Who can rob you bllind without calling it a crime?
The Government can!
Comments are invite
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Monday, January 23, 2012
Our Civil Liberties On A Slippery Slope
By Austin Hill
President Obama wants more tourists at Disneyworld. Mitt Romney wants the race for the nomination to be done already. And Newt Gingrich wants us to ignore his second ex-wife who claims that he once wanted an "open marriage."
The headlines of Election 2012 are packed with entertainment value. But here's something that the American people should want- and demand - from a prospective new President: some fresh ideas on protecting our civil liberties.
As the campaigns twist and turn with promises to ignite "job creation" and to eliminate Obamacare, very little has been said in this election cycle about a resource that is increasingly in short supply for U.S. citizens - civil liberty.
One might have thought that President Obama's signing of the National Defense Authorization Act in December, complete with its "indefinite detention without a trial" provisions, would have ignited some debate about the liberties of citizens.
To his credit, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul was quick to condemn the new law and note that it signals a "descent into totalitarianism" (Congressman Paul has now introduced legislation to repeal the law). Yet Mitt Romney offered his approval of the law when asked about it, and stated that had he been President, he would have signed the bill into law himself.
So while the dominant news media focuses on allegations of adultery and cultural insensitivity among the candidates, the tentative nature of our liberty mostly gets ignored by both the candidates and the press. Worse yet, Republican frontrunner
Mitt Romney is now championing another liberty-crushing policy as a means of controlling illegal immigration: the mandate of a national I.D. card for all U.S. citizens.
The idea of a national I.D. card has been around for decades. Over the years Democrats have most often proposed it as a mechanism for easily determining one's citizenship, and one's
Eligibility for government-funded healthcare services. Republicans, on the other hand, used to consistently oppose the idea, on the grounds that in order to issue federal I.D. cards the U.S. federal government had to collect more private personal data about individual citizens.
And the rendering of one's personal information, Republicans used to say, was a violation of one's civil liberties.
But Republican opposition to big brother began to fade in the mid-2000's. With growing concerns about domestic terrorist threats and the pain of illegal immigration becoming more impossible to ignore, President George W. Bush signed into law the federal "Real ID" Act in May of 2005. The law was intended, among other things, to impose specific "standards" on the individual states regarding the issuance of driver's licenses and other state I.D. cards, as a means of tightening-up domestic national security. Yet despite the approval of the Congress and the President, well over half of all the legislatures in the individual states passed resolutions opposing the Real ID Act.
One of the states to oppose President Bush's Real ID Act was - not surprisingly - the libertarian-leaning Arizona. Yet at about the same time that Arizona officially rejected Real ID, the state was also on the verge of becoming ground zero for the nation's debate over illegal immigration. And this is when Republican elected officials seriously began to waiver on concerns about intrusive government.
Despite its opposition to Real ID, Arizona's Republican-led legislature forced a "crackdown" on business owners that employed illegal immigrants, by requiring employers to register their employees with the federal "e-verify" website. Signed into law by then Democrat Governor Janet Napolitano, Arizona began forcing citizens to allow their federal government to collect even more personal data on them, in exchange for the privilege of interviewing for a job.
This is to say that many of the same elected Republicans in the Grand Canyon state who were horrified at President Bush's violation of civil liberties, nonetheless had no problem pushing a statewide program
requiring the fed's to collect more of people's personal information. And it wasn't just Arizona - heavily Republican states like Virginia, Alabama, Utah and Georgia have all followed Arizona's lead, and have adopted similar statewide laws.
Of course, nobody with a healthy skepticism about the "good intentions" of government believes that a national I.D. card system would solve our illegal immigration problem. Those of us who are not so enamored with the quick-fixes of politicians recognize that illegal immigrants would likely figure a way to illegally obtain the I.D. cards, and the system would thus be compromised.
But equally as important, imposing I.D. card and "e-verify" requirements on the citizenry is an unjust, and logically flawed means of policing the problem. In stead of focusing on the origins of illegal immigration - a porous border, an inept immigration system, and people who flagrantly violate our nation's laws - such policies focus instead on law abiding citizens, and make them "pay" for the failings of others.
In 2003 Republicans were outraged when then-U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton proposed a national I.D. card program. Today, the Republican presidential frontrunner is campaigning with the idea.
Can America - and our civil liberties - exit the slippery slope?
Email: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send Feedsback to: WatchDog
.
President Obama wants more tourists at Disneyworld. Mitt Romney wants the race for the nomination to be done already. And Newt Gingrich wants us to ignore his second ex-wife who claims that he once wanted an "open marriage."
The headlines of Election 2012 are packed with entertainment value. But here's something that the American people should want- and demand - from a prospective new President: some fresh ideas on protecting our civil liberties.
As the campaigns twist and turn with promises to ignite "job creation" and to eliminate Obamacare, very little has been said in this election cycle about a resource that is increasingly in short supply for U.S. citizens - civil liberty.
One might have thought that President Obama's signing of the National Defense Authorization Act in December, complete with its "indefinite detention without a trial" provisions, would have ignited some debate about the liberties of citizens.
To his credit, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul was quick to condemn the new law and note that it signals a "descent into totalitarianism" (Congressman Paul has now introduced legislation to repeal the law). Yet Mitt Romney offered his approval of the law when asked about it, and stated that had he been President, he would have signed the bill into law himself.
So while the dominant news media focuses on allegations of adultery and cultural insensitivity among the candidates, the tentative nature of our liberty mostly gets ignored by both the candidates and the press. Worse yet, Republican frontrunner
Mitt Romney is now championing another liberty-crushing policy as a means of controlling illegal immigration: the mandate of a national I.D. card for all U.S. citizens.
The idea of a national I.D. card has been around for decades. Over the years Democrats have most often proposed it as a mechanism for easily determining one's citizenship, and one's
Eligibility for government-funded healthcare services. Republicans, on the other hand, used to consistently oppose the idea, on the grounds that in order to issue federal I.D. cards the U.S. federal government had to collect more private personal data about individual citizens.
And the rendering of one's personal information, Republicans used to say, was a violation of one's civil liberties.
But Republican opposition to big brother began to fade in the mid-2000's. With growing concerns about domestic terrorist threats and the pain of illegal immigration becoming more impossible to ignore, President George W. Bush signed into law the federal "Real ID" Act in May of 2005. The law was intended, among other things, to impose specific "standards" on the individual states regarding the issuance of driver's licenses and other state I.D. cards, as a means of tightening-up domestic national security. Yet despite the approval of the Congress and the President, well over half of all the legislatures in the individual states passed resolutions opposing the Real ID Act.
One of the states to oppose President Bush's Real ID Act was - not surprisingly - the libertarian-leaning Arizona. Yet at about the same time that Arizona officially rejected Real ID, the state was also on the verge of becoming ground zero for the nation's debate over illegal immigration. And this is when Republican elected officials seriously began to waiver on concerns about intrusive government.
Despite its opposition to Real ID, Arizona's Republican-led legislature forced a "crackdown" on business owners that employed illegal immigrants, by requiring employers to register their employees with the federal "e-verify" website. Signed into law by then Democrat Governor Janet Napolitano, Arizona began forcing citizens to allow their federal government to collect even more personal data on them, in exchange for the privilege of interviewing for a job.
This is to say that many of the same elected Republicans in the Grand Canyon state who were horrified at President Bush's violation of civil liberties, nonetheless had no problem pushing a statewide program
requiring the fed's to collect more of people's personal information. And it wasn't just Arizona - heavily Republican states like Virginia, Alabama, Utah and Georgia have all followed Arizona's lead, and have adopted similar statewide laws.
Of course, nobody with a healthy skepticism about the "good intentions" of government believes that a national I.D. card system would solve our illegal immigration problem. Those of us who are not so enamored with the quick-fixes of politicians recognize that illegal immigrants would likely figure a way to illegally obtain the I.D. cards, and the system would thus be compromised.
But equally as important, imposing I.D. card and "e-verify" requirements on the citizenry is an unjust, and logically flawed means of policing the problem. In stead of focusing on the origins of illegal immigration - a porous border, an inept immigration system, and people who flagrantly violate our nation's laws - such policies focus instead on law abiding citizens, and make them "pay" for the failings of others.
In 2003 Republicans were outraged when then-U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton proposed a national I.D. card program. Today, the Republican presidential frontrunner is campaigning with the idea.
Can America - and our civil liberties - exit the slippery slope?
Email: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send Feedsback to: WatchDog
.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Did You Know That Muslims Discovered America? Or That Jerusalem Is An Arab City?
Did you know that Muslims discovered America, that Jerusalem is an Arab city, that Jesus was a “Palestinian,” or that the state of Israel never existed?
That’s just some of the “history” that students in America’s K-12 classrooms have been taught in recent years
The problems with America's education system are not too little time in the classroom! It is the fact that we teach crap and nothing but crap because the administrators, the NEA and politicians want it that way and the teachers don't know any better or don't care!
Blessed are the homeschoolers; their children shall inherit the earth! --WD
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
That’s just some of the “history” that students in America’s K-12 classrooms have been taught in recent years
The problems with America's education system are not too little time in the classroom! It is the fact that we teach crap and nothing but crap because the administrators, the NEA and politicians want it that way and the teachers don't know any better or don't care!
Blessed are the homeschoolers; their children shall inherit the earth! --WD
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Do Social Conservatives Care About Capitalism?
By Austin Hill
The Republican primary races are underway, and pundits are abuzz about whether or not religious social conservatives will embrace Mitt Romney.
That’s an interesting and worthwhile question. But here’s another interesting question: do religious social conservatives care about the free market economy, and capitalism?
I’ve pondered this question over the years, in previous columns and in various talk radio venues. When I do, I usually get very angry, visceral answers – responses like “of course we do,” and “how do you dare even ask?”
Despite the anger and discomfort, this is an important question to be asking. Religious social conservatives are large in number and can influence the outcomes of elections. And as our nation is currently at an economic crossroads, it remains to be seen what our country and our country’s economic system will be like in the future.
But before we think about capitalism, ponder this for a moment: who are “religious social conservatives,” anyway? According to research from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, 70 Percent of American adults identify with some form of evangelical Protestant Christianity, mainline denominational Protestant Christianity, Catholicism, Orthodox Judaism, or Mormonism.
Obviously, adherents to these various faith traditions do not all think alike on issues of culture and public policy. However many members of these religious groups share common, strongly-held beliefs and values, so it is not surprising that over the past several decades they have often exhibited similar responses to public policy concerns amid America’s changing cultural landscape.
This is to say that not every individual who practices one of these religious traditions necessarily qualifies as a religious social conservative. However, the religious social conservative movement is comprised of members all of these various faith communities, while the movement is most certainly dominated by Evangelical Protestant Christians.
The earliest beginnings of this movement can be traced back to the social upheaval of the late ‘60’s and early ‘70’s youth culture, and the 1973 Roe versus Wade Supreme Court decision. After decades of non-participation in elections and public policy debates, many devoutly religious Americans became alarmed by a “hippie” generation that was determined to overthrow our culture’s authority structures, and by their government arbitrarily determining that unborn children were not really human beings.
Thus, “social conservatism” emerged as a movement that was focused on the most basic of all social structures– the traditional family. Over the past several decades, concerns about the life of the unborn child, the rights of parents, and the definition of marriage have all taken center-stage among social conservatives, while each of these concerns have been openly regarded as “moral issues” that are worthy of religious peoples’ attention.
While the long-standing concerns of social conservatives remain in-play today, the United States now finds itself at another turning point. Will our country continue as the “most free” among the world’s free market economies? Or will the U.S. devolve in to more of a European-styled, socialistic economy, where private individuals and businesses make fewer decisions with their own economic resources, and politicians and government bureaucrats make more of those decisions?
Given our nation’s economic crossroads, and given that social conservatives are so influential among the American electorate, the religious social conservative movement needs to look within itself and answer this question: should economics be regarded as one of the “moral issues” that is worthy of our attention? And if it is, then which economic system do social conservatives prefer – our free market capitalistic system, or a more socialistic, government-controlled system?
Economic systems and policies are, after all, an expression of how a society regards both its weakest and most powerful members and everybody else in between. Likewise, economic policies often play a key role in determining who “wins” and who “loses” in a society, and they can either encourage or discourage positive, productive behavior.
Social conservatives can begin addressing economic issues by first confronting a very common assumption that is widely held as true – the assumption that capitalism is an economic system built on greed and selfishness, while socialism is a system based on generosity and “fairness.”
Despite its prevalence, this is a false assumption. When properly understood and implemented, capitalism is an economic system that allows every willing participant the opportunity to gain entry into the marketplace; demands that every participant abide by a uniform set of rules; rewards people according to a system of merit; and allows private individuals and organizations the freedom both to succeed, and to fail. Special governmental favors – bailouts and so forth – are an anathema to a capitalistic economic system.
Socialism, however, places in the hands of politicians and governmental bureaucrats the power to take away increasing amounts of wealth from certain individuals (generally the more wealthy in a society), and re-distribute that wealth to people that are believed to be “deserving” of it. In such an economic system, personal responsibility, a system of merit, and one’s freedom to succeed and to fail, are all undermined.
Economics is absolutely a “moral issue,” and our nation’s economic dilemmas are numerous and profound. Will the influential social conservative movement have a voice in setting the course for our nation’s economic future?
Email: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Real Unemployment Rate: 11.4 Percent
The White House has trumpeted recent rosy employment figures, but in their guts Americans know things aren’t getting better. They should trust their instincts.
Jobs are the No. 1 issue going into the 2012 election, which makes the unemployment rate a particularly important indicator. Lately, the trend seems to be favoring the White House. The December unemployment numbers showed a drop to 8.5 percent, down 0.2 percent from the previous month and over half a percentage point from August. In the “jobless recovery,” small moves like that take on outsized significance.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in the last 12 months, a net of 1.5 million more Americans found work. This sounds like good news, but the civilian non-institutional worker population increased by 1.7 million over the same period, and the raw percentage of Americans working has basically flatlined at 58.5 percent. To the extent there are new jobs, it has more to do with the fact that there are more people creating more demand, not with any fundamental expansion in the economy.
This raises the question why the unemployment rate continues to improve. The answer is that the “official” workforce is shrinking. Only those working or actively seeking employment “count” in the unemployment statistics. The discouraged, the dropouts and those who don’t even bother trying to find work aren’t included in the official unemployment rate. The 30-year average participation rate - that is, the percentage of Americans in the workforce - is 65.8 percent. During the last three years, this number has fallen sharply to around 64 percent. While the potential worker population rose last year by 1.7 million, the official workforce only went up 275,000. Counting like that makes it easier to report better employment numbers.
An analysis posted last week at the Zero Hedge website looked at what the unemployment picture would be if participation rates were held steady. Using more realistic long-term average participation rates, the study calculated a current unemployment rate of 11.4 percent. While the Obama administration’s numbers keep getting better, rates based on long-term participation do not. Factor in the number of Americans who hold down two or three jobs just to get by, and those who are chronically underemployed make the picture even grimmer.
.No matter how grim the REAL unemployment rate is, you can bet that next November, the White House will be reporting that it is less than 8%. -- WD
Jobs are the No. 1 issue going into the 2012 election, which makes the unemployment rate a particularly important indicator. Lately, the trend seems to be favoring the White House. The December unemployment numbers showed a drop to 8.5 percent, down 0.2 percent from the previous month and over half a percentage point from August. In the “jobless recovery,” small moves like that take on outsized significance.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in the last 12 months, a net of 1.5 million more Americans found work. This sounds like good news, but the civilian non-institutional worker population increased by 1.7 million over the same period, and the raw percentage of Americans working has basically flatlined at 58.5 percent. To the extent there are new jobs, it has more to do with the fact that there are more people creating more demand, not with any fundamental expansion in the economy.
This raises the question why the unemployment rate continues to improve. The answer is that the “official” workforce is shrinking. Only those working or actively seeking employment “count” in the unemployment statistics. The discouraged, the dropouts and those who don’t even bother trying to find work aren’t included in the official unemployment rate. The 30-year average participation rate - that is, the percentage of Americans in the workforce - is 65.8 percent. During the last three years, this number has fallen sharply to around 64 percent. While the potential worker population rose last year by 1.7 million, the official workforce only went up 275,000. Counting like that makes it easier to report better employment numbers.
An analysis posted last week at the Zero Hedge website looked at what the unemployment picture would be if participation rates were held steady. Using more realistic long-term average participation rates, the study calculated a current unemployment rate of 11.4 percent. While the Obama administration’s numbers keep getting better, rates based on long-term participation do not. Factor in the number of Americans who hold down two or three jobs just to get by, and those who are chronically underemployed make the picture even grimmer.
-- Washington Times
Editorial 1/10/2011
.No matter how grim the REAL unemployment rate is, you can bet that next November, the White House will be reporting that it is less than 8%. -- WD
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Mormonism Or Marxism: Which Would You Prefer In The White House?
By Austin Hill
Is a Romney nomination inevitable?
No.
But former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is looking very strong in Iowa and New Hampshire, where presidential primary voting begins this week. Likewise, a current Rasmussen poll shows Romney with a six percentage point lead over President Obama in a hypothetical election match up.
So things are looking very good for Mitt Romney, as he seeks the Republican nomination for the presidency. And this means that Americans will likely have to answer an important question in 2012: which would you prefer at the White House -Mormon theology, or Marxist liberation theology?
I wish I didn’t have to ask this question. But as Romney gets closer to the presidency, the criticisms of his church affiliation and theological convictions will get louder. And if you’re troubled by Mitt’s Mormonism, you should be even more concerned about the religious affiliations of our current President.
As for Mr. Romney, he has thus far run a good campaign and has managed to mostly stay out of theological debates. But in the last presidential election cycle the “Mormon thing” proved to be unavoidable, and as primary voting begins in religiously conservative regions of the country, his Mormonism will become a big deal again.
Given this certainty, here’s some advice for Governor Romney: don’t repeat your mistake of 2008 of trying to convince “them” that you are one of “them.” The more you stand in front of conservative Evangelical and Catholic audiences and ascribe terms like “born again” and “Christian” to yourself, the more they’ll be saying “oh no you are not!”
Leave the theological battles over “who is really a Christian” to other people, Mr. Romney, and talk to us instead about the values and policy ideas that America so desperately needs.
When questions arise about your church, tell us, Mr. Romney, why your Mormonism matters: your church informs your understanding of why our society must uphold the dignity of every human individual; it teaches you about the profound importance of human liberty (I love your church’s “Choose The Right” motto – try telling us why it is so important that each of us have the freedom to “choose”); and it affirms to the world that marriage is good for society. Try to convey that, while our theological differences are real, our values are more universal and uniting.
On this point, you might borrow from former President George W Bush. In a little-known March 2001 speech, Bush spoke at the opening of the Pope John Paul II Cultural Center in Washington. Bush, of course, is a Methodist-turned-Evangelical, yet he was still warmly received at the ceremony by the Catholic hierarchy.
And Bush didn’t try to pretend that he was Catholic, either. “I may not be a parishioner…” he stated as he began his remarks, “but I’m a sojourner with you…” He then brilliantly went on to say that we are “one” with our values, and that the Pope was a great teacher of those values. To those who would prefer to bash Romney’s church rather than seriously considering who should be our next President, I would ask this: have you scrutinized President Obama’s theological affiliations the way you’ve scrutinized Mormonism?
For the record, Barack Obama hasn’t been known for regular church attendance since moving-in to the White House (this puts him in good company with many of our previous Presidents). Yet his decades-long affiliation with the radical Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, a central outlet of liberation theology, is quite well documented.
This is to say that President Obama has been steeped in a theological worldview that essentially takes the economic and “class struggle” teachings of Karl Marx, and superimposes Bible verses over it. It preaches that successful people are oppressors who need to be conquered, and that the “oppressed” should live off of other people’s largess. These sorts of ideas -which are inherently economic in their nature -are prevalent in governments throughout the third world, Latin America, and parts of Europe. And they are blessed and affirmed in churches that espouse liberation theology – which is all a part of our President’s religious background.
Are there theological differences between Mitt Romney’s Mormonism, and the Evangelicalism and Catholicism that a majority of Americans embrace? Yes, there absolutely is.
But it is also true that the Mormon Church movement is an American-born religious movement, and teaches that freedom is something that is sacred and to be safe-guarded.
President Obama’s liberation theology, on the other hand, is at war with Western values. It teaches that freedom is inherently problematic (it inevitably leads to a society of oppressors and victims), and only through the power of government control can the evils of a free society be corrected.
I’d be delighted to see Mormonism replace the Marxism that presently inhabits the White House. But will Americans be willing to honestly examine them both?
Email: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Is a Romney nomination inevitable?
No.
But former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is looking very strong in Iowa and New Hampshire, where presidential primary voting begins this week. Likewise, a current Rasmussen poll shows Romney with a six percentage point lead over President Obama in a hypothetical election match up.
So things are looking very good for Mitt Romney, as he seeks the Republican nomination for the presidency. And this means that Americans will likely have to answer an important question in 2012: which would you prefer at the White House -Mormon theology, or Marxist liberation theology?
I wish I didn’t have to ask this question. But as Romney gets closer to the presidency, the criticisms of his church affiliation and theological convictions will get louder. And if you’re troubled by Mitt’s Mormonism, you should be even more concerned about the religious affiliations of our current President.
As for Mr. Romney, he has thus far run a good campaign and has managed to mostly stay out of theological debates. But in the last presidential election cycle the “Mormon thing” proved to be unavoidable, and as primary voting begins in religiously conservative regions of the country, his Mormonism will become a big deal again.
Given this certainty, here’s some advice for Governor Romney: don’t repeat your mistake of 2008 of trying to convince “them” that you are one of “them.” The more you stand in front of conservative Evangelical and Catholic audiences and ascribe terms like “born again” and “Christian” to yourself, the more they’ll be saying “oh no you are not!”
Leave the theological battles over “who is really a Christian” to other people, Mr. Romney, and talk to us instead about the values and policy ideas that America so desperately needs.
When questions arise about your church, tell us, Mr. Romney, why your Mormonism matters: your church informs your understanding of why our society must uphold the dignity of every human individual; it teaches you about the profound importance of human liberty (I love your church’s “Choose The Right” motto – try telling us why it is so important that each of us have the freedom to “choose”); and it affirms to the world that marriage is good for society. Try to convey that, while our theological differences are real, our values are more universal and uniting.
On this point, you might borrow from former President George W Bush. In a little-known March 2001 speech, Bush spoke at the opening of the Pope John Paul II Cultural Center in Washington. Bush, of course, is a Methodist-turned-Evangelical, yet he was still warmly received at the ceremony by the Catholic hierarchy.
And Bush didn’t try to pretend that he was Catholic, either. “I may not be a parishioner…” he stated as he began his remarks, “but I’m a sojourner with you…” He then brilliantly went on to say that we are “one” with our values, and that the Pope was a great teacher of those values. To those who would prefer to bash Romney’s church rather than seriously considering who should be our next President, I would ask this: have you scrutinized President Obama’s theological affiliations the way you’ve scrutinized Mormonism?
For the record, Barack Obama hasn’t been known for regular church attendance since moving-in to the White House (this puts him in good company with many of our previous Presidents). Yet his decades-long affiliation with the radical Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, a central outlet of liberation theology, is quite well documented.
This is to say that President Obama has been steeped in a theological worldview that essentially takes the economic and “class struggle” teachings of Karl Marx, and superimposes Bible verses over it. It preaches that successful people are oppressors who need to be conquered, and that the “oppressed” should live off of other people’s largess. These sorts of ideas -which are inherently economic in their nature -are prevalent in governments throughout the third world, Latin America, and parts of Europe. And they are blessed and affirmed in churches that espouse liberation theology – which is all a part of our President’s religious background.
Are there theological differences between Mitt Romney’s Mormonism, and the Evangelicalism and Catholicism that a majority of Americans embrace? Yes, there absolutely is.
But it is also true that the Mormon Church movement is an American-born religious movement, and teaches that freedom is something that is sacred and to be safe-guarded.
President Obama’s liberation theology, on the other hand, is at war with Western values. It teaches that freedom is inherently problematic (it inevitably leads to a society of oppressors and victims), and only through the power of government control can the evils of a free society be corrected.
I’d be delighted to see Mormonism replace the Marxism that presently inhabits the White House. But will Americans be willing to honestly examine them both?
Email: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Senator Lugar (Rino-IN) attacks Tea Party
“The Tea Party destroyed the chances for a Republican majority in the Senate at the last elections” – Senator Dick Lugar (R-IN)
Lugar further claims that if the Tea Party wants a Republican majority, they will have to support the “Old Elitist” like himself, who have experience at “politics as usual”
Why would the Tea Party want to return the likes of Lugar to the Senate?
Would it be that he supports federal gun control? Or that he voted for the dream act? Or that he votes for huge agriculture support programs, including Ethanol for fuel? Or that he supported Obama’s nominations to the Supreme Court? Or that he voted for TARP? Or that he voted to include criticism of sodomy in the definition of a “hate crime.”? These are all reasons to oppose the elestion of Rino's!
The Tea Party goals are not about a Republican majority in either branch of the Congress. The Tea Party’s goal is to elect Congressmen and a President that believes in and obeys the Constitution and will reign in government spending. If a candidate is a true Conservative, The Tea Party will support that candidate, regardless of party affiliation.
When Senator Lugar claims that the Tea Party prevented a Republican majority in the Senate, he is making reference to the fact that the Tea Party supported true Conservatives in opposition to Rino incumbents like himself.
The facts are that a Republican controlled Senate, led my Mitch McConnell and a number of RINO’s will be no different than what we have now.
If the Tea Party movement is to succeed at saving this nation, the “Old Elitists” like Lugar, Rove, the Bush’s and others have to go! "Politics as usual" is what is destroying this nation and what has crippled the Republican Party.
The elections of 2010 have shown that Conservatives win when they stop trying to look like “that other party”.
Let us pray that God still blesses America.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Lugar further claims that if the Tea Party wants a Republican majority, they will have to support the “Old Elitist” like himself, who have experience at “politics as usual”
Why would the Tea Party want to return the likes of Lugar to the Senate?
Would it be that he supports federal gun control? Or that he voted for the dream act? Or that he votes for huge agriculture support programs, including Ethanol for fuel? Or that he supported Obama’s nominations to the Supreme Court? Or that he voted for TARP? Or that he voted to include criticism of sodomy in the definition of a “hate crime.”? These are all reasons to oppose the elestion of Rino's!
The Tea Party goals are not about a Republican majority in either branch of the Congress. The Tea Party’s goal is to elect Congressmen and a President that believes in and obeys the Constitution and will reign in government spending. If a candidate is a true Conservative, The Tea Party will support that candidate, regardless of party affiliation.
When Senator Lugar claims that the Tea Party prevented a Republican majority in the Senate, he is making reference to the fact that the Tea Party supported true Conservatives in opposition to Rino incumbents like himself.
The facts are that a Republican controlled Senate, led my Mitch McConnell and a number of RINO’s will be no different than what we have now.
If the Tea Party movement is to succeed at saving this nation, the “Old Elitists” like Lugar, Rove, the Bush’s and others have to go! "Politics as usual" is what is destroying this nation and what has crippled the Republican Party.
The elections of 2010 have shown that Conservatives win when they stop trying to look like “that other party”.
Let us pray that God still blesses America.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Note To Harry Reid: We Found Some Unicorns
By Austin Hill
What was the leader of the United States Senate thinking?
For months Senator Harry Reid and his fellow Democrats have been pushing for higher taxes on upper income earners. Congressional Republicans have argued that this is a bad idea, because people with wealth often start their own businesses and hire workers in the process – and government shouldn’t create disincentives for business and job growth.
So, facing a failure of his tax hike proposal, Harry Reid took to the floor of the U.S. Senate and responded to the critics who opposed his scheme, declaring: “Millionaire job creators are like unicorns. They are impossible to find and don't exist."
They don’t exist? Really? Nobody with wealth ever starts a business and hires people to work at it? No, not in the insular political world of the leader of the United States Senate. As far as Mr. Reid was concerned, these "fictitious millionaire job creators" are mostly just "hedge fund managers or wealthy lawyers that don't do much hiring."
If Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid were even remotely in-touch with the nation he is paid to serve, he’d know that wealthy job creators have been trying to get his attention for nearly two years, crying for a reprieve from the oppressive Obama government for which he has been carrying the legislative water. But it’ll be another five years before Harry stands for re-election, so why bother with the realities of public policy? The short-term political gain Harry can reap by publicly demanding more punishment for “rich people” is all that matters right now – or so he likely thinks.
But, as if to produce a “teachable moment” for the bumbling Reid, none other than USA Today stepped-in three days after the Senator’s absurdities and provided a bit of a tutorial. You might say that, despite Harry’s certainty that they “don’t exist,” a writer at USA Today found a few “unicorns.”
In a December 15th article entitled “Economic optimism grows, but risks remain,” USA Today writer Paul Davidson provides examples of how private individuals with wealth are starting businesses, and - shocking- creating jobs! And here’s what else Davidson’s reveals: public policy emanating from Congress and the White House directly impacts business owner’s decisions about whether or not to expand. For Harry and Nancy and Barack it may all be a political game, but they nonetheless wield a lot of power over us and they’re playing with our livelihoods and futures. A quick perusal of Davidson’s article provides a snapshot of how things work in the real world – a world outside of the Obama gamesmanship.
In Evanston, Ill., Davidson notes, a guy described as a “serial restaurant entrepreneur” Mitch Dulin opened a shop called “Central Street Café” last summer. Dulin jumped in to his new venture, according to Davidson, largely because his instincts told him that the local economy was improving, and, so he reasoned, if he had waited much longer then the rock-bottom lease rates that were available would likely begin to rise. "I saw things getting better," Dulin was quoted as saying, and "if I were to wait a year, the lease would cost me 20% more." Imagine that – without direction from Harry Reid or Barack Obama, Mr. Dulin sought to use his money wisely – and his pursuit of wisdom led to business expansion.
But wait, there’s more! As Davidson reports, “Dulin says he paid cash for the renovation of the space — at a cost of $500,000 to $1 million — and (he) might not have gone ahead with the project if he had needed to get a loan.” Uh-oh! Looks like we found a unicorn here! Mitch Dulin had hundreds of thousands of his own dollars to spend on his own business start-up, which likely qualifies him as one of those dastardly “millionaires” from whom Harry Reid wants to confiscate more money. And Dulin’s new restaurant employs 14 full time workers, all of which were previously employed.
Elsewhere in Davidson’s article we learn of “Nurse Next Door,” a franchised in-home healthcare business based in Canada. The company was moving ahead with plans to expand in the United States, but then stopped last summer when the Congress and the President raised our government debt ceiling higher and our government debt was downgraded. “NND” has since begun moving again on their expansion plans, but the point remains clear: as Senator Reid and President Obama play short-term political war games with our nation’s fiscal and monetary matters, real-life “unicorns” are operating in the real world, trying to make prudent decisions with their capital. The more punishment that Reid and Obama dole-out to the money people, the more likely the money people are going to simply hold on to what they’ve got, and not risk and invest.
As Senator Reid and President Obama continue with their gamesmanship, America remains starved for sound fiscal and economic policies. How much longer can the “unicorns” last with them?
Email: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
What was the leader of the United States Senate thinking?
For months Senator Harry Reid and his fellow Democrats have been pushing for higher taxes on upper income earners. Congressional Republicans have argued that this is a bad idea, because people with wealth often start their own businesses and hire workers in the process – and government shouldn’t create disincentives for business and job growth.
So, facing a failure of his tax hike proposal, Harry Reid took to the floor of the U.S. Senate and responded to the critics who opposed his scheme, declaring: “Millionaire job creators are like unicorns. They are impossible to find and don't exist."
They don’t exist? Really? Nobody with wealth ever starts a business and hires people to work at it? No, not in the insular political world of the leader of the United States Senate. As far as Mr. Reid was concerned, these "fictitious millionaire job creators" are mostly just "hedge fund managers or wealthy lawyers that don't do much hiring."
If Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid were even remotely in-touch with the nation he is paid to serve, he’d know that wealthy job creators have been trying to get his attention for nearly two years, crying for a reprieve from the oppressive Obama government for which he has been carrying the legislative water. But it’ll be another five years before Harry stands for re-election, so why bother with the realities of public policy? The short-term political gain Harry can reap by publicly demanding more punishment for “rich people” is all that matters right now – or so he likely thinks.
But, as if to produce a “teachable moment” for the bumbling Reid, none other than USA Today stepped-in three days after the Senator’s absurdities and provided a bit of a tutorial. You might say that, despite Harry’s certainty that they “don’t exist,” a writer at USA Today found a few “unicorns.”
In a December 15th article entitled “Economic optimism grows, but risks remain,” USA Today writer Paul Davidson provides examples of how private individuals with wealth are starting businesses, and - shocking- creating jobs! And here’s what else Davidson’s reveals: public policy emanating from Congress and the White House directly impacts business owner’s decisions about whether or not to expand. For Harry and Nancy and Barack it may all be a political game, but they nonetheless wield a lot of power over us and they’re playing with our livelihoods and futures. A quick perusal of Davidson’s article provides a snapshot of how things work in the real world – a world outside of the Obama gamesmanship.
In Evanston, Ill., Davidson notes, a guy described as a “serial restaurant entrepreneur” Mitch Dulin opened a shop called “Central Street Café” last summer. Dulin jumped in to his new venture, according to Davidson, largely because his instincts told him that the local economy was improving, and, so he reasoned, if he had waited much longer then the rock-bottom lease rates that were available would likely begin to rise. "I saw things getting better," Dulin was quoted as saying, and "if I were to wait a year, the lease would cost me 20% more." Imagine that – without direction from Harry Reid or Barack Obama, Mr. Dulin sought to use his money wisely – and his pursuit of wisdom led to business expansion.
But wait, there’s more! As Davidson reports, “Dulin says he paid cash for the renovation of the space — at a cost of $500,000 to $1 million — and (he) might not have gone ahead with the project if he had needed to get a loan.” Uh-oh! Looks like we found a unicorn here! Mitch Dulin had hundreds of thousands of his own dollars to spend on his own business start-up, which likely qualifies him as one of those dastardly “millionaires” from whom Harry Reid wants to confiscate more money. And Dulin’s new restaurant employs 14 full time workers, all of which were previously employed.
Elsewhere in Davidson’s article we learn of “Nurse Next Door,” a franchised in-home healthcare business based in Canada. The company was moving ahead with plans to expand in the United States, but then stopped last summer when the Congress and the President raised our government debt ceiling higher and our government debt was downgraded. “NND” has since begun moving again on their expansion plans, but the point remains clear: as Senator Reid and President Obama play short-term political war games with our nation’s fiscal and monetary matters, real-life “unicorns” are operating in the real world, trying to make prudent decisions with their capital. The more punishment that Reid and Obama dole-out to the money people, the more likely the money people are going to simply hold on to what they’ve got, and not risk and invest.
As Senator Reid and President Obama continue with their gamesmanship, America remains starved for sound fiscal and economic policies. How much longer can the “unicorns” last with them?
Email: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Nero in the White House
The following was reprinted from the WorldNetDaily.com. The old WatchDog is in full agreement and thinks that it should be required reading for every potential voter.
Emphasis was added by Me! -- WD
Nero in the White House
by Mychal Massie (8/8, 2011)
Three significant historical events have been eclipsed by Obama: 1) Jimmy Carter will no longer be looked upon as the worst president in American history; 2) Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton will no longer be recognized as the greatest liars in presidential history; 3) Clinton's stain on Monica's dress, and what that did to the White House in general and the office of the president specifically, will forever pale in comparison to the stain and stench of Obama.
I need not spend much time on the failure of Obama as president. His tenure has been a failure on every measurable level. So much so, in fact, that some of the staunchest, most respected liberal Democrats and Democratic supporters have not only openly criticized him some even more harshly than this essayist but they have called for him to step down.
Richard Nixon's words "I am not a crook," punctuated with his involvement in Watergate, and Bill Clinton's finger-wagging as he told one of the most pathetic lies in presidential history, in the aftermath of Obama, will be viewed as mere prevarications.
Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequalled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood.
As the stock markets were crashing, taking with them the remaining life saving of untold tens of thousands, Obama was hosting his own birthday celebration, which was an event of Epicurean splendidness. The shamelessness of the event was that it was not a state dinner to welcome foreign dignitaries, nor was it to honor an American accomplishment it was to honor the Pharaoh, Barack Hussein Obama. The event's sole purpose was for the Pharaoh to have his loyal subjects swill wine, indulge in gluttony and behavior unfit to take place on the property of taxpayers, as they suffer. It was of a magnitude comparable to that of Tyco CEO Dennis Kozlowski's $2 million birthday extravaganza for its pure lack of respect for the people.
Permit me to digress momentarily. The U.S. Capitol and the White House were built with the intent of bringing awe and respect to America and her people. They were also built with the intent of being the greatest of equalizers. I can tell you, having personally been to both, there is a moment of awe and humility associated with being in the presence of the history of those buildings. They are to be honored and inscribed into our national psyche, not treated as a Saturday night house party at Chicago's Cabrini-Green.
The people of America own that home Obama and his wife continue to debase with their pan-ghetto behavior. It is clear that Obama and family view themselves as royalty, but they're not. They are employees of "we the people," who are suffering because of his failed policies. What message does this behavior send to those who today are suffering as never before?
What message does it send to all Americans who are struggling? Has anyone stopped to think what the stock market downturn forebodes for those 80 million baby boomers who will be retiring in the next period of years? Is there a snowball's chance in the Sahara that every news program on the air would applaud this behavior if it were George W. Bush? To that point, do you remember the media thrashing Bush took for having a barbecue at the White House?
Like Nero who was only slightly less debauchery's than Caligula with wine on his lips Obama treated "we the people" the way Caligula treated those over whom he lorded.
Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement while America's people go homeless, hungry and unemployed.
Mychal S. Massie is a syndicated op-ed columnist and former host of the top-rated talk show on the Rightalk Radio Network, "Straight Talk with Mychal Massie." He is a former self-employed business owner of 30-plus years. Mychal is a frequent inspirational / motivational speaker and a regularly featured guest on national and regional TV / talk-radio programs. The online version of his column is carried exclusively by WorldNetDaily.com and enjoys a loyal, supportive readership from around the world.
.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Emphasis was added by Me! -- WD
Nero in the White House
by Mychal Massie (8/8, 2011)
Three significant historical events have been eclipsed by Obama: 1) Jimmy Carter will no longer be looked upon as the worst president in American history; 2) Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton will no longer be recognized as the greatest liars in presidential history; 3) Clinton's stain on Monica's dress, and what that did to the White House in general and the office of the president specifically, will forever pale in comparison to the stain and stench of Obama.
I need not spend much time on the failure of Obama as president. His tenure has been a failure on every measurable level. So much so, in fact, that some of the staunchest, most respected liberal Democrats and Democratic supporters have not only openly criticized him some even more harshly than this essayist but they have called for him to step down.
Richard Nixon's words "I am not a crook," punctuated with his involvement in Watergate, and Bill Clinton's finger-wagging as he told one of the most pathetic lies in presidential history, in the aftermath of Obama, will be viewed as mere prevarications.
Mr. Nixon and Clinton lied to save their backsides. Although, I would argue there are no plausible explanations for doing what they did, I could entertain arguments pursuant to understanding their rationales for lying. But in the case of Obama, he lies because he is a liar. He doesn't only lie to cover his misdeeds he lies to get his way. He lies to belittle others and to make himself look presentable at their expense. He lies about his faith, his associations, his mother, his father and his wife. He lies and bullies to keep his background secret. His lying is congenital and compounded by socio-psychological factors of his life.
Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequalled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood.
As the stock markets were crashing, taking with them the remaining life saving of untold tens of thousands, Obama was hosting his own birthday celebration, which was an event of Epicurean splendidness. The shamelessness of the event was that it was not a state dinner to welcome foreign dignitaries, nor was it to honor an American accomplishment it was to honor the Pharaoh, Barack Hussein Obama. The event's sole purpose was for the Pharaoh to have his loyal subjects swill wine, indulge in gluttony and behavior unfit to take place on the property of taxpayers, as they suffer. It was of a magnitude comparable to that of Tyco CEO Dennis Kozlowski's $2 million birthday extravaganza for its pure lack of respect for the people.
Permit me to digress momentarily. The U.S. Capitol and the White House were built with the intent of bringing awe and respect to America and her people. They were also built with the intent of being the greatest of equalizers. I can tell you, having personally been to both, there is a moment of awe and humility associated with being in the presence of the history of those buildings. They are to be honored and inscribed into our national psyche, not treated as a Saturday night house party at Chicago's Cabrini-Green.
The people of America own that home Obama and his wife continue to debase with their pan-ghetto behavior. It is clear that Obama and family view themselves as royalty, but they're not. They are employees of "we the people," who are suffering because of his failed policies. What message does this behavior send to those who today are suffering as never before?
What message does it send to all Americans who are struggling? Has anyone stopped to think what the stock market downturn forebodes for those 80 million baby boomers who will be retiring in the next period of years? Is there a snowball's chance in the Sahara that every news program on the air would applaud this behavior if it were George W. Bush? To that point, do you remember the media thrashing Bush took for having a barbecue at the White House?
Like Nero who was only slightly less debauchery's than Caligula with wine on his lips Obama treated "we the people" the way Caligula treated those over whom he lorded.
Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement while America's people go homeless, hungry and unemployed.
Mychal S. Massie is a syndicated op-ed columnist and former host of the top-rated talk show on the Rightalk Radio Network, "Straight Talk with Mychal Massie." He is a former self-employed business owner of 30-plus years. Mychal is a frequent inspirational / motivational speaker and a regularly featured guest on national and regional TV / talk-radio programs. The online version of his column is carried exclusively by WorldNetDaily.com and enjoys a loyal, supportive readership from around the world.
.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
