Well, who’d a thunk it? Here we are, about 5 months from the Tampa convention, and we still don’t have a candidate. As I’ve stated in the past, I really like Gingrich if he can get past his ancient baggage. Well, Romney’s Super PAC made sure that wasn’t going to happen, so Newt might be done… especially after winning neither Alabama or Mississippi. Ron Paul? Puhleeze. As much as I like some libertarian views, this guy is so far out in left field, you can’t see him. He should just go back to the House and vote NO on everything. Apparently, his TX constituents like that, because they have been reelecting him for years.
That leaves us with Romney and Santorum. Ya know, at one time I considered Santorum a semi-viable candidate… until he started playing the ultra Right Wing candidate from Hell. What he is, is the mirror image of Obama. First he was gonna repeal ObamaCare. In and of itself, a good idea. Then he started talking about working to get Roe v. Wade repealed. Not a smart move for a candidate that wants to appeal to most women. Now, he’s on the “Santorum To Stomp Out Porn” campaign.
Let’s talk seriously: I am not pro-abortion… especially as a form of birth control. However, I am in favor of it being the woman’s call. The decision to have in abortion is between her, her physician and her God… not necessarily in that order. It’s nobody else’s business. Not yours, not mine, and most certainly not the Government’s. Santorum would do well to get off the Roe v. Wade kick.
Moving on to his views on pornography: If elected, Rick Santorum has promised to crack down on the distribution of explicit porn. Well, isn’t that just great! Let’s ignore the economy, the Fed’s monetary policy, unemployment, Congress’ ineptitude and go after an industry that actually employs people and really doesn’t hurt anybody. As president, Santorum says he would instruct his attorney general to prosecute those who distribute content his administration deems “obscene.” Santorum, however, has yet to provide a specific definition of what kind of pornography his attorney general would prosecute.
Look, I’m not a porn junkie, and I don’t care if you are. Watch all the porn you want… just keep it away from kids. What Santorum is proposing is just another form of Big Government… Government intruding on your life and telling you how you should live it… just like Obama.
All of a sudden, our choice of a suitable President is looking more clear. Put another way, perhaps our choices of who is NOT a suitable candidate is becoming more clear. Senator, if you want me to even consider voting for you, you need to BACK OFF some of the social issues, and focus on what’s really important: The Debt, the economy and the balance of trade, to name a few. Stop pandering to your ultra right wing base (sound familiar?), and get back to the issues that affect all of us… or you’ll not only NOT get my vote in CA’s June primary… you might not get it in November if you’re the Republican candidate. I don’t want Obama out bad enough to vote for a potential Facist replacement.]]>
Our less-than-illustrious Prezident Obama managed to do a little stumping on this election day during a visit to Michigan by telling voters there that Republican candidate Mitt Romney was shoveling a “load of you-know-what” in his 2008 NY Time op-ed criticizing the auto industry bailouts..
If you all remember, a UAW-owned trust was given a 17.5% ownership stake in GM as part of the bailout, while bondholders were left with nothing to show for their investment in the auto giant.
Prezident Obama went on to reject assertions that he was (and still is) pandering to special interests in his support of labor unions.
I have news for you, Mr. Prezident: If it can contribute to a political candidate’s campaign, but it cannot cast a vote, IT IS A SPECIAL INTEREST!
I urge you all to help put this socialist oath-breaking criminal back on the street this November. It doesn’t matter who the Republicans put on the ballot. Any of the Republican candidates would be better than 4 more years of this guy.
I was reading the news today about how the House rejected a measure which would provide up to $3.7 billion in disaster relief as part of a bill to prevent a government shutdown at the end of next week. According to the AP:
“The surprise 230-195 defeat came at the hands of Democrats and tea party Republicans.
Democrats were opposed because the measure contains $1.5 billion in cuts to a government loan program to help car companies build fuel-efficient vehicles. For their part, many GOP conservatives felt the underlying bill permits spending at too high a rate.
The outcome sends House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and his leadership team back to the drawing board as they seek to make sure the government doesn’t shut down on Sept. 30, the end of this fiscal year. It also raises the possibility that the government’s main disaster relief program could run out of money early next week for victims of Hurricane Irene and other disasters.”
I don’t think anybody disagrees that FEMA needs the funding, and that we need to help those who suffer when a natural disaster strikes. What disturbs me is the continuation of business as usual in Congress where they refuse to pay for their expenditures out of cash on hand. Last time I looked, it was a company’s responsibility to fund its own R&D. If it needed a loan, it would go to its bank and get one. If it was a small business, they could go to the SBA (a worse paper chase does not exist in this country… they make it so you just want to tell them to kiss your ass and walk away).
However, a publicly held company shouldn’t be able to go to the Feds to get a loan guarantee for R&D, no matter the project’s goal, which in this case is development of fuel efficient vehicles. Riddle me this: Why are the Dems in such lockstep over the availability of Federal guarantees for this R&D? Think about it. The Dems must have something to gain by guaranteeing these loans. What might that be?
So, do you want to fix the problems in DC? The solution is very simple, you know… and here it is, step by step:
Repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution (Limits the president to two terms, or a maximum of 10 years (i.e., if a Vice President serves not more than one half of a President’s term, he or she can be elected to a further two terms).
Repeal the 17th Amendment to the Constitution (Establishes the direct election of United States Senators by popular vote).
Create a new Constitutional Amendment (we’ll call it the Term Limits Amendment for now) that incorporates the text of the 22nd Amendment, plus the following text:
No person may serve more than twelve (12) years in Congress. If a person has been appointed to fill a vacant Congressional seat by their state’s Governor or by special election, he or she can be elected to terms totaling 12 years in addition to the time served filling the vacancy.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the legislatures thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the legislatures of such State shall elect a replacement to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the legislature fills the vacancies by election.
Congress shall make no law that affects The People that does not apply to the members thereof.
There you have it. So, what have we done here? First, we have eliminated the career politician at the Federal level. Nobody spend more than 12 years in Congress… period.
We have also helped undo the partisan politics inherent in having members of the Senate elected by the general population of each State. Our Founding Fathers created the House of Representatives as The People’s House, whereby those serving in The House were looking out for The People’s best interests. Under the original provisions of the Constitution, Senators were elected by State legislatures; this was intended to ensure that the Federal government contained representatives of the States, and also to provide a body not dependent on popular support that could afford to “take a more detached view of issues coming before Congress”.
Though some will claim otherwise, the 17th amendments was a pure power play designed to further entrench party politics in DC. Critics of the Seventeenth Amendment claim that by altering the way Senators are elected, the States lost any representation they had in the Federal government and that this led to the gradual “slide into ignominy” of State legislatures, as well as an overextension of Federal power and the rise of special interest groups to fill the power vacuum previously occupied by State legislatures. In my opinion, these critics were correct in their assessment, and it is time to go back to doing things the way our Founding Fathers intended they be done.
We have also eliminated loopholes such as those created by ObamaCare when Congress was able to exempt themselves from it. If a law is good enough for The People to be subject to its statutes, it’s good enough for the members of Congress to be subject to it, as well.
It is pretty clear there is no way Congress will author an Amendment that will limit their term of service to 12 years. After all, it’s not in their best interest. The Supreme Court has also ruled that the States cannot limit the terms of their representatives to Congress. So, the only way left for We The People to regain control of our Government is to take matters into our own hands, and push for a Constitutional Amendment ourselves. I will be discussing how we can do that in another article.
Of course, this is just One Man’s View. I welcome your comments.]]>
On July 4th we celebrate our nation’s birthday, the freedoms we enjoy, and the American way of life! While I hope you have a safe and happy Independence Day, please remember: Freedom isn’t Free!]]>
A young Texan grew up wanting to be a lawman. He grew up big, 6′ 2″, strong as a longhorn and fast as a mustang. He could shoot a bottle cap tossed in the air at 40 paces. When he finally came of age he applied to where he had always dreamed of working, a West Texas Sheriff’s Department.
After a big mess of tests and interviews, the Chief Deputy finally called him into his office for the young man’s last interview.
The Chief Deputy says, “You’re a big strong kid and you can really shoot. So far your qualifications all look good. But we have what you call an ‘attitude suitability test’ that you must take before you can be accepted. We just don’t let anyone carry our badge, Son.”
Then, sliding a service pistol and a box of ammo across the desk, the Chief says, “Take this pistol and go out and shoot six illegal aliens, six ACLU lawyers, six Democrat Senators, six meth dealers, six Muslim extremists and a rabbit.”
“Why the rabbit?”
“Great attitude,” says the Chief Deputy. “When can you start?”
Again, I can’t take credit for this… but its sentiment sure resonates through me.]]>
I ran into a friend at the market last night, who also happens to be my CPA. Brian was picking up groceries for dinner with his 84 year old father, a Tuesday night ritual for them. Brian invited me to join them for some liquid refreshment, snacks and conversation. Even though I had already dined (my wife is off visiting my daughter for a few days), I really enjoy sitting down with him and solving the world’s problems over a glass or 3 of wine (or a fine Scotch) so I agreed to join them.
The conversation eventually turned to the current State of the U.S., as it usually does.
We were discussing the National Debt, when I made mention that “a little debt is healthy”. Brian was quick to remind me of my many comments that the Government needs to be run like a non-profit corporation, asking “How can a non-profit corporation ever hope to pay off any debt when its goal is to have no profits with which to pay it?” This was an excellent point, and one which bears more discussion at another time.
By now you’re probably asking “What does this have to do with the Tea Party?”. Well, I have been thinking a lot about the Tea Party of late… mostly about where they’re headed in terms of influencing our political process. Brian and I also discussed where they fit in the overall political spectrum, and how they could be most effective… and how they might self-destruct. I spent some time floating around their web site, and came across their Mission Statement:
The impetus for the Tea Party movement is excessive government spending and taxation. Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.
While their Mission is laudable, I think those who are highly active in the movement need to reach a consensus on how they plan on making their mission successful. That said, here are some of my thoughts… which will probably prove highly unpopular to a LOT of people:
A lot to chew on? Absolutely! However, if the Tea Party can reach a general, national consensus on the 8 items I listed above, they will be a force to be reckoned with forevermore. Of course, these 8 items aren’t all that need to be done to fix what’s wrong with our political processes today… but they’ll go a long way toward it.
Of course, this is just One Man’s View. As always, your comments are most welcome.]]>