wealth shared.
The American public must also believe that government stimulus brings long term economic growth, government regulations protect the public and central planning is necessary for a less volatile economy. We know government stimulus is detrimental to long term growth, this has been proven every time it is tried. FDR’s spending programs and Obama’s stimulus reinforces this unfailing economic truth. We must remember, however, that the true goals of FDR and Obama were not to stimulate an economy, but to place more of the economy under government control and supervision. Both were successful in achieving their real goals, which the public must never understand.
We also tell the American public, government regulations protect them. We know these regulations are to control the economy and the lives of the individual citizens. If we give a citizen a fish for dinner, they must come back to us the next day if they wish to eat. The citizen becomes less self-reliant and more government reliant. This is good, because the government is better at running the economy and the lives of each individual citizen. Plus, we not only stay in power, but gain more power.
We Marxist/Progressives (liberals and leftists) must continue to distort, deceive and lie. If you need a great example, use Harry Reid. He is the best because he never lets the truth be a part of his statement. We know we can do this because the media will protect us. They are leading our team. Keep the faith, and never forget that we are morally and intellectually superior.
Unfortunately this is not a dream, nor is it fiction. It is the real world in which we live. It will become much worse if the Fundamental Transformation proclaimed is allowed to continue. This is a statement of fact based on history and not conjecture.
RISE UP AMERICA. RECLAIM YOUR NATION, YOUR LIVES AND YOUR ECONOMY!!!!
-----
Don Jans, Author of “My Grandchildren’s America” where the truth of Marxism is revealed. It is available on Amazon or mygrandchildrensamerica.com.
Our motto is Forward to the completion of the FUNDEMENTAL TRANSFORMATION from Capitalism to a fair and equitable classless society as proclaimed by Obama in 2008. Our rule for re-election; distort, deceive and lie, but always do it consistently and convincingly.
The American people believe we want to raise taxes on the wealthy to raise revenue to reduce the national debt. We tell them it is a fair and balanced approach. We know this has never worked. When taxes are LOWERED, revenues are increased. This rule has never failed. That is why JFK and others lowered the marginal tax rates.
JFK, and others, had as their real goal to raise revenues and stimulate the economy, this is why they lowered the marginal tax rates. Our goal is not what we lead the public to believe. Our goal is to redistribute wealth and punish those who strive to be financially successful. We know nobody can be successful because of their efforts. Individual financial success is achieved because of the total efforts of the community. The successful must be punished and the wealth shared.
The American public must also believe that government stimulus brings long term economic growth, government regulations protect the public and central planning is necessary for a less volatile economy. We know government stimulus is detrimental to long term growth, this has been proven every time it is tried. FDR’s spending programs and Obama’s stimulus reinforces this unfailing economic truth. We must remember, however, that the true goals of FDR and Obama were not to stimulate an economy, but to place more of the economy under government control and supervision. Both were successful in achieving their real goals, which the public must never understand.
We also tell the American public, government regulations protect them. We know these regulations are to control the economy and the lives of the individual citizens. If we give a citizen a fish for dinner, they must come back to us the next day if they wish to eat. The citizen becomes less self-reliant and more government reliant. This is good, because the government is better at running the economy and the lives of each individual citizen. Plus, we not only stay in power, but gain more power.
We Marxist/Progressives (liberals and leftists) must continue to distort, deceive and lie. If you need a great example, use Harry Reid. He is the best because he never lets the truth be a part of his statement. We know we can do this because the media will protect us. They are leading our team. Keep the faith, and never forget that we are morally and intellectually superior.
Unfortunately this is not a dream, nor is it fiction. It is the real world in which we live. It will become much worse if the Fundamental Transformation proclaimed is allowed to continue. This is a statement of fact based on history and not conjecture.
RISE UP AMERICA. RECLAIM YOUR NATION, YOUR LIVES AND YOUR ECONOMY!!!!
-----
Don Jans, Author of “My Grandchildren’s America” where the truth of Marxism is revealed. It is available on Amazon or mygrandchildrensamerica.com.
As Obama and Romney Prepare to Debate
By Kevin Price
It is debate time for the general election in the 2012 Presidential campaign. As the two candidates prepare for their first debate, coming up shortly, both are likely mindful of the important impact these events can have on the decision making of voters. Mitt Romney enters with a significant advantage, after doing (what seems to have been) dozens of debates during the primary season. Meanwhile, other than in dress rehearsals, Obama has not been subjected to such in four years. Of the two, Romney comes across as naturally tougher than Obama and if you factor in the challenging primary process, he should be poised to roll.
Meanwhile, Obama enters the debates with the biggest vulnerabilities of any presidential candidate since the Great Depression. In addition to having a horribly stagnant economy to deal with, the US is taking a pounding, internationally, as the president continues to strike a conciliatory tone, in spite of abuse from parties throughout the Middle East. These debates will be particularly important to Obama. In fact, one can argue, that his political life is dependent on them. So what do Romney and Obama need to do to come across as winners? Having had prepared many candidates for debates over the years, I have four suggestions for each of them.
Barack Obama
1. Act presidential. Obama is known for being cold as ice, and many look at this as a sign of leadership (cool under pressure). He will need to exploit this ability significantly to get the favor of voters. However, in addition to being cool, Obama is going to need to show some “righteous indignation,” be it over the way the US is being treated internationally or over Republican efforts to thwart the President’s agenda in Congress.
2. Focus on the intangibles. If Obama focuses on public policy, he will have a difficult time explaining the results. Taxes, regulations, liability, and more have exploded under Obama and have created economic devastation on every front. He is going to have to emphasize things that are hard to quantify — his sympathy, his “hands on” understanding (having had been in the job for four years), and other things that only an incumbent can enjoy.
3. Be the voice of experience. The saying, “the devil you know is better than the one you don’t know,” is one of the few strengths Obama brings to the table. He is going to have to make an argument that, after four years, “you know what you have” and Mitt Romney is “not safe” and “untested”. This is “no time” to introduce a new leader to deal with our economic and foreign policy crisis, he might argue, even if Obama is largely responsible for those situations.
4. Stick with consistency. Romney has a record of “flip-flopping” that is without comparison in US political history. Romney has been for bigger spending, and against it. He has been pro-choice and pro-life. He has distanced himself from Ronald Reagan by name, but has also tried to position himself as heir apparent. These are the same reasons Romney had such a difficult time getting the nomination in the first place. Now, many critics of Obama believe we “have not seen anything yet,” from the president. Once given another four years and not facing reelection again, he might become unleashed and take an already aggressive (and radical) agenda much farther and faster. But, still, we at least know something about how Obama governs. I think many voters are concerned about the surprises that could follow Romney.
Mitt Romney
1. Act presidential. This may be hard to do if you have never had the job before, but part of the burden placed on Romney is to make voters feel comfortable in having him in that position. He will have to make sure he remains unaffected by Obama’s attacks, he will need to heavily focus on issues, and convey to people that it makes sense for a man like him to be in the Oval Office.
2. Go on the attack. Romney needs to attack Obama on every front and make every question his own. Most policy questions from the panel should easily provide grounds for attack on the president, but if they do not, he needs to do it anyway. Unrelenting, Romney needs to attack every weakness in Obama’s foreign and domestic policies, and also include the President’s vulnerabilities when it comes to religious freedom issues. It is imperative, though, that he only attacks the policies and not thepersonality. Otherwise, Obama could position himself as a victim and voters love to support the underdog. Policy, not personality, that must be Romney’s mantra.
3. Dismiss attacks from the panel or Obama. Every attack on Romney needs to be turned around and place back on Obama. Even if there is an area of clear error on Romney’s part, he should briefly own it, state (quickly) how he will do things differently, and then go back to Obama in his focus. If Romney is disciplined and keeps this event entirely about Obama’s policies, the president will find it very difficult to win.
4. Be memorable. Romney cannot afford to be too “safe,” during the debates. The type of thing he did before the NAACP, telling that black audience he would be better for them than Obama, actually resonated. He needs to be strong and convey, without apology, a conservative agenda. Ronald Reagan said that conservatives should not make their case in soft, pastel colors, but in a very bold red, white, and blue. This is the mandate on Romney during the debates.
These debates will be among the most important in US political history, especially in light of the huge population that still calls itself “undecided.” For them, obviously the way the candidates come across is every bit as important as the positions they stand on.
It is debate time for the general election in the 2012 Presidential campaign. As the two candidates prepare for their first debate, coming up shortly, both are likely mindful of the important impact these events can have on the decision making of voters. Mitt Romney enters with a significant advantage, after doing (what seems to have been) dozens of debates during the primary season. Meanwhile, other than in dress rehearsals, Obama has not been subjected to such in four years. Of the two, Romney comes across as naturally tougher than Obama and if you factor in the challenging primary process, he should be poised to roll.
Meanwhile, Obama enters the debates with the biggest vulnerabilities of any presidential candidate since the Great Depression. In addition to having a horribly stagnant economy to deal with, the US is taking a pounding, internationally, as the president continues to strike a conciliatory tone, in spite of abuse from parties throughout the Middle East. These debates will be particularly important to Obama. In fact, one can argue, that his political life is dependent on them. So what do Romney and Obama need to do to come across as winners? Having had prepared many candidates for debates over the years, I have four suggestions for each of them.
Barack Obama
1. Act presidential. Obama is known for being cold as ice, and many look at this as a sign of leadership (cool under pressure). He will need to exploit this ability significantly to get the favor of voters. However, in addition to being cool, Obama is going to need to show some “righteous indignation,” be it over the way the US is being treated internationally or over Republican efforts to thwart the President’s agenda in Congress.
2. Focus on the intangibles. If Obama focuses on public policy, he will have a difficult time explaining the results. Taxes, regulations, liability, and more have exploded under Obama and have created economic devastation on every front. He is going to have to emphasize things that are hard to quantify — his sympathy, his “hands on” understanding (having had been in the job for four years), and other things that only an incumbent can enjoy.
3. Be the voice of experience. The saying, “the devil you know is better than the one you don’t know,” is one of the few strengths Obama brings to the table. He is going to have to make an argument that, after four years, “you know what you have” and Mitt Romney is “not safe” and “untested”. This is “no time” to introduce a new leader to deal with our economic and foreign policy crisis, he might argue, even if Obama is largely responsible for those situations.
4. Stick with consistency. Romney has a record of “flip-flopping” that is without comparison in US political history. Romney has been for bigger spending, and against it. He has been pro-choice and pro-life. He has distanced himself from Ronald Reagan by name, but has also tried to position himself as heir apparent. These are the same reasons Romney had such a difficult time getting the nomination in the first place. Now, many critics of Obama believe we “have not seen anything yet,” from the president. Once given another four years and not facing reelection again, he might become unleashed and take an already aggressive (and radical) agenda much farther and faster. But, still, we at least know something about how Obama governs. I think many voters are concerned about the surprises that could follow Romney.
Mitt Romney
1. Act presidential. This may be hard to do if you have never had the job before, but part of the burden placed on Romney is to make voters feel comfortable in having him in that position. He will have to make sure he remains unaffected by Obama’s attacks, he will need to heavily focus on issues, and convey to people that it makes sense for a man like him to be in the Oval Office.
2. Go on the attack. Romney needs to attack Obama on every front and make every question his own. Most policy questions from the panel should easily provide grounds for attack on the president, but if they do not, he needs to do it anyway. Unrelenting, Romney needs to attack every weakness in Obama’s foreign and domestic policies, and also include the President’s vulnerabilities when it comes to religious freedom issues. It is imperative, though, that he only attacks the policies and not thepersonality. Otherwise, Obama could position himself as a victim and voters love to support the underdog. Policy, not personality, that must be Romney’s mantra.
3. Dismiss attacks from the panel or Obama. Every attack on Romney needs to be turned around and place back on Obama. Even if there is an area of clear error on Romney’s part, he should briefly own it, state (quickly) how he will do things differently, and then go back to Obama in his focus. If Romney is disciplined and keeps this event entirely about Obama’s policies, the president will find it very difficult to win.
4. Be memorable. Romney cannot afford to be too “safe,” during the debates. The type of thing he did before the NAACP, telling that black audience he would be better for them than Obama, actually resonated. He needs to be strong and convey, without apology, a conservative agenda. Ronald Reagan said that conservatives should not make their case in soft, pastel colors, but in a very bold red, white, and blue. This is the mandate on Romney during the debates.
These debates will be among the most important in US political history, especially in light of the huge population that still calls itself “undecided.” For them, obviously the way the candidates come across is every bit as important as the positions they stand on.
--
Frequently found on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com
Kevin Price
Host
Price of Business on KTEK 1110, PriceofBusiness.com
Home of Bloomberg Radio on morning drive time.
Publisher and Editor in Chief, USDailyReview.com
Syndicated columnist whose articles appear on a variety of media outlets.
Follow Kevin on Twitter at http://Twitter.com/KevinPriceLive
Like his new Facebook page at
Kevin Price's Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/PriceofBusiness
Romney Needs To Articulate His Plans For Dealing With Interest On Our Debt
By J. J. Jackson
So, here we are. It is four years after "Hope and Change". That slogan proved to only be more psychobabble from a babbling fool who rode the saying right into the White House.
And here we are with Romney, as bad as he is, but still much better than Obama, struggling to overtake the Messiah in the polls. Yes, I know most of those polls are oversampling Democrats by seven to ten percent.
The economy is struggling. As a result, interest rates have been kept artificially low to prevent the United States' debt situation from blowing up. This has been done for one reason and one reason only: to keep President Obama from looking like the complete nincompoop that he is. And that's it isn't it? That's the big, old elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about: what happens when things turn around and we no longer have cheap money?
Right now, thanks to cheap money and low interest rates, payments on the debt of the United States for FY2011 were $454.4 billion [1]. The gross federal debt at the time was $14.8 trillion. That's a rate of just 3%.
In 2008 we paid $451 billion on $10 trillion in debt for a rate of 4.5% [2].
In 2003 we paid $318 billion on $6.7 trillion in debt for a rate of 4.7%.
In 1994 [3] we paid $296 billion on $4.7 trillion in debt for a rate of 6.3%.
So, we see that in better times, people demand more return on their investment. We, as a nation, have to pay a higher rate to get people to buy our debt in the good times. What's worse is that as buying our debt becomes riskier, people get uppity and demand more return for greater risk. We are over 100% debt to GDP ratio right now. Want to know how hard it is to get people to keep buying debt with that sort of a relationship? Just ask Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Italy.
Something that I have not heard Mitt Romney utter a single word about is what he is going to do, not if, but when we are required to start paying people more to take on our debt. I know he talks about cutting federal spending. But the fact is that if he cuts $1 trillion from our yearly spending, that only prevents us from adding to the debt we already owe. In order to reduce the debt, deeper cuts are in order. And no plan I have seen out of the Romney/Ryan camp comes even close to cutting $1 trillion for a fiscal year.
Realizing that Mitt is going to continue deficit spending for the foreseeable future, our debt load is going to increase. When the economy heats up, investors will demand more and the interest rate on our debt jumps. Where's that extra money going to come from?
Paying interest on trillions of dollars is a lot of money. I know Mitt knows it. I know Obama doesn't have a clue about such things. So what's the plan? Where do we get the dollars? Obama's philosophy is to abuse our children, print more money, and tell them to work harder for less.
Any plans Mitt? Want to share them with us?
Look, I know it is scary to talk about this stuff. But it needs to be talked about. When America starts to recover, we are going to have to deal with real world economics once again.
And Mitt, if you want to be taken seriously as the adult in the room, God knows Obama can't be, then you need to spell it out. Tell us how you are going to deal with the interest on our debt ballooning once you and a Republican Congress start peel back the layers of liberalism that are strangling America, but not cutting to the point where we are no longer spending like drunken sailors. We all know you aren't willing to go all the way and do what really needs done.
I know the standard line Mitt likes to throw out there. He talks about how we can "grow" our way out of our debt problem. But the kind of debt we are dealing with requires more than "growth". It requires sacred cows to be carved up and sacrificed for the good of this Republic. Because not only is continuing to spend more than we have a problem, figuring out how to pay back the interest on that money is going to be one Hell of a feat in itself.
[1] https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm
[2] http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
[3] http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
=============================
J.J. Jackson is a libertarian conservative author from Pittsburgh, PA who has been writing and promoting individual liberty since 1993 and is President of Land of the Free Studios, Inc. He is the Pittsburgh Conservative Examiner for Examiner.com. He is also the owner of The Right Things - Conservative T-shirts & Gifts The Right Things. His weekly commentary along with exclusives not available anywhere else can be found at Liberty Reborn
So, here we are. It is four years after "Hope and Change". That slogan proved to only be more psychobabble from a babbling fool who rode the saying right into the White House.
And here we are with Romney, as bad as he is, but still much better than Obama, struggling to overtake the Messiah in the polls. Yes, I know most of those polls are oversampling Democrats by seven to ten percent.
The economy is struggling. As a result, interest rates have been kept artificially low to prevent the United States' debt situation from blowing up. This has been done for one reason and one reason only: to keep President Obama from looking like the complete nincompoop that he is. And that's it isn't it? That's the big, old elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about: what happens when things turn around and we no longer have cheap money?
Right now, thanks to cheap money and low interest rates, payments on the debt of the United States for FY2011 were $454.4 billion [1]. The gross federal debt at the time was $14.8 trillion. That's a rate of just 3%.
In 2008 we paid $451 billion on $10 trillion in debt for a rate of 4.5% [2].
In 2003 we paid $318 billion on $6.7 trillion in debt for a rate of 4.7%.
In 1994 [3] we paid $296 billion on $4.7 trillion in debt for a rate of 6.3%.
So, we see that in better times, people demand more return on their investment. We, as a nation, have to pay a higher rate to get people to buy our debt in the good times. What's worse is that as buying our debt becomes riskier, people get uppity and demand more return for greater risk. We are over 100% debt to GDP ratio right now. Want to know how hard it is to get people to keep buying debt with that sort of a relationship? Just ask Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Italy.
Something that I have not heard Mitt Romney utter a single word about is what he is going to do, not if, but when we are required to start paying people more to take on our debt. I know he talks about cutting federal spending. But the fact is that if he cuts $1 trillion from our yearly spending, that only prevents us from adding to the debt we already owe. In order to reduce the debt, deeper cuts are in order. And no plan I have seen out of the Romney/Ryan camp comes even close to cutting $1 trillion for a fiscal year.
Realizing that Mitt is going to continue deficit spending for the foreseeable future, our debt load is going to increase. When the economy heats up, investors will demand more and the interest rate on our debt jumps. Where's that extra money going to come from?
Paying interest on trillions of dollars is a lot of money. I know Mitt knows it. I know Obama doesn't have a clue about such things. So what's the plan? Where do we get the dollars? Obama's philosophy is to abuse our children, print more money, and tell them to work harder for less.
Any plans Mitt? Want to share them with us?
Look, I know it is scary to talk about this stuff. But it needs to be talked about. When America starts to recover, we are going to have to deal with real world economics once again.
And Mitt, if you want to be taken seriously as the adult in the room, God knows Obama can't be, then you need to spell it out. Tell us how you are going to deal with the interest on our debt ballooning once you and a Republican Congress start peel back the layers of liberalism that are strangling America, but not cutting to the point where we are no longer spending like drunken sailors. We all know you aren't willing to go all the way and do what really needs done.
I know the standard line Mitt likes to throw out there. He talks about how we can "grow" our way out of our debt problem. But the kind of debt we are dealing with requires more than "growth". It requires sacred cows to be carved up and sacrificed for the good of this Republic. Because not only is continuing to spend more than we have a problem, figuring out how to pay back the interest on that money is going to be one Hell of a feat in itself.
[1] https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm
[2] http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
[3] http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
=============================
J.J. Jackson is a libertarian conservative author from Pittsburgh, PA who has been writing and promoting individual liberty since 1993 and is President of Land of the Free Studios, Inc. He is the Pittsburgh Conservative Examiner for Examiner.com. He is also the owner of The Right Things - Conservative T-shirts & Gifts The Right Things. His weekly commentary along with exclusives not available anywhere else can be found at Liberty Reborn
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Republican Party of Riverside County - 2012 Liberty Dinner
Tonight I will be attending:
The Republican Party of Riverside County
2012 LIBERTY DINNER
FEATURING
JOHN EASTMAN
~Former Dean at Chapman University
~Clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas at
Supreme Court of the United States
~Former Candidate for California Attorney General
ELIZABETH EMKEN
~Candidate for US Senate
TRIBUTE TO CONGRESSMAN JERRY LEWIS
With
LIVE AND SILENT AUCTIONS AND RAFFLE
Saturday, September 29, 2012
VIP Reception 6:00 p.m. General Reception 6:30 p.m. Dinner 7 p.m.
Morongo Resort and Casino
Atlas Shrugged Part 2 movie producer joins Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs
October 12, 2012 the second part of the three part series based on Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged hits theaters, and one of the film's producers, Harmon Kaslow, joins us today to discuss this blockbuster event!
After the interview we will discuss the Book of the Week with Paul of Prying1Books, ask the Constitution Quest Question of the Week, and then JASmius will join me for the explosive:
Friday, September 28, 2012
Thomas Jefferson would weep over today's Big Government under the Democrats
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Democrats Manipulating Polls
Why The Polls Understate Romney Vote
Republicans are getting depressed under an avalanche of polling suggesting that an Obama victory is in the offing. They, in fact, suggest no such thing! Here’s why:
1. All of the polling out there uses some variant of the 2008 election turnout as its model for weighting respondents and this overstates the Democratic vote by a huge margin.
2. Almost all of the published polls show Obama getting less than 50% of the vote and less than 50% job approval. A majority of the voters either support Romney or are undecided in almost every poll.
Add these two factors together and the polls that are out there are all misleading. Any professional pollster (those consultants hired by candidates not by media outlets) would publish two findings for each poll — one using 2004 turnout modeling and the other using 2008 modeling. This would indicate just how dependent on an unusually high turnout of his base the Obama camp really is.
1. All of the polling out there uses some variant of the 2008 election turnout as its model for weighting respondents and this overstates the Democratic vote by a huge margin.
2. Almost all of the published polls show Obama getting less than 50% of the vote and less than 50% job approval. A majority of the voters either support Romney or are undecided in almost every poll.
Add these two factors together and the polls that are out there are all misleading. Any professional pollster (those consultants hired by candidates not by media outlets) would publish two findings for each poll — one using 2004 turnout modeling and the other using 2008 modeling. This would indicate just how dependent on an unusually high turnout of his base the Obama camp really is.
Media Taking Marching Orders from Obama
Democrat Admits The Media Are “Taking Marching Orders From Obama Administration”
Kirsten Powers, a Fox News contributor and liberal columnist, exposes her fellow liberals in the media for who they are: mouthpieces for Barack Obama
See Video at Clash Daily
See Video at Clash Daily
British Hospitals Collapsing under weight of failed Socialized Medicine
UK hospitals on the verge of collapse as socialized medicine fails
If you want to get a good look at the future of healthcare in America, compliments of the"Affordable Care Act," the monstrosity reform law known not-so-affectionately known as Obamacare, look across the Atlantic to Great Britain. Because of that law, our system is set to become nearly as socialized a system of medicine as is the system in England, where top doctors are now predicting that a number of hospitals there are "on the brink of crisis," the BBC is reporting.
That's not politics, that's reality.
According to the Royal College of Physicians, a trio of issues - rising demand, increasingly complex cases and falling numbers of hospital beds - is contributing to the destruction of the healthcare system there.
In fact, the college's assessment said urgent care was already being compromised, warning that the situation was going to get worse unless some real workable solutions were implemented.
As is usually the case, especially in the U.S. - where messianic faith in the "government-knows-best" approach is rampant among our entrenched bureaucracy and many of our elected leaders - British paper-pushers are tut-tutting the school's assessment, claiming the country's National Health Service (NHS) can handle any challenge, pending or in the future.
Worsening standards, smaller budgets, less care
Learn more: Natural News
If you want to get a good look at the future of healthcare in America, compliments of the"Affordable Care Act," the monstrosity reform law known not-so-affectionately known as Obamacare, look across the Atlantic to Great Britain. Because of that law, our system is set to become nearly as socialized a system of medicine as is the system in England, where top doctors are now predicting that a number of hospitals there are "on the brink of crisis," the BBC is reporting.
That's not politics, that's reality.
According to the Royal College of Physicians, a trio of issues - rising demand, increasingly complex cases and falling numbers of hospital beds - is contributing to the destruction of the healthcare system there.
In fact, the college's assessment said urgent care was already being compromised, warning that the situation was going to get worse unless some real workable solutions were implemented.
As is usually the case, especially in the U.S. - where messianic faith in the "government-knows-best" approach is rampant among our entrenched bureaucracy and many of our elected leaders - British paper-pushers are tut-tutting the school's assessment, claiming the country's National Health Service (NHS) can handle any challenge, pending or in the future.
Worsening standards, smaller budgets, less care
Learn more: Natural News
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Temecula Constitution Class Starts From the Beginning
Join us and learn.
Remember, if we want to take back this country, we need to know the instruction manual on how to do it!
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Madonna Calls Obama Black Muslim
Okay, so if a conservative or republican calls Obama they are loony-tunes and racist. If Madonna calls Obama a Muslim, she is congratulated. . .
Double Standard? No surprise.
What is even crazier is after she proclaims him as a Black Muslim, she then says, "He's fighting for gay rights."
Like most liberals, it shows how much of an idiot Madonna is. . . Muslims hang gays by the throat - so either Obama is not Muslim, or he's holding back until he can get away from hanging gays by the neck.
Headline: Madonna: Vote for the Black Muslim in the White House
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Double Standard? No surprise.
What is even crazier is after she proclaims him as a Black Muslim, she then says, "He's fighting for gay rights."
Like most liberals, it shows how much of an idiot Madonna is. . . Muslims hang gays by the throat - so either Obama is not Muslim, or he's holding back until he can get away from hanging gays by the neck.
Headline: Madonna: Vote for the Black Muslim in the White House
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Iran's War Drums: Missile Test on Missiles Designed to Strike Warships
Iranian military leaders gave details of a new long-range drone and test fired four anti-ship missiles Tuesday in a prelude to upcoming naval war games planned in an apparent response to U.S.-led warship drills in the Persian Gulf.
The show of Iranian military readiness and its latest tool -- a domestically made drone capable of reaching Israel and most of the Middle East -- also came as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad prepared to address the U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday amid a deepening impasse with the West over Tehran's disputed nuclear program.
Ahmadinejad on Monday held open hope for renewed dialogue with the United States, but told reporters in New York that Iran was "fully ready" to defend itself from attacks. In Tehran, a senior Revolutionary Guard commander, Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, also warned that U.S. bases in the Gulf could face retaliatory strikes if Israel attacks Iran's nuclear sites.
The West and its allies fear Iran's uranium enrichment program could lead to atomic weapons, but the U.S. and others favor a mix of sanctions and diplomacy to try to force Tehran to curb its nuclear program. Iran claims it only seeks nuclear power for energy and medical applications.
Read more
The show of Iranian military readiness and its latest tool -- a domestically made drone capable of reaching Israel and most of the Middle East -- also came as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad prepared to address the U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday amid a deepening impasse with the West over Tehran's disputed nuclear program.
Ahmadinejad on Monday held open hope for renewed dialogue with the United States, but told reporters in New York that Iran was "fully ready" to defend itself from attacks. In Tehran, a senior Revolutionary Guard commander, Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, also warned that U.S. bases in the Gulf could face retaliatory strikes if Israel attacks Iran's nuclear sites.
The West and its allies fear Iran's uranium enrichment program could lead to atomic weapons, but the U.S. and others favor a mix of sanctions and diplomacy to try to force Tehran to curb its nuclear program. Iran claims it only seeks nuclear power for energy and medical applications.
Read more
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Water Cannon Fight over Islands
In dispute over Islands, Japan trades water-cannon fire with Taiwan and meets with China
Japanese and Taiwanese ships shot water cannonat each other Tuesday in the latest confrontation over tiny islands in the East China Sea, as Japan met with another rival, China, in an effort to tamp down tensions.
About 40 Taiwanese fishing boats and 12 patrol boats entered waters near the islands on Tuesday morning, briefly triggering an exchange of water cannon fire with Japanese coast guard ships. Coast guard officials said the Taiwanese vessels had ignored warnings to get out of their territory, and the Taiwanese ships pulled back after being fired upon.
It was Taiwan's first foray into the waters around the uninhabited islands, known as Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China, since the Japanese government purchased some of them from private owners two weeks ago. China, Japan and Taiwan all claim the islands, but they are administered by Tokyo.
Japanese and Taiwanese ships shot water cannonat each other Tuesday in the latest confrontation over tiny islands in the East China Sea, as Japan met with another rival, China, in an effort to tamp down tensions.
About 40 Taiwanese fishing boats and 12 patrol boats entered waters near the islands on Tuesday morning, briefly triggering an exchange of water cannon fire with Japanese coast guard ships. Coast guard officials said the Taiwanese vessels had ignored warnings to get out of their territory, and the Taiwanese ships pulled back after being fired upon.
It was Taiwan's first foray into the waters around the uninhabited islands, known as Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China, since the Japanese government purchased some of them from private owners two weeks ago. China, Japan and Taiwan all claim the islands, but they are administered by Tokyo.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Obama Lies Again, This Time About Deficit
Fact Check: Obama Lies About Responsibility for Deficit
President Barack Obama told CBS News’60 Minutes that “ninety percent” of the reason the federal budget deficit has risen dramatically under his administration is because of his predecessor, George W. Bush. Not only is that a baldfaced lie--Obama borrowed more money in less than four years than Bush did in eight--but it is a lie that many in the media want to believe, as Andrew Sullivan of Newsweek demonstrates.
Sullivan argues, in his latest Newsweek cover story, that Obama could become the new Ronald Reagan--for Democrats--by balancing the budget through “a bipartisan deal on taxes and spending.” This after four years in which Obama failed to halve the deficit as promised; radically expanded spending; constantly pushed for higher taxes; ignored his own debt commission; and failed to achieve a “grand bargain” on the long-term budget.
MORE
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
President Barack Obama told CBS News’60 Minutes that “ninety percent” of the reason the federal budget deficit has risen dramatically under his administration is because of his predecessor, George W. Bush. Not only is that a baldfaced lie--Obama borrowed more money in less than four years than Bush did in eight--but it is a lie that many in the media want to believe, as Andrew Sullivan of Newsweek demonstrates.
Sullivan argues, in his latest Newsweek cover story, that Obama could become the new Ronald Reagan--for Democrats--by balancing the budget through “a bipartisan deal on taxes and spending.” This after four years in which Obama failed to halve the deficit as promised; radically expanded spending; constantly pushed for higher taxes; ignored his own debt commission; and failed to achieve a “grand bargain” on the long-term budget.
MORE
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Obama Rejects Blame for Ambassador's Death
Obama to UN: It's Not My Fault Stevens is Dead
Passing the buck in dramatic fashion on the world stage, President Barack Obama told the UN General Assembly this morning that the U.S. government was not responsible for the anti-Islam video that he once again blamed for recent attacks on U.S. embassies in the Middle East. He added that more guards at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi would not have helped save Ambassador Chris Stevens, and that the real problem was "deeper causes" such as religious intolerance.
"[I]t will not be enough to put more guards in front of an Embassy; or to put out statements of regret, and wait for the outrage to pass," Obama told the assembled diplomats and heads of state. "If we are serious about those ideals, we must speak honestly about the deeper causes of this crisis....Today, we must affirm that our future will be determined by people like Chris Stevens, and not by his killers. Today, we must declare that this violence and intolerance has no place among our United Nations."
MORE
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Passing the buck in dramatic fashion on the world stage, President Barack Obama told the UN General Assembly this morning that the U.S. government was not responsible for the anti-Islam video that he once again blamed for recent attacks on U.S. embassies in the Middle East. He added that more guards at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi would not have helped save Ambassador Chris Stevens, and that the real problem was "deeper causes" such as religious intolerance.
"[I]t will not be enough to put more guards in front of an Embassy; or to put out statements of regret, and wait for the outrage to pass," Obama told the assembled diplomats and heads of state. "If we are serious about those ideals, we must speak honestly about the deeper causes of this crisis....Today, we must affirm that our future will be determined by people like Chris Stevens, and not by his killers. Today, we must declare that this violence and intolerance has no place among our United Nations."
MORE
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Obama Wants a Classless Society
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Spain Violence over Austerity
Anti-austerity clashes in Spain turn violent
This is what liberal policies cause. . .
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Pakistan: America Needs to Rethink Free Speech
In the aftermath of violent protests across the Middle East and the slaughter of four American diplomats, Pakistan’s foreign minister believes the United States should “rethink” its commitment to freedom of speech.
“It is not good enough to say, ‘It’s free speech, it should be allowed,’” Hina Rabbani Khar said during an interview with CNN on September 20. ”I think if this does provoke action against American citizens or Americans anywhere else in the world, then maybe we do need to rethink how much freedom is okay.”
Khar said nations should come together in a “civilized manner,” to address the concept of freedom speech and how far it extends.
“I think what we need is more tolerance for each other’s views. What we need is to be able to give mutual space for us to be able to demonstrate what is culturally, religiously important to us and not to hold each other — not to judge each other for that,” Khar said.
“We really we have to be sensitive to religious sensitivities.”
Daily Caller
“It is not good enough to say, ‘It’s free speech, it should be allowed,’” Hina Rabbani Khar said during an interview with CNN on September 20. ”I think if this does provoke action against American citizens or Americans anywhere else in the world, then maybe we do need to rethink how much freedom is okay.”
Khar said nations should come together in a “civilized manner,” to address the concept of freedom speech and how far it extends.
“I think what we need is more tolerance for each other’s views. What we need is to be able to give mutual space for us to be able to demonstrate what is culturally, religiously important to us and not to hold each other — not to judge each other for that,” Khar said.
“We really we have to be sensitive to religious sensitivities.”
Daily Caller
Says a representative of an ideology that promotes violence against Christians and Jews. . .
And as if the terrorists were forced to act violently. . .
How about Islam learns a little restraint?
Oh, wait, a people who practice superiority can't see it that way.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Students Revolt Against Michelle Obama's School Lunch Menu
Complaints Mount Against Michelle Obama’s New Lunch Menu
In Wisconsin, high school athletes are complaining about not getting enough to eat each day, due to the skimpy new school lunch menu mandated by the United States Department of Agriculture and First Lady Michelle Obama.
The story we published earlier this week on that subject is unfortunately not unique. Students across the country are complaining about the new school lunch regulations.
Perhaps the real motive is to starve students into slimming down. Just ask students in Pierre, South Dakota who, too, are in an all-out revolt.
"I know a lot of my friends who are just drinking a jug of milk for their lunch. And they are not getting a proper meal," middle school student Samantha Gortmaker told Keloland.com.
Despite the fact that the new regulations have increased the cost of a lunch 20 to 25 cents per plate, it’s not pleasing students.
Some are throwing away their vegetables while others are adapting to the rules by becoming industrious. In New Bedford, Massachusetts, students have created a black market - for chocolate syrup. The kiddie capitalists are smuggling in bottles of it and selling it by the squeeze, according to SouthCoastToday.com.
Nancy Carvalho, director of food services for New Bedford Public Schools, was quoted as saying that hummus and black bean salads have been tough sells in elementary cafeterias. That means even smaller children are going through the day fighting hunger pains, which can never be considered a good thing.
One government official tried to put the blame on the students.
Townhall
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Iran's Ahmadinejad: Israel will be Eliminated
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Monday Israel has no roots in the Middle East and would be "eliminated," ignoring a U.N. warning to avoid incendiary rhetoric ahead of the annual General Assembly session.
Ahmadinejad also said he did not take seriously the threat that Israel could launch a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, denied sending arms to Syria, and alluded to Iran's threats to the life of British author Salman Rushdie.
The United States quickly dismissed the Iranian president's comments as "disgusting, offensive and outrageous."
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has hinted Israel could strike Iran's nuclear sites and criticized U.S. President Barack Obama's position that sanctions and diplomacy should be given more time to stop Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Iran denies it is seeking nuclear arms and says its atomic work is peaceful and aimed at generating electricity.
"Fundamentally we do not take seriously the threats of the Zionists," Ahmadinejad, in New York for this week's U.N. General Assembly, told reporters. "We have all the defensive means at our disposal and we are ready to defend ourselves."
Ahmadinejad also said he did not take seriously the threat that Israel could launch a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, denied sending arms to Syria, and alluded to Iran's threats to the life of British author Salman Rushdie.
The United States quickly dismissed the Iranian president's comments as "disgusting, offensive and outrageous."
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has hinted Israel could strike Iran's nuclear sites and criticized U.S. President Barack Obama's position that sanctions and diplomacy should be given more time to stop Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Iran denies it is seeking nuclear arms and says its atomic work is peaceful and aimed at generating electricity.
"Fundamentally we do not take seriously the threats of the Zionists," Ahmadinejad, in New York for this week's U.N. General Assembly, told reporters. "We have all the defensive means at our disposal and we are ready to defend ourselves."
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Monday, September 24, 2012
Thomas Jefferson: General Welfare and National Banks
"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please...Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." --Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on a National Bank, 1791
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Middle East on Fire is more than just Riots - Syria Fires into Jordan
Syria fires into Jordan, sparking clashes
Syria moves its Golan Heights brigade to the Jordanian border
The armed forces of Syria and Jordan clashed Saturday after Syria fired into Jordanian territory, where thousands of refugees have fled from an 18-month-long civil war between the Bashar Assad regime and opposition fighters.
According to a report by Al Jazeera, the Syrian army has moved its Unit 61 brigade — whose main function is to block any possible attack from Israel — from the Golan Heights to the Jordanian border.
The armed forces of Syria and Jordan clashed Saturday after Syria fired into Jordanian territory, where thousands of refugees have fled from an 18-month-long civil war between the Bashar Assad regime and opposition fighters.
According to a report by Al Jazeera, the Syrian army has moved its Unit 61 brigade — whose main function is to block any possible attack from Israel — from the Golan Heights to the Jordanian border.
Uh, didn't I tell you this was going to get worse?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Hey Kids, want an aspirin? Get Parents Permission. Need an abortion pill? No problem, but don't tell your parents.
Headline tells it all:
NYC schools give out morning-after pills to students — without telling parents
The insanity liberalism has wrought.
The insanity liberalism has wrought.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Arab World to United States: Be Muslim or Be Hated
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The New York Times article begins: On the eve of his first trip to the United States as Egypt’s new Islamist president, Mohamed Morsi said the United States needed to fundamentally change its approach to the Arab world, showing greater respect for its values and helping build a Palestinian state, if it hoped to overcome decades of pent-up anger.
The New York Times article begins: On the eve of his first trip to the United States as Egypt’s new Islamist president, Mohamed Morsi said the United States needed to fundamentally change its approach to the Arab world, showing greater respect for its values and helping build a Palestinian state, if it hoped to overcome decades of pent-up anger.
Later in the article you read: “Successive American administrations essentially purchased with American taxpayer money the dislike, if not the hatred, of the peoples of the region,” he said, by backing dictatorial governments over popular opposition and supporting Israel over the Palestinians.
When commenting about Morsi's office in Mubarak's former palace, the article ensures to recognize that in that office the most noticeable change is a plaque on Morsi's desk bearing the Koranic admonition, “Be conscious of a day on which you will return to God.”
The article carefully described Morsi's American ties as a graduate of the University of Southern California.
At the conclusion, after describing Morsi's dislike for the loose sexual mores of the American society, Morsi's final quote reads: “I don’t admire that,” he said. “But that is the society. They are living their way.”
The message from Morsi, and the liberal press, is that America must be more Muslim, and we are hated by the Islamic world because we aren't bending over backwards for Muslims. Does this mean the liberal left wants to give more concessions? Are they going to proclaim Israel the enemy next?
The quote on Morsi's desk was careful to use the word "God," rather than Allah. Remember, they want us to think the Christian God is the same as the Muslim god, even though Allah's attributes more closely resembles Lucifer's.
Then, after trying to make Morsi seem more American, as if that means he "wants" to love us, we are reminded that he simply wants Egypt to live their way, or at least that is the insinuation after criticizing us for living our way.
Meanwhile, Morsi's Islamic brethren in his own country also demands that the U.N. criminalize contempt for Islam.
Could you imagine Adolf Hitler convincing the international community to criminalize any opposition or disagreement with the Nazis - and that after Hitler also said that America has to be more like the Nazis to keep them from hating the United States?
Insanity.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Egyptian Leader Mohamed Morsi Spells Out Terms for U.S. - Arab Ties - New York Times
China Riots as Disputed Islands with Japan becomes a Concern
As China thinks about messing with Japan over disputed islands, riots break out at Foxconn factory in China.
Reports early Monday from China suggest that a mass disturbance or riots may have broken out at a Foxconn factory in the Chinese city of Taiyuan.
It is still unclear what exactly happened, but posts on China’s popular twitter-like service, Weibo, from users in the area show photographs and video of large numbers of police in and around the factory – many in riot gear – blocking off throngs of people.
Reports early Monday from China suggest that a mass disturbance or riots may have broken out at a Foxconn factory in the Chinese city of Taiyuan.
It is still unclear what exactly happened, but posts on China’s popular twitter-like service, Weibo, from users in the area show photographs and video of large numbers of police in and around the factory – many in riot gear – blocking off throngs of people.
hmmmmmmmm.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Sunday, September 23, 2012
United Nations Takes Next Step Towards Killing Right To Keep and Bear Arms
UN Small Arms Treaty Passes While Media Sleeps
The United Nations Small Arms Treaty passed in its second session. The Media was silent over its passage.
Read more
Read more
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Trying To Make The Barn Door Fly
By J.J. Jackson
We engineers have a saying: "Given enough thrust, even a barn door can fly."
Now, one does not have to have a PhD in Aerospace Engineering to understand how non-aerodynamic a barn door is. But the saying is indeed true: if you strap a big enough engine (some call it a rocket) to a barn door, it will indeed fly. And by "fly" I mean careen haphazardly though the air leaving a trail of destruction in its wake as it slams into things at random.
Right now, the U.S. is not very "aerodynamic" in an economic sense. It's more like a barn door. We spend hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars more than we collect in taxes. We bog down the doers, the job creators, in red tape designed to make them throw up their hands. We punish success while rewarding the lazy and uninspired. We encourage dependency on the government.
Every week people complain that I am being far too pessimistic about America 's economic situation. With debt up to our grandchildren's eyeballs, I don't see how any sane person can think we are in good shape. But many write off my warnings about how you simply cannot keep printing money to cover debts. I have talked regularly about glaring examples such as the Weimar Republic, Zimbabwe, and even Greece. But people guffaw at the truth. And then, thoroughly convincing themselves that I know absolutely nothing about anything, they go on thinking that it is ok that America's debt load is increasing by leaps and bounds. They think that it is ok to just keep heaping more and more limits on the engines of our economy.
It sounds really great, in theory, to say that the Federal Reserve will buy up mortgaged backed securities to stimulate the economy. It sounds superb to believe that the federal government can create hundreds of billions of dollars, which all go into the pockets of their cronies by the way, and jumpstart flagging markets. It sounds even better to say that at some point all this priming of the pump will result in economic activity beyond our wildest dreams and pay back our "investments" ten fold.
But history teaches a different lesson. And, sadly, it teaches the same lesson as the barn door made to "fly". It teaches that each of these unnatural attempts at forcing an economy to try to soar provide only temporary soaring at best. Then, after a few short months, we crash back to where we were, if we are lucky, or worse, if we are not. Of course, the know-it-alls who believe that money grows on some sort of magical tree behind the Capitol have yet another harebrained scheme in place to make the barn door "fly" again. At the expense of more debt of course.
Eventually however, all the tricks to stave off the inevitable, final, glorious crashing of the barn door that is the U.S. economy stop working. At that time, we are going to have to deal with the destruction that has been wrought. The longer we insist on making the barn door "fly", the more destruction we are going to leave for our prosperity to clean up. But then again, that seems to be an acceptable form of child abuse to many, many people.
=========================
J.J. Jackson is a libertarian conservative author from Pittsburgh, PA who has been writing and promoting individual liberty since 1993 and is President of Land of the Free Studios, Inc. He is the Pittsburgh Conservative Examiner for Examiner.com. He is also the owner of The Right Things - Conservative T-shirts & Gifts The Right Things. His weekly commentary along with exclusives not available anywhere else can be found at Liberty Reborn
We engineers have a saying: "Given enough thrust, even a barn door can fly."
Now, one does not have to have a PhD in Aerospace Engineering to understand how non-aerodynamic a barn door is. But the saying is indeed true: if you strap a big enough engine (some call it a rocket) to a barn door, it will indeed fly. And by "fly" I mean careen haphazardly though the air leaving a trail of destruction in its wake as it slams into things at random.
Right now, the U.S. is not very "aerodynamic" in an economic sense. It's more like a barn door. We spend hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars more than we collect in taxes. We bog down the doers, the job creators, in red tape designed to make them throw up their hands. We punish success while rewarding the lazy and uninspired. We encourage dependency on the government.
Every week people complain that I am being far too pessimistic about America 's economic situation. With debt up to our grandchildren's eyeballs, I don't see how any sane person can think we are in good shape. But many write off my warnings about how you simply cannot keep printing money to cover debts. I have talked regularly about glaring examples such as the Weimar Republic, Zimbabwe, and even Greece. But people guffaw at the truth. And then, thoroughly convincing themselves that I know absolutely nothing about anything, they go on thinking that it is ok that America's debt load is increasing by leaps and bounds. They think that it is ok to just keep heaping more and more limits on the engines of our economy.
It sounds really great, in theory, to say that the Federal Reserve will buy up mortgaged backed securities to stimulate the economy. It sounds superb to believe that the federal government can create hundreds of billions of dollars, which all go into the pockets of their cronies by the way, and jumpstart flagging markets. It sounds even better to say that at some point all this priming of the pump will result in economic activity beyond our wildest dreams and pay back our "investments" ten fold.
But history teaches a different lesson. And, sadly, it teaches the same lesson as the barn door made to "fly". It teaches that each of these unnatural attempts at forcing an economy to try to soar provide only temporary soaring at best. Then, after a few short months, we crash back to where we were, if we are lucky, or worse, if we are not. Of course, the know-it-alls who believe that money grows on some sort of magical tree behind the Capitol have yet another harebrained scheme in place to make the barn door "fly" again. At the expense of more debt of course.
Eventually however, all the tricks to stave off the inevitable, final, glorious crashing of the barn door that is the U.S. economy stop working. At that time, we are going to have to deal with the destruction that has been wrought. The longer we insist on making the barn door "fly", the more destruction we are going to leave for our prosperity to clean up. But then again, that seems to be an acceptable form of child abuse to many, many people.
=========================
J.J. Jackson is a libertarian conservative author from Pittsburgh, PA who has been writing and promoting individual liberty since 1993 and is President of Land of the Free Studios, Inc. He is the Pittsburgh Conservative Examiner for Examiner.com. He is also the owner of The Right Things - Conservative T-shirts & Gifts The Right Things. His weekly commentary along with exclusives not available anywhere else can be found at Liberty Reborn
I am still at the San Jacinto Agricultural Festival.
Estudillo Mansion Heritage Park in San Jacinto, California.
Our booth is at the gazebo, and though I will not be broadcasting today, I will be answering questions about the Constitution, and handing out pocket Constitutions, all day.
Hope to see you there.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
The Fight for our Country Never Ends
"Our obligations to our country never cease but with our lives." --John Adams, letter to Benjamin Rush, 1808
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Did Romney Hurt or Help Himself with Fundraising Speech?
By Kevin Price
The media has pounded on Gov. Mitt Romney because of some controversial remarks that he made at a fundraiser for his presidential campaign. Once again the media, and the left, are declaring the Romney campaign “dead” because of his view of a huge number of the population. The reality is, if Romney had expressed these type of views earlier in his campaign, he would have probably secured the nomination sooner. In spite of the late hour he made this statement, I think the potential is there for him to strengthen his position in the race for the White House. It shows a level of honesty that is neglected in politicians and demonstrates an understanding of the economic and social health problems facing the nation. The federal government is like a sick alcoholic, consuming the incomes of both this and future generations. Meanwhile, most politicians are either a part of that problem as addicts or as co-dependents, by dismissing the seriousness of the problems we are facing. The US has a social and cultural problem of dependency and in these remarks, Romney shows that he might happen to have an understanding of the situation he will face if elected.
Well, there are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right? There are 47% who are with him. Who are dependent upon government, who believe that– that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they’re entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you name it. But that’s– it’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.
The president starts off with 48%, 49%, 40– or he– he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. 47% of Americans pay no income taxes. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect. And he’ll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that’s what they sell every four years.
So my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the 5% to 10% in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion. Whether they like the guy or not. What it looks like. When you ask those people– we do all these polls. I find it amazing. We poll all these people, see where you stand in the polls. About 45% of the people will vote for the Republicans, and 48% or 49%. . .
Obama’s supporters are calling these words a “victory” for their team, because Romney’s sweeping statements potentially alienates such a large portion of the population . The reality is, those in this demographic group — the 47 percent — don’t all consider themselves a part of this number. An excellent example of this are senior citizens, who perceive themselves living off of what they contributed to their retirement through Social Security. In addition, there is a large number in this 47 percent who recognize they are in this situation because of government policies. Many Americans have never been on unemployment or welfare of any type before 2009, but have been forced into it because of current circumstances. They will be glad to vote for a candidate that might reform the government and create an environment of independence rather than dependency. Finally, and maybe most importantly, many in this group have not realized, that they are a part of a dependence class and will consistently support a philosophy that may go against their lifestyle.
The only people that will likely be alienated by Romney’s statements are those who have become comfortable with dependence on government. That number is significantly less than the 47 percent he is referring to in his speech. Meanwhile, the large number of Americans who have been saying this country is in a financial crisis will describe Romney’s remarks as heroic and, even past due. It could bolster a base that has worried about how serious of a conservative Romney is and might be the very thing that leads to victory for him in November. The only people who are calling Romney’s campaign “dead”, are the same people who believed he never had a chance in the first place.
--------
Kevin Price
Host
Price of Business on KTEK 1110, PriceofBusiness.com
Home of Bloomberg Radio on morning drive time.
Publisher and Editor in Chief, USDailyReview.com
Syndicated columnist whose articles appear on a variety of media outlets.
Follow Kevin on Twitter at http://Twitter.com/KevinPriceLive
Like his new Facebook page at
Kevin Price's Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/PriceofBusiness