Murder and the Sanctity of Life

I find it interesting that of all the reasons our founding fathers had to defend their dissension from the motherland, they started with the most basic of all rights: the right to live. It seems almost odd, considering that before the rebellion their lives weren't really at jeopardy. I think, perhaps, for the first time in a very long time our founding fathers came to the knowledge that there is something uniquely special simply about being alive, and that life itself qualifies one for certain, unalienable rights.

It is because we esteem life itself with such sanctity that we have decided that their need be no other qualification or requirement for an individual to have access to the privileges and and insurances of the Bill of Rights, or for that matter, all other civil laws that have come out those rights. It is then a testament to our founding fathers that the war they fought really wasn't about themselves, for they were willing to lay down their lives for the sake of ours.

So what is so special about life? Why have we fought so hard to provide equality to all men, no matter their race, gender, religion or any other distinguishing feature that may define them? Perhaps it is only in the loss of life that we truly come to appreciate its immeasurable value. One thing is certain: life is special. It creates meaning and purpose. It turns chaos into order. It allows for emotion and experience. It is the catalyst to all knowledge.

Here is my question: how can we, as a society, truly value the sanctity of life without also showing equal reverence and respect for the process that creates life? The answer is irrefutably and absolutely we can't. This blatant and gross contradiction is so glaring and obvious that it kills me to watch our society deny it. We have literally taken the miracle of procreation and have dragged it through the filthiest, most desecrating sewage thinkable. We trample it and reduce it to little more than instant gratification. How humiliating this must be to the men and women who gave uo everything to preserve the sanctity of life.

Perhaps the most foul and evil forms of this perversion is abortion. To deny any being the right to live is to destroy the very cause for which our founding fathers fought. I absolutely hate (and I don't say that lightly) the phrase "pro-choice." When discussing abortion, there should be no talk of any kind about choices or the right to choose. Abortion has absolutely nothing to do with choice. The choice was already made. Abortion has to do with consequences and the sanctity of life.

Equally frustrating is the discussion on the beginning of life. Why does this matter? If life is so special and important, then it shouldn't matter when it scientifically begins, what should matter is the process that makes it possible. To debate over the biological formation of a fetus completely skips the more important questions: why have we allowed the desecration of procreation to reach a point where such debate should ever be necessary? Why should there ever be any desire for any life to be terminated due to pure selfishness? How could this ever be acceptable?

Abortion for any reason other than rape, incest, or severe health risks to the mother or child, is pure, unadulterated murder. There is no logical way to distinguish the effects of killing a human being before or after birth. A life is the lost either way. The unfulfilled potential of either human being will never be known in this life. Each loss is equally tragic. Somehow, just because the fetus couldn't talk yet, or walk, or be seen or held, that makes it different? Of course not. I am convinced that we have to value the sanctity of life (and the miracle that makes it possible) more than this if we are to avoid the devastation that has come to so many societies before us.

What do you think?

Fouding Father quote of the day

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Decleration of Independance, July 4, 1776

Politicians and Politics

We saw a rather interesting debate as a country during this past presidential election. The two candidates clashed on almost every issue. The public saw plans presented, policies debated, and political philosophies disputed. But there was more than just that. There was a clash of character. The war hero vs. the Chicago politician. A man praised for his patriotism and integrity vs. a man questioned because of his associations and moral positioning. In a fairly literal sense, Americans had to ask themselves which was more important: the politician or the politics. Was it better to elect a good man or simply any man with good ideas?

Now, I am not saying Obama's ideas were or are good for the health of this country. But the polls show that on average, Americans think they are. The point is, America chose what it believes to be good politics over perhaps a truly worthy politician. I think that was a huge, terrible mistake. You don't think that's the case? Just think back to how venomously the media opposed any investigation on Obama's character. They refused to even raise questions about his past, his personal life, or his true nature and character. They just focused on his ideas, his plans, and all that change and hope rhetoric; all while downplaying John McCain's honor, integrity, and heroism. And worst of all, we let the media do it.

One thing has been clear in my incomplete study of our founding fathers. They worked so hard to design a political system with so many checks and balances just so that we could elect good, honorable men into office and let the system take care of the politics. They believed so deeply that this country had to be led by men full of integrity that they literally denied the president of more power than any other political system devised. They didn't want greed to take root in any public office and knew that the voice of the people would solve political issues.

Of course we need competent, smart, professional leaders. We need them to have the expertise that individually we may not possess. But we need them to be good men above anything else. We need them to be honest, selfless, and full of integrity. In reality, the President just doesn't have enough power to implement most his plans, ideas, or politics on his own. It was designed that way for a reason. The President does, however, have enough power to do terrible damage and bring disgrace to his office, our government, and this country.

So many people dismissed arguments against Obama if they had to do with his associations (both personal and professional), his deceit, and his social voting record (among other things) because none of those things were supposedly very important. I think time will tell a different tale. I think those things are of the greatest importance when it comes to putting together a government that actually cares about the people, gets the job done, and maintains an approval rating above 9%. Personally, I don't think we ever going to see real change until we decide that a good man is infinitely better than just a (supposed) good idea and start electing public officers accordingly.

What do you think?

Founding Father quote of the day

[H]onesty will be found on every experiment, to be the best and only true policy; let us then as a Nation be just.

George Washington, Circular letter to the States, June 14, 1783

Bailouts and Dinosaurs

One of the most detrimental interferences government can make in a capatilistic, free-market soiciety is that of proppoing up an industry or firm that is incapable of sustaining itself on its own. In such cases, everyone loses. No wealth is being created and debts are simply transferred from the firm to the government to the taxpayer, literally dragging everyone down. It is for this reason that some firms and some industries must fail.

Lately we have seen the big three automakers beg for bailouts from the government. (Never mind they flew to DC in their private, luxury jets.) They reason that their industry is vital to the economy of the country and that the collapse of their companies would deepen the recession and destroy America's ability to compete in the global auto industry.

The fundemental basis for their arguments assumes that there could never be new American automakers. This is preposterous. If anything, America needs new automakers. We need fresh faces with innovative solutions to the problems we face. We need american automakers who aren't tied to the inneficient traditions of the past.

Here is the thing: giving the automakers bailout money will only posptone the inevitable. It will reduce the incentive for them to make real changes. Even now, we aren't seeing clear plans with solid visions and redical innovations proposed by the big three. We need a paradigm shift and all we are seeing are some proposals for small adjustments to the status quo.

Mitt Romney wrote an excellent article about this topic. He listed three major changes that need to be made in the auto industry. First, they have to control their costs better. There needs to be a complete restructuring of labor agreements with the unions. If they can't compete with foreign costs stuctures, they will always be at a disadvantage. Second, they need new management. They need to purge the old ways of doing things and embrace a new vision. Finally, they need to set their sights on the long-term. No more fussying about quarterly earnings and short term gains, all decisions need to be made with eye on the future.

If the big three can't do this on their own, in my opinion, it is time for them to go extinct. The American auto industry is too important to be in the hands of dinosaurs. Where ever there is a demand for a product, there will always be a company ready to step in and meet it. That is the beautiful thing about capatilism. I am excited at the thought that America could someday again be global leaders in the auto industry, and I am confident that could happen with or without the big three.

What do you think?

Read Mitt Romney's article here.

Founding Father quote of the day

Whatever may be the judgment pronounced on the competency of the architects of the Constitution, or whatever may be the destiny of the edifice prepared by them, I feel it a duty to express my profound and solemn conviction ... that there never was an assembly of men, charged with a great and arduous trust, who were more pure in their motives, or more exclusively or anxiously devoted to the object committed to them.

James Madison, circa 1835

Hope, Change, and leftist washington insiders

Somewhere along the way, Americans are going to realize how foolish they were to believe that President-elect Obama would be any different than any other mainstream Chicago-style politician. He still has a couple months left before becoming our president, and yet his newly forming cabinet already tells a tale of Washington insiders, Clinton junkies, and partisan leftists. If this is any indication (which surely it is) of Obama's administration, we can expect anything but hope and change. If you don't believe me, I suggest you learn a little more about Obama's new cabinet.

Rahm Emanuel (Chief of Staff):
-After helping Democrats win congress in 2006, he is quoted telling his colleagues that republicans can go "f*** themselves."
-His favorite expression for republicans is "knuckef***s."
-In the 1980s he sent a dead, rotting fish to pollster whom he quarreled with.
-He sat on the board of Fredddie Mac and pocketed over $200,000 in fees after he and his board encouraged risky, sub prime mortgages, and then subsequently blamed republicans for Freddie's collapse.
-As an investment banker in Chicago, Rahm made over $18 million by working on merger deals that caused thousands of layoffs.

Read more here.

Eric Holder (presumptive Attorney General):
-Known for his extreme anti-gun positions, supporting hand-gun bans and believing that the 2nd amendment does not protect an individual's right to own a gun.
-Under the Clinton administration, he supported the controversial presidential pardon of fugitive Marc Rich which was decried by republicans and democrats alike (Marc just happened to be a Clinton campaign contributor).
-"The Attorney General is the one Cabinet member who's different from all the rest. The Attorney General serves first the people, but also serves the president. There has to be a closeness at the same time there needs to be distance." (What about the oath to protect and defend the constitution?)

Read more here.

Janet Napolitano (presumptive Secretary of Homeland Security):
-Represented Anita Hill in controversial sexual harassment case in an attempt to derail Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Later, she was unable to confirm certain details and facts when two testimonies presented did not corroborate and Janet was accused of stonewalling.
-Defended a legislator, Alan Stephens, who illegaly accepted bribes and later appointed him as co-chief of staff.
-Big supporter of more bailouts and federal stimulus packages aka as big a federal government as possible.

Read more here.

Tom Daschle (presumptive Secretary of Health and Human Services):
-“As majority leader, Daschle was a notorious opponent of every pro-life measure,” the Family Research Council said. “He blocked the partial-birth abortion ban, voted for taxpayer-funded military abortions, and supported a measure that would have forced Americans to pay for the distribution of the morning-after pill to young school girls.”
-Has no direct experience or qualification in the health care industry.
-His appointment will cause a direct conflict of interest, one that Obama promised to avoid, by Daschle currently working for a firm that will be effected by his future jurisdiction.

Read more here.
And here.

And then, of course, there is Hillary Clinton as the presumptive Secretary of State. Need I say more?

Come on Obama, I mean... really?? I can't say that I am surprised at all these appointments, but I certainly am disappointed.

What do you think?

Founding Father quote of the day

A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.

Samuel Adams, letter to James Warren, February 12, 1779

Global warming and Bigfoot

Now here is a meaty subject. I realize that there is a lot of passion that goes into the debate of this subject. I mean, have your heard Al Gore give one of his $100,000 speeches when he's not relaxing in a mansion that uses more electricity than my entire neighborhood? That is serious passion. But I mean, it's cool, because he buys the rights to use all that energy. Nevermind that he buys it from his own company, thus increasing demand and generating higher profits for himself.

I digress. I just can't help but to praise Al. Ok, let's get serious here. You can believe whatever you want. You can believe that we are destroying our planet and that it is helpless to defend itself. That is fine. Just don't try to tell me that you belief is rooted in fact. It's not. Here is the hard truth: man-made global climate change is about as scientifically proven as aliens and bigfoot. I mean, there are believers, sightings, even some evidence that both aliens and bigfoot exist. Have you seen that video from the 60s? Yeah, tell me that isn't true.

Fortunately, we don't spend tax money on "The Bigfoot Preservation Acts" or "The Department of Extraterrestrial Affairs", and yet our congressmen want to take heap loads of our hard earned money to supposedly prevent an unproven man-made global climate change. Why aren't more people outraged? I mean you want to donate your own money to a private fund somewhere, go for it! Save the world! Just don't expect me to go along.

But you've heard so much "proof" that global climate change is real, right? The debate is supposed to be long over, a done deal. And once the world was flat too... Look, anyone that tells you that they can accurately create a computer model the mimics the infinitely complex climate system of our planet, punch them in the face. It's just not possible. The models are always changing. Every week they come up with different predictions and conclusions. There just isn't anyway for us to accurately predict these things.

To me, the funniest thing is the idea that any amount of tax money could stop/prevent billions of years of natural occurring cycles in our earth's climate. Are you kidding me? The bottom line is that any congressman or government that supports global climate change initiatives is probably only interested in one thing: power. Since the dawn of time power and influence have been gained quickest when fear creates a need for people to depend on one person or one group of people in order to survive. Politicians know this, they aren't completely stupid. So what's the point? Don't be afraid, don't buy into the hype, and don't be willing to give up your money and liberty for global warming, aliens, or bigfoot.

For further enlightenment, check out these articles:

MIT scientists baffled...

Global warming or ice age?...

It's cold!..

Bigfoot sightings...

Founding Father quote of the day

A feeble executive implies a feeble execution of the government. A feeble execution is but another phrase for a bad execution; and a government ill executed, whatever may be its theory, must be, in practice, a bad government.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 70, 1788

I just have to ask then, what the heck where we thinking electing a president with zero executive experience?

Animals and Cages

I am not an animal person. I have never really had a pet, and never really wanted one. Zoos are fine as long as I don't have to pay. I have noticed, however, that animals in the zoo really behave nothing like their counterparts in the wild. They are fed, bathed, and provided for in just about every way possible. It seems like the perfect life, but is it? I remembered when they tried to free "Willy", the famous whale from the movies, back into the ocean. Despite their best efforts to get him ready for the wild, "Willy" died within a year. He just couldn't survive on his own. He couldn't feed himself, interact with rest of the wild whales and seemed to have lost all motivation to live.

What's the point? Zoos and cages, while they provide almost everything an animal could ask for, also rob them of their most important attribute- the ability to survive on their own. With "Willy" the trainers actually tried several times to release the whale, but it kept coming back hungry and lethargic, unable to fend for itself. And so they took care of it and tried again until it died. Is that so different from what is happening between us and our government today?

We used to be a people with impenetrable will, capable of overcoming and surviving any challenge that came our way. Heck, we defeated the world's greatest empire (at the time), just so we could taste liberty. If any people knew how to survive in the wild, it was the us, the Americans. But look at us now. We are facing serious challenges, sure, but what are our solutions? Beg the government to bail us out? Are you serious? I wonder if we aren't just walking into a cage. And what's worse, I don't think we even realize what we are going to have to give up in the process.

It seems to be one sad cycle. Even conservatives said that the first federal bailout was our only option. But why? Why had we gotten ourselves into that position in the first place? Are we not capable of surviving on our own? Maybe we have already been in a cage longer than we thought. It maddens me that liberals constantly deny the tremendous price that must be paid to simply turn our problems over to the government for them to "solve". That price is liberty. Oh and by the way, their solutions are awful.

Occasionally you hear of animals successfully being reintroduced into the wild. It is a difficult and risky process, but in the end the animal is going to find a much more fulfilling life in the wild. It's hard, no doubt. There are casualties, sure. But I don't think anything can adequately replace the satisfaction that accompanies one who has learned how to survive on their own, and that seems to hold true anywhere in the animal kingdom.

So the question is, when are we going to break the cycle? When are we going to make the difficult choice to reject the zoo that is our government and trust ourselves instead? When are we going to embrace the ideal that life in a cage is really no life at all?

What do you think?

Founding Father quote of the day

The reformation was preceded by the discovery of America, as if the Almighty graciously meant to open a sanctuary to the persecuted in future years, when home should afford neither friendship nor safety.

Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776

Founding Father quote of the day

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

Benjamin Franklin, On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, November 1766

Dear President-elect Obama...

I will start by saying that I didn't vote for you. I think there was just a part of me that believed a man should be able to keep what he earns, or maybe I was just a little afraid of socialism. Either way, I hope you can forgive me. The other day as I sat in my small basement apartment, studying my minuscule bank account, and thinking about the many expenses of the future, I was suddenly overcome with an exciting sense of excitement. I realized that I didn't need to worry about anything at all. How could I have been so blind? The answer to all my problems lay before me in the forms of hope and change. I would like to thank you in advance for all the wonderful things you are going to do for me.

I was planning on attending medical school. Can you believe that? I was willing to work my butt off for a decade, mastering an extremely difficult profession, only to turn around and work my butt off the rest of my life. I even had the nerve to think that such work would make me deserving of my financial dues. How silly. I realize now that I don't need to worry about all that. Thanks to you, I may not even need to work at all. I am so excited to be apart of the many social programs you are undoubtedly going to put into place.

I certainly don't want to be greedy. So I write you that you will know that I ask for very little. A prepaid mortgage to a home of my choice will of course be necessary in todays finanical crisis. I would love to be recipient of an alternative fuel vehicle, with the alternative fuel being, of course, subsidized by you. Groceries are pretty expensive, so I will need you to take care of those for me. Other then just some discretionary spending money, I really don't think I could ask much more for you. At least for now.

Being poor, I am so grateful for the thousands of hard working Americans who are going to have their wealth redistributed my way. It's hard for me to say that I deserve it, but I will just trust you that I do. Again, thank you for making my life so easy. This is the America I have always dreamed of, and now I won't even have to struggle to have it. You are going to be the greatest president ever.

Sincerely,

Trevor

Founding Father quote of the day

The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the republican model of government, are justly considered deeply, perhaps as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.

George Washington, First Inaugural Address, April 30, 1789

President George W. Bush

While the majority of the country is celebrating "change" and "hope" with the belief the our newly elected president is going to fix the last eight years worth of mistakes, I think it is important that we take a moment to remember the good man who accomplished some extraordinary things in the face of some horrific challenges. I found this article on the WSJ and thought it was so good that I would post it here in its entirety.

"Earlier this year, 12,000 people in San Francisco signed a petition in support of a proposition on a local ballot to rename an Oceanside sewage plant after George W. Bush. The proposition is only one example of the classless disrespect many Americans have shown the president.

According to recent Gallup polls, the president's average approval rating is below 30% -- down from his 90% approval in the wake of 9/11. Mr. Bush has endured relentless attacks from the left while facing abandonment from the right.

This is the price Mr. Bush is paying for trying to work with both Democrats and Republicans. During his 2004 victory speech, the president reached out to voters who supported his opponent, John Kerry, and said, "Today, I want to speak to every person who voted for my opponent. To make this nation stronger and better, I will need your support, and I will work to earn it. I will do all I can do to deserve your trust."

Those bipartisan efforts have been met with crushing resistance from both political parties.

The president's original Supreme Court choice of Harriet Miers alarmed Republicans, while his final nomination of Samuel Alito angered Democrats. His solutions to reform the immigration system alienated traditional conservatives, while his refusal to retreat in Iraq has enraged liberals who have unrealistic expectations about the challenges we face there.

It seems that no matter what Mr. Bush does, he is blamed for everything. He remains despised by the left while continuously disappointing the right.

Yet it should seem obvious that many of our country's current problems either existed long before Mr. Bush ever came to office, or are beyond his control. Perhaps if Americans stopped being so divisive, and congressional leaders came together to work with the president on some of these problems, he would actually have had a fighting chance of solving them.

Like the president said in his 2004 victory speech, "We have one country, one Constitution and one future that binds us. And when we come together and work together, there is no limit to the greatness of America."

To be sure, Mr. Bush is not completely alone. His low approval ratings put him in the good company of former Democratic President Harry S. Truman, whose own approval rating sank to 22% shortly before he left office. Despite Mr. Truman's low numbers, a 2005 Wall Street Journal poll found that he was ranked the seventh most popular president in history.

Just as Americans have gained perspective on how challenging Truman's presidency was in the wake of World War II, our country will recognize the hardship President Bush faced these past eight years -- and how extraordinary it was that he accomplished what he did in the wake of the September 11 attacks.

The treatment President Bush has received from this country is nothing less than a disgrace. The attacks launched against him have been cruel and slanderous, proving to the world what little character and resolve we have. The president is not to blame for all these problems. He never lost faith in America or her people, and has tried his hardest to continue leading our nation during a very difficult time.

Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty -- a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House."

See the original article here

The Power of the People

I think one of the things that attracts me to conservatism is the idea that the American people will always be greater than their government. The idea that We the People can solve nearly any problem on our own resonates with me. We don't need the government to tell us what to do or to solve our problems for us. We just need them to protect our liberties and get out of our way.

In spite of everything liberalism tries to teach us, that we are weak, that we need government in order to be successful, that we are victims and are incapable of finding happiness on our own, I just don't buy it. We are the greatest people in the world. We have accomplished more than any other people in the history of the world. So why are so many people convinced that the only way to solve our current problems is to hand over a portion of our liberties to an extreme liberal government?

Tomorrow, we have the opportunity to exercise a great power that our founding fathers gave and trusted to us, the power to vote. We have to make our voices heard. It doesn't matter where we live, whether or not we think our vote will count, or how inconvenient it may be to make it to the polls, we have to vote. It is not just our right, but our duty. I am convinced that the legislation that is being passed all over the country does not really represent that desires of the people, but if we don't use our voice, how can that be made known?

Don't listen to the polls, don't listen to the political commentators, and don't listen to the news anchors, just vote your conscience. Study the issues, check your gut, pray about it, and don't sacrifice your moral convictions. Choose candidates and issues based on what will be best for your children and grandchildren, not just what will be best for you. I truly believe that if every American does this, we will always remain the greatest country in the world.

What do you think?

Founding Father quote of the day

It is sufficiently obvious, that persons and property are the two great subjects on which Governments are to act; and that the rights of persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for the protection of which Government was instituted. These rights cannot well be separated.

James Madison, Speech at the Virginia Convention, December 2, 1829

Founding Father quote of the day

The foundation of national morality must be laid in private families.... How is it possible that Children can have any just Sense of the sacred Obligations of Morality or Religion if, from their earliest Infancy, they learn their Mothers live in habitual Infidelity to their fathers, and their fathers in as constant Infidelity to their Mothers?

John Adams, Diary, June 2, 1778

Boardroom vs. Bedroom policies

A classic argument between liberalism and conservatism debates the merits of the government being involved with boardroom policies vs bedroom policies, or rather, fiscal issues vs social issues. Liberals accuse conservatives of preaching individual liberty and limited government at the expense of others while actively supporting policies that impose moral restrictions and regulations on the people. Conservatives accuse liberals of meddling into the affairs of the people's rights to do what they want with their own money while letting our country slip into a moral digression that will be devastating for our country.

So who is right? Or, better asked, where do liberals go wrong? Because they fail to acknowledge the moral fromework by which this country was founded upon. Our founding fathers designed a government which would be effective in as much as the people would be morally self-governed. The liberals fail to acknowledge that this country was founded on the unwavering belief that our prosperity would always be as a direct result to God's favor and blessing. The founders believed that a man should be able to worship his God how he seemed fit, that there should be no religious dictates from the government, and that religious freedom would always be garunteed to all. But make no mistake, they never intended for this country to loose sight of the fact that the belief in God and a humble desire to follow His will would always be crucial to the success of our people.

Our founding fathers did not debate over absolute rights and wrongs. They believed that all men would have a fundamental knowledge of this and therefore drafted bills on the basis that they would protect a person's right to do the right thing. They certainly would have known that such rights would undoubtedly lead to certain abusements and even some negative consequences, but they had enough faith in the American people to believe that we would always stand up against it and prevent it from ever becoming acceptable.

So while conservatism is based in the fundamental belief that individual liberty is absolutely paramount, it also is based in the core values that our founding fathers shared. And so we believe that a man may choose to do what he will with his life, but as soon as his actions infringe on the rights of others (abortion, for example), we stand up and say no, that is not ok and we will not tolerate it. When there are behaviors or lifestyles (homesexuality) that we know will destroy the moral framework that our founding fathers built, we stand up and say no, we will not give our society's stamp of approval to that. Most importantly, when our innocent children are at jeopardy of being exposed to filthy media and corrupt messages, we stand up and say no, we will not allow society to impress upon our children that which we know will make them miserable.

What do you think?

Founding Father quotes of the day

I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.
Nathan Hale, before being hanged by the British, September 22, 1776

An honorable Peace is and always was my first wish! I can take no delight in the effusion of human Blood; but, if this War should continue, I wish to have the most active part in it.
John Paul Jones, letter to Gouverneur Morris, Sept 2, 1782

Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
Patrick Henry, speech in the Virginia Convention, March 23, 1775

My hand trembles, but my heart does not.
Stephen Hopkins(attributed), Rhode Island delegate, at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

Economic Equality

I would like to mention briefly a fundamental difference I observe between liberalism and conservatism. We all like to talk about fairness and equality. We all want to make a system that is fair for everyone. I think where the two philosophies differ is the perspective and definition they use to describe economic equality.

Liberalism tends to put emphasis on equality out outcomes. For example, if Peter makes $50,000 a year and Sally makes $30,000, the obvious conclusions is that this economic situation is unfair because Peter makes more. Furthermore, the only way to make it fair would be to penalize Peter and compensate Sally until they are both making the same amount of money. The easy assumption would be to tag along the rationale that it must be unfair because Sally is a woman and has an unfair advantage.

The problem with this rationale is that it too easily makes assumptions and connections that may not necessarily be true. Are some women discriminated against? Yes, but not all are. Outcomes are easy to identify and easy to contrast. But the hard questions aren't being asked here. Did Peter invest more in his education? Does he work harder? Does he produce more? More importantly, were both Peter and Sally given the same set of opportunities and rules? If these questions aren't asked, it is easy to look at our country and view it as being so ridiculously unfair that drastic measures need to be taken. We see outcomes and we make huge assumptions because it is the easiest thing to do, but I argue that it is not the real picture.

Conservatism tends to put emphasis on the equality of opportunity. It looks more deeply into those questions and favors a system whereby everyone is held to the same standards and rules. This, of course, means that we need to ensure that everyone has access to the same opportunities (education, anti-discriminatory laws, etc..). Assuming that those opportunities are in place, then we look at outcomes as consequences of individual choice, and not as a result of a flawed economic infastructure.

You can't help someone that doesn't want to be helped. You can't force someone to be successful if they don't want to be. You can't change someone's values until they themselves want them to change. It is for this reason we will never see an equality of outcomes in our society, but that doesn't necessarily make out society unfair.

What do you think is more important? Equality of opportunity or equality of outcome?

Founding Father quote of the day

Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories.

Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 14, 1781

Founding Father quote of the day

The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People is sacredly obligatory upon all.

George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796

Founding Father quote of the day

Citizens by birth or choice of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations.

George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796

Taxes and Pie

We often hear the economy being referred to as a pie. It makes for easy to understand analogies about how our economy works. It can also be a dangerous tool. Unfortunately, I fear too many liberals do not understand that the economy, in reality, is not a pie. Let me explain.

We typically refer to pieces of the pie as our individual portions of economic benefit. So we hear analogies about who has what size pieces, and if those pieces are "fairly" cut for everyone. We also talk about the pie shrinking or growing and how that effects every individual slice of the pie as well.

So where do liberals go wrong? If taken too literally, you would naturally deduce that no matter how big the pie is, if I were to take for myself a bigger slice, by consequence someone else must be required to give up a part of their slice. If that were true, then the opposite would also be true, that if my piece shrinks, someone else's will automatically grow. Therein lies the philosophy that if we can take away wealth from some, it will automatically be available for others.

I hate to inform those of you who are pie believers, but the economy is not a pie. In fact, I can take as large as piece as possible, and guess what? So can you. And when we do so, it turns out that their are even more slices to go around. And if I take a smaller piece? Well, it just means that part of my slice doesn't exist anymore.

So what does this mean? It means that in modern, free-market capitalism Robin Hood wouldn't be very effective. And neither would Obama's tax policies. It does no good to tax the wealthy and hope that magically that wealth will be transferred to the poor. Wealth begets wealth.

What do you think?

Founding Father quote of the day

As riches increase and accumulate in few hands, as luxury prevails in society, virtue will be in a greater degree considered as only a graceful appendage of wealth, and the tendency of things will be to depart from the republican standard. This is the real disposition of human nature; it is what neither the honorable member nor myself can correct. It is a common misfortunate that awaits our State constitution, as well as all others.

Alexander Hamilton, speech to the New York Ratifying Convention, June, 1788

Taxes and Incentives

There is an old saying that you can't reward "A" while hoping for "B". For example, I can't pay employees by the hour and hope they will maximize their time efficiency. Hourly employees are incentivized to take as much time as possible to do anything. If this is true, then it must also be true that you can't punish "A" while hoping for "A". And yet this is exactly what Obama and the liberals are proposing.

Liberals worry profusely about protecting American jobs. They abhor free trade (a topic for another day) because of the possibility that American jobs could be sent offshore. Recently Obama proposed a tax incentive for every new job created in the USA (as if it would be realistically worth creating a job that isn't needed).

And yet liberals hate the very corporations that provide the most potential for securing American jobs. Obama brags about raising the capital gains tax to levels we haven't seen since Jimmy Carter. He characterizes "Big Oil" as the source of all evil. His tax plan will literally destroy countless numbers of small businesses, and choke the life out of our economy.

Here is the thing. You can't preach American job growth out of one side of your mouth and spit upon American companies out the other side. Companies will do that which makes them profitable. If that means sending work offshore or relocating to lower-tax countries, they will do it. So if we want American jobs, incentivize them! It makes no sense to raise taxes on corporations or small businesses. We need to create an economy that they can flourish under and that means low taxes.

This can easily be applied to income taxes as well. We want people to be successful, right? So why punish it? How does that encourage employees to fight for that extra raise and entrepreneurs to take much needed risks? It is foolish to punish "A" while hoping for "A". Why don't we reward "A" instead?

Founding Father quote of the day

Among the features peculiar to the political system of the United States, is the perfect equality of rights which it secures to every religious sect.

James Madison, letter to Jacob de la Motta, August 1820

Unfortunately, those rights are in jeopardy today. Check this article out.

Taxes and trickle down economics

“It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success too. My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody … I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” Barack Obama to Joe the plumber

Another argument that Obama and the liberals make is that trickle down economics doesn't work and that we need to employ trickle up poverty (I mean economics). That is, if we take from the rich and give to the poor, somehow the poor will end up boosting the economy more than the rich could. This is called the redistribution of wealth.

I argue that trickle down economics does work. The first problem with the redistribution of wealth is implied in the name itself. It doesn't create wealth, it simply "speads it around". It should be the goal of any economic policy to pomote economic growth. If we don't encourage growth, in the long run our economy will fail.

How is wealth created? Primarily through investments in technologies and firms and through the creation of jobs. So who is best equipped to create wealth? In order to create wealth, there must be enough disposible income to invest. The middle and lower class simply do not have the capital to create wealth, but the wealthy do. We need their disposible income to stimulate the economy, to invest in companies that will create jobs for the middle/lower classes and to promote the innovation of new technologies.

While the government can throw fish at people, only the wealthy can invest in the fishing polls, the lakes, and the training so that the rest of the population can have the opportunity to learn how to fish themselves. So why bite the hand that feeds us? Why punish them and tax them to oblivion? We need them.

If you think this is all theory and no reality, check this quote out and the corresponding link:
"In 2005, per capita personal income grew 31% faster in the 15 most economically free states than it did in the 15 states at the bottom of the list. And employment growth was a staggering 216% higher in the most free states."

What do you think?

Founding Father quote of the day

And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever.

Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 18, 1781

Taxes and Value

I would like to make an observation I hear no one else making. What is the point of taxes? I would argue to provide value to society. We are constantly hearing Obama and the rest of the liberals talk about the need to make taxes even more progressive.

"The rich are plenty well off, so they should pay more taxes."
"They can afford it."
"It is their moral responsibility, and it is only fair."

I argue that while that line of thinking sounds noble, it is fundamentally flawed. That philosophical stance makes the implicit assumption that in a capitalistic, free-market economy people do not get paid in accordance to the value which they provide to a society, which in fact they do. If they didn't, it wouldn't even be capitalism.

For example, if a doctor is making $400,000 per year, that means that the doctor is providing exactly $400,000 of value to society. Which means he is doing 4x more for society then someone making $100,000 per year. If this were untrue, and the doctor were to be making "too much", then what would expect to see? A flood of new doctors coming to gobble up the opportunity! Instead, we are currently seeing a shortage in doctors.

So explain to me, why should a doctor (or any wealthy person) have to pay an even larger percentage of his/her money to the government if he/she is already providing far more value to society to begin with? Shouldn't the person making $30,000 a year have to pay more taxes since they aren't providing nearly as much value to society? Wouldn't that be the "fair" thing?

What do you think?

Founding Father quote of the day

"Another not unimportant consideration is, that the powers of the general government will be, and indeed must be, principally employed upon external objects, such as war, peace, negotiations with foreign powers, and foreign commerce. In its internal operations it can touch but few objects, except to introduce regulations beneficial to the commerce, intercourse, and other relations, between the states, and to lay taxes for the common good. The powers of the states, on the other hand, extend to all objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, and liberties, and property of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state."
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833

What did this say about our federal government's massive bailout proposals?