Looking forward to 2012

This country now has 'hope' and 'change' from our charismatic new President-elect Barack Obama. It just goes to show that having a moderate running on a conservative ticket doesn't work. We have not had a true-blue conservative on the Republican ticket since Ronald Reagan ran in '80 and '84. I just don't understand the Republican Leadership. They continue every election to try and put a moderate in the White House. Their conservative base is tired of it. We need real conservatives like Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, Tim Pawlenty, and Charlie Crist. When we shore up our conservative base like Reagan did, we could see another of the same landslide victories that Reagan saw in both of his bids for the presidency.



One can always hope, right?

NOTE: The Palin / Jindal '12 image is brought to you by none other than Glenn Beck.

'Black Panthers' Block Access to polling station

What is this? Talk about voter intimidation. I know Barack Obama had nothing do to with this. The interesting thing is that at the beginning of Barack Obama's campaign (maybe even still) one of the endorsements listed on his campaign website was The Black Panther Party.

This video has also been added to the Sean Hannity website and the Drudge Report.

Voting Locations: Where do I go to vote?

Well, tomorrow is the big day. No matter who you vote for, go vote! The important thing is to educate yourself on the candidates and the issues and then use your new found knowledge and prayerfully decide who you and what you are going to vote for.

I found a cool tool today that might help anybody that is needing to find where they are supposed to cast their ballot. It was put together by Google. All you have to do is type in your address and it tells you where you polling location is.

Voting is an important right for a free nation. It gives us the opportunity to make our voice heard. According to the United States Election Project, put together by Dr. Michael McDonald, an Associate Professor at George Mason University, the last General Election in 2004 had a voter turnout of about 60% but the interim election in 2006 had a voter turn out of only about 40%. We need to get out and vote!

See you at the polls!

Get Out The Vote!

Same-sex marriage in California

I would like to post about a very heated issue that is going on this election: the issue of same-sex marriage in California. Proposition 8 is on the ballot. If it passes, the California state constitution will be changed to include these words: "Only marriage between a man and a woman will be recognized in the state of California." If this proposition does not pass there will be dire consequences. Some people may say: "What does it matter? It doesn't affect me, does it?" I have news for you. It will affect you in more ways that you might realize. Take a look at some information on another blog that I have. Check out this post as well as this post if you are interested.

Today, I just found some videos my young adults in the state of California. These videos address many of the questions people may have on this issue and can explain it better than I can. These videos can be found on this website. Let me share one of these videos with you:

I hope that Californians vote loud and clear and they do not want to change the definition of marriage!

Success: How is it achieved?

That is a question I ask myself frequently. How do we, as individuals or as a group, achieve success? How do we know if we have achieved success? In order to better understand these questions lets go back to the beginning of time. I am a Christian and very religious. I believe that what is recorded in the Holy Bible is literal and actually happened. In the beginning, after everything was created, God created Adam and Eve. Then God gave Adam and Eve commandments, one of them being not to eat of the forbidden fruit. Then Satan (the serpent) tempted Adam and Eve to partake of the forbidden fruit. In the words of the Bible, this is what he said, "Ye shall not surely die...your eyes shall be opened...knowing good and evil." (Genesis 3:4-5) Another verse of scripture helps clarify this in these words: "For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad...corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility." (2 Nephi 2:11) I would add also to that, neither failure or success. In other words, in order to achieve success and know that we have achieved success we must have first failed. The old adage comes to mind, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again."

At this point you are probably wondering what this has to do with a political discussion. Let me clarify it for you. If you don't let people (or businesses) fail they will never become stronger and achieve success. People will never learn from their own mistakes or the mistakes of others to be able to finally succeed in what they want to achieve. As the government continues to bailout companies because they are "too big to fail" greater more successful businesses will never have the opportunity to come about. People are more likely to take on more risk then they should if they believe that they are going to be bailed out in the end if something goes wrong. Also, if individuals are bailed out of their mortgages (or anything for that matter) they don't understand what is necessary to achieve success and will rely on someone else, namely the government for everything. If our government continues to do this it will be the start of the welfare state.

Replies

Back in September I posted an email that I sent out to "the President, our Congressman and Senators expressing my concern over the planned $700 billion bailout and how it should not happen." I have also recently emailed some of the same individuals expressing my disdain because they voted for the bailout, especially after all the pork and earmarks that were added to the bill. I also, emailed several senators and thank those that voted against the bailout. I should send a thank you to the members of the House that voted against the bailout twice, there is just a lot more of them then there are Senators. Here are the replies I have received back via email from some of these "so called" leaders of of the free world:

U.S. Senator Bill Nelson (FL) after sending the email to him thanking him for voting against the bailout:

Thank you for contacting me about the $700 billion to bail out Wall Street. I voted against it because I believed it lacked meaningful relief for homeowners facing foreclosure, and it left taxpayers with the short end of the stick.

Still, make no mistake: I understand the severity of this financial crisis. The bottom line is that until we stem the record number of home foreclosures, this crisis will continue to worsen.

That’s why I’ve proposed a three-part plan to address the financial crisis, including help for homeowners.

First, I’m working on legislation to create new ways for homeowners to refinance their mortgages and stay in their homes. My proposal will require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to retool mortgages that they hold on their books. It will also establish a direct loan facility within the Federal government to require lenders and other financial institutions that benefit from the bailout to refinance or modify mortgages in danger of default or foreclosure.

Second, I am calling for an investigation into the business practices of major credit rating agencies that helped foster the enormous growth of the mortgage-backed securities industry. Investors relied on and trusted in those credit ratings, and the public deserves to know how these rating agencies concluded that such risky investments could receive high credit ratings.

And finally, we must better regulate all aspects of the financial markets. Today’s financial crisis results from years of inadequate oversight that has been far too tolerant of excessive risk taking.

Meantime, I’ll continue to press Congress to act quickly to keep people in their homes and put our economy back on track.

U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (UT) on my disdain for his vote for the bailout:

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns about the current crisis in our financial markets and the state of the economy. I appreciate hearing from you.

As you well know, our financial markets have become increasingly volatile over the past weeks. The collapse of major financial institutions and a giant insurance company sent a clear signal that we were on the brink of a major financial catastrophe. Something had to be done in order to prevent the problems of our financial markets from leaking into other sectors of our economy. Secretary Paulson and President Bush offered the first solution to the exacerbating economic decline as an attempt to get the dialogue flowing. However, many, including myself, believed that this plan was not sufficient. The House amended the original plan in an attempt to protect taxpayer's interest, prevent exuberant executive packages for participating entities, and provide more oversight. Even with these additions, the plan failed to pass the House, and that day the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell nearly 778 points, the biggest single-day point loss in history.

As you, I am deeply troubled by the financial situation we are facing. We did not get here because of any one decision or policy - these problems were years in the making. For example, in the late 1990s, the Clinton Administration began pressuring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase loans to subprime borrowers. We are seeing the consequences of a long series of policy errors, both in private and public sectors, which have combined to create a "perfect storm" of financial problems. In my view, one thing was for certain, inaction was not an option. We had to provide relief quickly because the consequences of inaction far outweighed the cost of the provisions in the legislation.

If we had not addressed this problem, we would be ignoring a much greater danger. For everyone who has a savings account, retirement savings, or a job, inaction placed these lifelines in jeopardy. For anyone who needs a mortgage loan, to borrow for a car, or to finance an education, the prospects had significantly worsened. With business expansion and job creation, there is a need for credit in order to make our economy work.

The Senate version of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, HR.1424, which ultimately passed the Senate and the House and was signed into law on October 3rd, broadened the ability of the federal government to revitalize our economy. The legislation is designed to help secure retirement savings, help small-business owners meet payroll and help restore the American people's confidence in their own financial well being. Furthermore, the Senate added specific provisions to curtail the jobless rate and promote investment. Among the added provisions was a set of extensions to expired and expiring tax provisions, including the research tax credit and the Alternative Minimum tax (AMT). While it is estimated that 70 percent research tax credit dollars are used for wages of R&D employees, the AMT relief will free 23 million Americans, including hundreds of thousands of Utahns from having to pay the unfair AMT.

This legislation, while not perfect, will have a greater impact beyond Wall Street into Main Street. I believe that one reason why the financial rescue legislation failed to pass in the House the first time was because the American people were not convinced that the bill would help them personally. Along with this, I believe that many Americans failed to see the connection with the current crisis with our financial markets and their own future economic well being.

While the Economic Stabilization Act may hold off an impending economic meltdown, it must now be followed up with decisive action on our part. Foremost, we need to change the way the financial sector works. The Federal Reserve needs to rethink its definition of good monetary policy and determine whether its existing policy tools -- such as reserve requirements, oversight capabilities, and reporting rules -- are adequate. In addition, Congress must reconsider what it has charged the Federal Reserve to do. The Fed has been charged with two goals: 1) providing a sound currency with stable purchasing power, and 2) maintaining steady economic growth with low unemployment. At this point, it is obvious that an aggressive, excessively easy monetary policy in pursuit of short-term growth is self-destructive in the long-run. It leads only to inflation and speculative excesses in the credit markets that harm the economy. Only by focusing on a stable currency can the Federal Reserve achieve both its objectives.

We also need to completely rethink Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As we've heard countless times over the last few weeks, in creating these two government-sponsored enterprises, we have made sure that the benefits of their investments are private while all the risks are public. Put simply, this is bad policy, with considerable moral hazard. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac together represent an immense government-created and government-coddled duopoly. In the years since their creation, they have focused mainly on their own expansion, recklessly urged on by many in Congress who believed this was a way to make home ownership more affordable for lower income families. However, as a recent Fed study has demonstrated, most of the benefit of the previously implicit - now explicit -- federal guarantee of their debt has gone to their shareholders as higher earnings, not to reducing costs for new homeowners. In their efforts to expand, Fannie and Freddie took too many unwarranted risks. They needed an ever-expanding supply of new mortgages to package and resell and to hold for income. Others fed this expansion effort with unsound lending. The recent Federal rescue package of these institutions requires an immediate step: Congressional oversight. It is a little late in coming, but, as of right now, it is essential.

The regulatory and rating agencies also need to be reviewed. We need to ask whether they have enough resources for adequate supervision and whether they've failed to recognize the evolutionary changes in the credit markets and the new business arrangements that reduced transparency in financing. These and other questions will have to be explored as we move forward.

I believe that we clearly need to reform our financial markets and refine the powers of the Federal Reserve in order to ensure crises like this don't happen again. And, though I hesitated to support the idea, it is not unreasonable to conclude that government intervention can provide immediate relief and prevent any more catastrophic losses in the near future and give the financial market time to sort out the mess. But, if we don't adopt policies that are pro-growth, pro-business, and pro-job creation, we won't be able to ensure long-term economic security for our country, no matter how many bad mortgages we purchase with taxpayers' money.

In order to address these concerns, Congress must be very careful as we work to solve this crisis. We must meet the demands of taxpayers and restore confidence in our financial markets.

Again, thanks for writing.

Sincerely,
Orrin G. Hatch
United States Senator

Who caused this financial problem?

If you would like to know who caused this problem and how it happened.  Check out this video.  It's about ten minutes but it says it all.

The Truth about the Bailout

I listen to talk radio a lot and today I was listening to Glen Beck and what he said made me so angry.  I have now discovered why the Senate passed this bailout bill 74-25.  This passed it by this margin by adding as much port, earmarks and pet projects for each of the Senators in the Senate to get most of them on board to approve the bill.  Did you know that the bill was 435 pages long.  When President Bush gave it to Congress it was 4 pages!  Here is what I found has been added to the bailout bill:

• Section 325 provides essential tax breaks for the wool research fund. 
  
• Section 503 gives tax breaks for the manufacturer of wooden arrows used in toys for children. ($6 million)
  
• Puerto Rican and Virgin Island rum producers get money so they can make more booze! ($192 million)
  
• Section 309, tax credit for economic development in American Samoa
  
• Section 316, a tax break for railroad track maintenance.
  
• Section 317, a tax break for racetracks.
  
• Section 502, qualified television and film productions given an extension of favorable expensing rules. ($10 million)
  
• Section 111 provides for the expansion and modification of advanced coal project investment credits. 
  
• Section 112, expansion and modification of the coal gasification project.
  
• Section 113, increased funding for black lung disability fund.
  

I'm sure this is not all but this is the most rediculous thing I have ever seen.  What is this government coming to when they have to bought off to sign off on this bill.  If you have to bought off then this bill should not pass.  

I hope pray something can be done and they will start listening to the people and I hope that congress again rejects this bill as they should!

Bi-Partisan: What does that mean?

According to my view, whatever that is worth, the term bi-partisan that is used by politicians is just a way for them to say, "I don't want to take a stand because I don't want to held responsible for the consequences of my actions."  The American people want someone who will take a stand on and issue and stick up for it and support it. They also want someone who will stand with the American people. I read a quote from someone once that said "It mattereth not whether the principle is popular or unpopular, I will always maintain a true principle, even if I stand alone in it.” We need people in government who stand on principles, morals, and values.  This stand would resonate with the majority of Americans and we would once again restore the values setup from the founding fathers in the Constitution of the Unites States of America!

The majority of the current members in Congress do not reflect that.  I think the American people are starting to realize this and they are sick and tired of these people in Washington doing whatever they want and only looking at what they can do to benefit themselves and not the American people.  Hopefully this November we will be surprised how many of the American people will vote for someone other than the incumbent running for re-election.

Questions to ask Congress

I think it is important that we really understand what this $700 billion bailout is all about.  I receive an email from Laura Ingraham everyday that provides a lot of good information and today's email I would like to share with you...

---

Laura's E-Blast 
http://www.LauraIngraham.com 
October 1, 2008 

Eight Bailout Questions 

How many times over the last few days have we heard politicians, talking heads and other self-proclaimed "experts" tell us the reason the $700 billion bailout is so wildly unpopular is that we just don't understand it. The economy is complicated. Just trust Congress, President Bush and his royal highness, Hank Paulson. They'll fix it. Don't worry about that $700 billion number. It only sounds high.

Well. If that's the case - if we're really too dumb to understand what's happening - perhaps Congress can show us how much they know. To start, here are some questions I'd like answered.

1) Since the White House introduced the bailout last week, a number of alternative ideas have been proposed. For one, Michigan Republican Thaddeus McCotter wrote a 10-point plan that carries no cost to taxpayers. Others, like George Soros', are significantly less expensive and, in his estimation, likelier to be effective. Can you explain why this bill is the best option, despite being the most expensive?

2) We're told the bailout could actually turn a profit for taxpayers. Assuming that's true, how can we be sure the money actually ends up back in taxpayers' hands? For years the Social Security system took in more money than it paid out, yet instead of putting the surplus revenue toward future benefits, Congress snatched that extra cash for general expenditures. Likewise, Fannie and Freddie's "profits," were used for congressional pet projects. With this track record, how can we trust that this program will be any different?

3) The McCain campaign yesterday pointed out that the most recent housing bill gave the government nearly $1 trillion to purchase mortgages. If this is true, why exactly does Congress need to pass this monstrous legislation?

4) Does the latest version of this bill still "allow the government to purchase troubled assets from pension plans, local governments, and small banks that serve low- and middle-income families"? Americans are having a hard enough time swallowing the idea of a bailout for irresponsible home, car, and student lending. The notion that we'll be on the hook for insolvent pension plans administered by awful, union-controlled lawmakers in cities like Detroit and New York is simply insane.

5) Does the bill's preamble still proclaim that the law "provides authority to the treasury secretary to ... ensure the economic well-being of Americans?" Does anyone know if there are limitations to this seemingly unbridled authority? Otherwise, what prevents the Treasury secretary from becoming a de-facto dictator? This strikes me as especially worth discussion.

6) Are there still no meaningful curtailments of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Does the bill contain anything even hinting at accountability?

7) What concrete assurances do taxpayers have that the turmoil's provenance - Carter and Clinton-era social-engineering dictums that upended safe-lending practices in favor of higher minority home ownership - will forever be outlawed? How do we know taxpayers won't be asked to finance another $700 billion bailout in 10 years? What has Congress learned from its past mistakes?

8) After Enron's collapse, former CEO Jeffrey Skilling, then-CEO Ken Lay, and then-CFO Andrew Fastow, were called to testify before Congress. According to the Business and Media Institute, Fannie's and Freddie's overstated earnings were 19 times larger than Enron's fake numbers. So when can we expect Congress to call Jim Johnson, Franklin Raines, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and the rest of Fannie's and Freddie's enablers to testify before Congress?

At the end of the day, we're not being asked to bailout Wall St. so much as we are the Democratic Party. For $700 billion, answers to the questions above are the least Congress can do in return. 

How do we fix this economic mess?

If you want to know how you can help the government and tell them what they need to do to fix the economic problems we are facing, check out this article by Dave Ramsey. He talked to an economist, Brian Wesbury, who explains what we need to do as the American people to fix this problem:

Here is the article:

How We Can Clean Up A Lot of the Economic Problems

The gist of it is this...

Call your Congressman. Call your Senator. Tell them to change the mark-to-market accounting law and to extend insurance but extend no loans. If they extend loans - if they borrow the money on the national debt in order for us to all go into the mortgage business a trillion dollars - you're going to fire their butts and send them home. [words by Dave Ramsey]

I personally thinks this is a much better idea then what the President and Congress have in the works. If we can get enough people to contact their representatives and let them know what we, the people, want, they might change their mind about fitting us with a $700 billion bill. We might just stop this bailout from happening.

If you would like to know more about Brian Wesbury, check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Wesbury.

For the audio version of what Dave Ramsey said, look here.

Letter to Administration

Today, I wrote a letter to the President, our Congressman and Senators expressing my concern over the planned $700 billion bailout and how it should not happen. Below is the text of that letter. I hope it will be used by others to contact their representatives letting them know this is not something that is good for America or the American taxpayers!

---

I am very concerned about the current bailout proposal as well as all the other bailouts that the government and federal reserve has implemented. Where is all the money coming from? How much of this money is going to have to be covered by the American taxpayers? Why in the world would we want to add more money to the national debt that is already at record levels? I recently read information on the United States Credit Rating. It is currently sitting at AAA, which is the highest it can be. As the U.S. takes on more debt, it is my understanding that this credit rating could be in jeopardy of being lowered. This could have a huge impact on the government's ability to borrow money. All these bailouts are weakening the fiscal profile of the United States. This is very concerning to me. It is my understanding that the best way to show that you are fiscally responsible to never get into debt and to pay everything in cash, not on a payment plan. If this is something that individuals, families, and businesses should live by, why not the government.

The other concern I have is the ability the federal reserve has to just print more money when they need it. I'm not an economist but I have done enough reading to know that the easiest way to increase inflation is to print more money. It is my understanding that is what will have to be done in order to cover the exorbitant amount of money the government will be using to bailout all of these companies.

The government created the current problems on Wall Street and the American taxpayers should not be responsible for fixing a problem they didn't create. It is only common sense to not give loans to people who do not have the means to pay those loans back. Owning a house is not a right and should absolutely not be an entitlement for every American. It should be a goal of every American to work towards owning a house but every American needs to prove themselves that they are fiscally responsible enough. If they are not, they should not be given a loan. It is that simple. In regards to the companies that decided to give loans to people without checking their credit, their income, or anything else that shows they are ready for a loan, they should go under. Because of what they did, people are losing their houses, expecting that would be able to afford the house at some point. These practices by these mortgage companies are unconscionable but they were pushed and sometimes threatened by the government to do so in the name of getting more minorities into a home or getting more Americans into a home. This has also had a huge impact on other areas of the financial market that were just doing their job. AIG had to insure all those bad loans. What were they supposed to do when all those loans defaulted. This will continue to rollover into other areas: more banks will fail (as we see with Washington Mutual today) and more people will lose their jobs. Is this something the U.S. government wanted on their heads? I don't think so. I do not blame this administration, they are just the one's that have to deal with the messed caused by laws and regulations enacted in 1977, 1995 as well as others.

I'm very disturbed by the current trend of the U.S. government to drag this country further and further towards and into socialism. That is NOT the way to fix this country's problems. The market will correct itself, it always has and it always will as long as the government STAYS OUT OF THE WAY. That is the way it was designed. It may be hard to get through and people may loose money, jobs, homes, etc but just as with the Great Depression, the American people made it through and were stronger because of it.

Go Sarah Palin!!!

It has been way to long since I posted on this blog. With work, school, family and church it seems that I don't have the time to do some of the things that I want to do. I just had to post about Sarah Palin.

I took time to watch her speech at the Republican National Convention. I have not heard a speech like that for a very long time. I don't recall hearing any studdering, hesitating (besides when the crowd applauded), or nervous words (um or uh). She was strong with an aura about her that was very convincing and powerful. I was so excited to finally hear someone speak their mind without worrying about being politically correct. She spoke from the heart and sent the liberals and media elites scrambling. On thing is for sure, she doesn't back down from a fight.

If you get a chance to watch it, I would highly recommend it. Here it is on Youtube

Check this out for a few excerpts from the speech.

When I was listening to Shawn Hannity, he mentioned a video that the RNC / McCain campaign posted on YouTube. It is a biography of Sarah Palin. It's really good.

Independence Day: Why do we celebrate it?

As citizens of these United States of America, we should all know the literal meaning to this question.  On July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was unanimously voted upon and signed by members of Congress.  We were declaring our independence from Great Britain, which was at that time the largest and most powerful empire in the world.   The simple fact that we beat the British, when we shouldn't have, and were able to become an independent nation is reason enough to celebrate this all important day.  Independence Day was (and still should be) the most important day in the history of this country.  In all likelihood this nation would not have been formed had it not been for the signing of the Declaration of Independence. 

That is the literal reason for celebrating Independence Day but why do each of us celebrate this day.  This can vary greatly from one person to the next.  For me, Independence Day reminds me of how blessed I am to be a citizen of this country.  I thank God everyday for the opportunities that we have here.  There are many things that Americans take for granted that are just not available in any other country.  For example, the ability to go to a grocery store and pick up any food item that we need for our family is something that isn't available in every country.  The amazing thing about this country is the technological advancements have been far quicker than any other country, especially considering this is one of the youngest nations in the world.

This is a great nation and I believe it has been prepared by God to be an example to the world of how democracy should work.  It is certainly not perfect but as long as we continue as a giving, religious society based upon self government and capitalist principles this nation will continue to grow and flourish the likes of which has never been seen in the history of this world.

Socialized Medicine & Universal Healthcare: Is it the same?

From my limited understanding, I am under the impression that these two terms are basically the same.  Let's start with the definitions:

Socialized Medicine -

any of various systems to provide the entire population with complete medical care through government subsidization and regularization of medical and health services. [1]

A government-regulated system for providing health care for all by means of subsidies derived from taxation. [2]

A system for providing medical and hospital care for all at a nominal cost by means of government regulation of health services and subsidies derived from taxation. [3]

 Universal Healthcare -

health care coverage which is extended to all citizens, and sometimes permanent residents, of a governmental region. Universal health care programs vary widely in their structure and funding mechanisms, particularly the degree to which they are publicly funded. Typically, most health care costs are met by the population via compulsory health insurance or taxation, or a combination of both.

Universal health care systems require government involvement, typically in the forms of enacting legislation, mandates and regulation. In some cases, government involvement also includes directly managing the health care system, but many countries use mixed public-private systems to deliver universal health care.[4][5][6]

It still sounds very similar to me.  According to Wikipedia, "definitions [of socialized medicine] vary, and usage is inconsistent. The term can refer to any system of medical care that is publicly financed, government administered, or both." [7]

From what I can see, whether it is called 'Socialized Medicine' or 'Universal Healthcare' there is still some amount of government involvement, which is never a good idea.  Including healthcare in the 'inalienable rights" of "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness"[8] is not what the founder of this great nation intended.   They knew that adding more power to the nation's government would lead this country towards the type of government they just liberated themselves from.  It would also mean the start of this country down the road to becoming a 'Welfare State'.  What is a 'Welfare State'?

a state in which the welfare of the people in such matters as social security, health and education, housing, and working conditions is the responsibility of the government.[9]

'Social security, health and education, housing, and working conditions'[9] are NOT 'unalienable Rights' that are 'endowed by [our] Creator'.[8]  If all these things were given to us without any work on our part, we would become dependent on the government for everything.  I can see two problems with this:

• we would, over time, loose our ability and desire to work for what we want (look at Guam)
• the government would have the power over the people to govern how they see fit, not the other way around.

'Socialized Medicine' or 'Universal Healthcare', whatever you want to call it, may not seem like a big deal to some.  It may even seem like a good idea in the short term.  In the long term, it is a step towards government control of everything and the removing of taking personal responsibility over our own actions.

[1] socialized medicine. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved July 01, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialized medicine
[2] socialized medicine. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved July 01, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialized medicine
[3] socialized medicine. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary. Retrieved July 01, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialized medicine
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care
[5] Insuring America's Health: Principles and Recommendations, Institute of Medicine at the National Academies of Science, 2004-01-14, accessed 2007-10-22
[6] The Case For Single Payer, Universal Health Care For The United States
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialized_medicine
[8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence
[9] welfare state. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved July 01, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/welfare state

The "Fairness Doctrine"

Lately, we have been hearing about this concept called the "Fairness Doctrine".  What is it?  The term is very misleading if you don't know what it is.  Wouldn't it be good if everything in life was fair and all opinions were, as Fox News says about their programming, "Fair and Balanced"?  As I have told my children many times, life isn't always fair.  Sometimes we have to do things that we don't want or like to do.  Sometimes the information that we read or see on the news we have to take with a 'grain of salt'.  That is why we have a brain.  We have to think about what everything we see on a daily basis and see if it makes sense to us.  We don't need the government to step there big foot in the ring and decide what we should and should not hear or see or read.  That is where the 'Fairness Doctrine' comes in to play. 

The 'Fairness Doctrine' is just this, plain and simple:

a United States FCC regulation requiring broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner deemed by the FCC to be honest, equitable, and balanced. [1] [2]

To me, this sounds too much like the government trying to restrict the freedom of speech (aka the First Amendment) on the airwaves.  The liberals and democrats in congress are all for it.  In a resent article on HumanEvents.com the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), was asked the question, "Do you personally support revival of the ‘Fairness Doctrine?" by John Gizzi and her response was "Yes."  The other event that occurred was when Pelosi denied a vote on the floor for the 'Broadcaster's Freedom Act' which would make the 'Fairness Doctrine' dead.

According the same article...

Experts say that the “Fairness Doctrine,” which was ended under the Reagan Administration, would put a major burden on small radio stations in providing equal time to Rush Limbaugh and other conservative broadcasters, who are a potent political force.  Rather than engage in the costly practice of providing that time, the experts conclude, many stations would simply not carry Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and other talk show hosts who are likely to generate demands for equal time. [3]

The issue I have with liberals, democrats and even some so-called conservatives is that they want the government to control more of the American people's civil liberties and freedoms.  As we turn over more control of our lives to a centralized government, we lose more and more control of the country until we no longer have the power to change the course of this country.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
[2] http://www.slate.com/id/2108443/
[3] http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27185

Why socialism doesn't work...

As I have become more involved in politics and the discussion of the current issues facing our nation today, I have become increasingly concerned. There are many people out there that are going more and more in the direction of socialism. Throughout history, different types of governments have come and gone. Socialism seems to be the one that continues to resurface. Why might that be? What is socialism? Why does it appeal to so many people? Let's start by defining what socialism is, shall we?

Socialism - An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. [1]

So, according to that, socialism supposedly helps us work together in 'cooperation' with each for the betterment of society as a whole. Sounds good right? It's a great idea to work together for the common good. I have heard it said that socialism would eliminate classes in society because there would be no poor. That sounds great, right? Of course it does, but that is where is stops sounding good, especially for the people under socialist rule.

The first problem I see is that government controls everything. Is that ever a good idea? Have we ever heard the saying: "Absolute power corrupts absolutely"? When people have power, in most circumstances, they hunger and thirst after more power. Second, what happened to free enterprise or any freedoms for that matter? I personally believe that in order for a society to progress, people need to be free to develop their own ideas, learn from their mistakes (without having the government 'fix' everything for everybody), and free to take care of themselves. When you take away personal responsibility and let the government control everything, you 1) lose more & more of your civil liberties and freedom over time and 2) people won't know how to take care of themselves when the government isn't there to support them.

In the end, those who profess socialism as the way to go, don't have a problem with the government taking what is theirs and doing whatever they want with it.

In a future post, I will give an example of how socialism doesn't work... especially when it comes to healthcare.

[1] socialism. (n.d.). The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. Retrieved June 26, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism

Why I cannot vote for Barack Obama...

Several people might find this surprising but there is no way I can vote for Barack Obama. I have a few friends that think I'm nuts but that's okay. They say he'll bring the parties together and he could do what it takes to get things done in Washington. He is also the one that is going to 'change' Washington and save this country. I'm sorry but to all people who believe that, you haven't done the research and seen what this guy is all about.

Here is a list of all the reasons that I cannot vote for Barack Obama:

• He has been rated as the most liberal senator in the United States Senate
• He has a plan to increase government spending by $340 million
• He is will to talk to leaders of countries that sponsor terrorism
• He is only a one term senator
• He cannot share his ideas without using a teleprompter or having a script to read from
• He has a twenty year relationship with pastors of a church that preached hatred of America
• He is not willing to drill for more oil domestically to help the country
• He will increase the tax rate for most Americans by 50%
• He is pro-choice and supports partial-birth abortions
• He supports the homosexual agenda
• He doesn't believe that America is a Christian nation
• He has the policies of Jimmy Carter & FDR (Franklin D. Roosevelt)
  
• He is willing to sacrifice our national security through immediate withdrawl from Iraq
• He believes in a larger, more controlling government
• He believes in the "Fairness Doctrine", which takes away our First Amendment rights
  
• He cares more for saving us from the hoax of global warming then saving this country
• He is against gun rights (Second Amendment) for American citizens
• He will not protect us from our enemy in the war on terror
• He believes judges have the right to make laws which are against the will of the American people
• He believes terrorists have the right to appeal their case in US civilian courts
• He will wait for the terrorists to attack us here before doing anything to protect this country
• He believes it is the governments job to fix every mistake that every American makes
• He believes in a "cradle to the grave" society
  

All in all, Barack Obama is not someone that I trust as President of the most powerful nation on the earth. If he were to become President, this nation would fall into such disarray that it would be very difficult to dig ourselves out.

For some more information on Obama, check out this link (go to page two) and then if you are still skeptical, just Google it.

The Price of Oil

The Constitution starts out with the words "We the People..." though it seems that the people of this great nation have been given the cold shoulder when it comes to our countries energy policies. How can "we the people" make a difference in affecting the price of oil? I think the most important thing we can do is let the President and Congress know loud and clear how we feel and what we would like to see happen to fix this problem. It was politicians that caused this problem in the first place. It has been a VERY long time since this country has done any R&D for finding more oil, drilled for anymore oil, or even built any new oil refineries. All because of laws and regulations that basically made it illegal to do any of those things. Where has these policies of the past gotten us? Over $4 a gallon for gas, increased prices on consumables goods and an estimated 50% increase in natural gas prices by this fall.

It is interesting to me that this country consumes twenty million barrels of oil a day but only produces 8 million barrels of oil a day. For me, it makes sense to at least produce as much as you consume.

Let's do something about it! Newt Gingrinch has put together an organization called American Solutions that has a petition called "Drill Here! Drill Now! Pay Less! I recommend adding your name to the list of almost 1.1 million people that want Congress to act now so that we can make a difference. Click here to sign the petition.

At the American Family Association's website you can send an email to your local representative and senator asking them "to develop a program which allows the exploration of America's energy sources without materially affecting our environment" before we end up paying $10 a gallon for gasoline. If you wish to be included in the 600,000+ emails that have been sent, click here.

I truly believe that even though it might take 7-10 years to get any oil, the affect this could have on the the price of oil just by threatening we are going to start drilling & refining more oil could be significant. On June 14th, President Bush granted the oil industries legal protection to continue drilling in the arctic. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,367015,00.html) On that same day, Saudi Arabia said they were going to starting pumping 500,000 more barrels of oil per day. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,367017,00.html) After both of these things occurred, the price of gas dropped for three straight days. (http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/20/news/economy/gas/index.htm?eref=rss_topstories) I have a hard time seeing that as just a coincidence. How about you?

We are currently an oil and natural gas based society. As we continue to develop these resources that God has blessed this great nation with our economy and nation will continue to grow and prosper. This is also the time to be more earnest about developing alternative ways to create energy that are cleaner and safer. By doing both of these things, this nation will continue on the course of being the greatest nation on earth.

Personal Responsiblity

I have had an issue with this for a while, especially since all of the housing market issues that have been going on. I listen to Glenn Beck frequently and he has talked about this on his radio show.

Anyways, it seems to me that a lot of people in this world expect the government to bail them out of anything. This is not true! It is not the governments fault if someone buys a house that they cannot afford! People need to look at their financial situation and decide if 1) they can afford a house period and 2) how much they can afford to spend on a house. The other problem I have is the fact that the government thinks that it is their responsibility to get people out of the mess they ended up in. The government should stay out and let the house market run it's course. The housing market is setup in a way to allow corrections to be made in order to get things back to more realistic numbers. Let's get one thing straight... I am not a mortgage lender, financial adviser or even have a career in the housing market. This information is just from what I have read and heard. The housing market prices were inflated. You can blame that on the government, too. They told the lenders that we needed to make it so people to be eligible to buy a home. No, I didn't say afford, said eligible. What did the lenders do? They invented all these creative loans that would allow more to be 'eligible' to buy a home. Now we are seeing the result of those creative loans.

Something else that continues to bother me is the whole Katrina thing. It has been how long now and the people of New Orleans are still complaining about it? I like to compare it to the situation that situation in Denver two winters ago. Most people might not have heard about it. During the winter of 2006, Colorado was buried in several feet of snow. I don't remember hearing about any complaints to the government to get them out. I understand that sometimes people need help and that is fine but don't rely on the government. If I ever needed help like the people in New Orleans (which I hope I am never in that situation) I would ask for help from my family, friends, neighbors, church, and community before I would ever rely on or ask for help from the government. In fact, unless I or a member of my family was seriously injured I would just take care of myself and others around me, if needed.

For a great article on this same issue, read Glenn Beck's article "Too bad, Michigan and Florida" which was featured on CNN.com.

That's it for today's daily political rant. Tomorrow's rant will focus on the values (or lack there of) of the leadership of this country.