Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

Michael Jackson – Conservative?

December 13, 2009

Let me start this out by letting everyone know that I enjoy Michael Jackson’s music. He is, without a doubt, the greatest entertainer of this, and many, many generations. Even though his music and performance style is contradictory to the style of music I generally prefer, I still am able to enjoy his music. I am not a Michael Jackson apologist though. I do not think that he was right to do most of the stuff he did and found him to be a generally weird individual that would have benefited from psychiatric evaluation. I also think that he was, in fact, a liberal, but only because of preconceived notions and he never really thought about it. I will show some examples of conservative themes in Michael’s songs.

In the song “Wanna Be Startin’ Something” from the iconic “Thriller” album had the line, “if you can’t feed a baby, don’t have a baby”. This is an undeniable conservative principle of self-responsibility. It is a simple common-sense solution that escapes liberals. They would tell you that it is alright to have a baby when you can’t afford to feed it because the government would help you take care of it. Creating a sense of entitlement and have them completely dependent on the government. Whenever conservatives in Washington try to stop this eternal loop of dependency, liberals cry foul charging Conservatives with not caring about children. Nothing could be further from the truth, but liberals never let the facts get in the way of a good campaign slogan. Conservatives believe that you should wait until you are financially and emotionally ready to have a child. It is better for the child and the parents. Apparently, so does Michael Jackson.

I don’t think anyone can deny the overarching conservative ideals set forth in Jackson’s “Man in the Mirror“. “Change starts with the man in the mirror” is about as conservative as it gets. Not relying on other people, or waiting for the endless bureaucracy of the federal government. If you want something to happen, do it yourself. The ultimate in personal responsibility. We saw this come to fruition with the Tax Day Tea Parties and the 9/12 march on Washington. These were citizens disgruntled with the way things were going on in Washington so they took it upon themselves to do something about it because “change starts with the man in the mirror”, it does not start with the failed ideals of the liberal movement.

Lastly, Michael Jackson shows his utter contempt with government in his song “They Don’t Care About Us“. In the song he describes how the government has failed to stop racism and brutality of African-Americans. Equality does not exist. The only way to stop the terrible chain is to change the hearts and minds of those who still harbor feelings of fear and resentment towards African-Americans. This must be done through human nature. Liberals tried to force the issue with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but you cannot change people’s hearts through legislation no matter how good-natured the legislation is. 45 years later, there still exists attitudes of racism and fear for people which, Jackson correctly asserts, that the government has failed to stop, simply because Government, no matter how well-intentioned it is, cannot change people’s minds or opinions, only people can.

Jackson understood that the government was there to provide necessary services, but could not be relied on to solve all the ills of the world. If the ils of the world were to be solved, the human race, working without the government, would be the key to change. Michael Jackson believed, as conservatives do, the empowering individuals is more powerful than laws and regulation that have only proved to beat down individuals under the guise of  “the greater good”. It’s been over 40 years since President  Lyndon B. Johnson declared “War on Poverty”. We’re still fighting and we will fight that war in perpetuity because liberals love it when people are dependent on the Government. They should take a lesson from Michael Jackson and explore personal responsibility.

Dissent

August 6, 2009

For years, years, and years, (since the 60s) the left has been promoters of dissent. They would parrot phrases like “Dissent is patriotic” and “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. So why now, that the Left  is in charge is every protest by angry Americans are characterized as “astroturf”? Why is it when people disagree with them that they can’t be legit. Seemingly, the only reason people disagree is because they are being brought in by Big Corporations? Did I mention that corporations are inherently evil and greedy because that is the going public perception.

Why is the media propagating this assumption? It seems that  Jake Tapper is the only reporter with an ounce of integrity. Why is no one in the media questioning Obama? Obama is saying that if you like your insurance, you can keep them. How can Obama make that promise when he has had nothing to do with the bill being discussed? In fact, he’s not even familiar with the bill. Why doesn’t someone ask: “Mr. President, how can you say that?” I have never heard him defend his statements on Health Care reform. It seems people let it go because it sounds good. It does sound good, it just does not sound possible.

The left has called for an honest debate for a long time. Why do they hide behind labels as soon as one is presented? Is it because they don’t want a debate? Why did Obama originally tell Congress that he wanted to pass Health Care before recess, before Congress would have a chance to even read the bill? If the left wants a debate, let’s have one. If not, let’s not “astroturf” and say we want one when we don’t.

Coburn Takes a Look at Stimulus Waste

June 16, 2009

You hear that sucking sound? That’s the sound of your money literally going down the toilet in the name of the American Reform and Reinvestment Act. Sen. Tom Coburn, today, released a report on the 100 most wasteful stimulus projects. It’s truly frightening how quickly the government can waste our money in the name of an economic stimulus. Let’s dive right in to what they wasted money on.

The most wasteful project, according to Coburn, was a Water Tower in Perkins, OK. Not only did they already have some funds, they were planning to do it (so it did not create any jobs). However, taking the Stimulus money forced them to raise Utility Taxes by 60%. They had to do that because accepting the Stimulus money forced them to pay more for the project, it increased the amount of money that they needed to borrow and passed the buck to taxpayers…again. In IL they built a parking lot that none of the residents wanted (democracy in action!), and they also sneaked in the biggest earmark in the history of earmarks in a bill with “no earmarks“. Not to be outdone, WI was forced to fix 37 bridges that no one used instead of the dozens that needed repair that everyone used. These are just a few of the gems.

So what are the workers going to do when the tower in Perkins is finished? Will they be out of work? Will the government give them more money to build a new Water Tower just so people will have work to do? If I was a betting man, I would bet on the latter. Liberals will say that anything that gets a man work is a good thing. However, the government cannot create jobs. They only create jobs by taking money from someone else, or another program.

It’s the broken window analogy. If a shop owner sets aside money for painting, and a rock breaks his window, he would use the money he saved up for the paint to fix the window. A job was created for the window repair man at the expense of the painter. The government only has money that they take from taxes or save from cutting spending. Since they never cut spending (why would they do that), they tax it out of you. When they can’t get enough out of taxes, they borrow. Well, someday, the national debt will need to be paid.

There are many many many reasons why the Stimulus will not stimulate the economy. I will only mention the most obvious – it was written by politicians, not economists. Politicians know how to fundraise and gain votes. That’s it. They tried to stimulate the economy by creating an arbitrary amount of money, set arbitrary amounts for each state and had an artificial rush to pass it. “If we do nothing, it will only get worse.” Don’t you love fear-mongering? The left would never admit it, but it is fear-mongering. To pass a bill like this (WITHOUT reading it) is the antithesis of intelligence. But what can we expect from Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid?

Obama Turns the American Dream into a Nightmare

May 3, 2009

We don’t want every single college grad with mathematical aptitude to become a derivatives trader. We want some of them to go into engineering, and we want some of them to be going into computer design

That is President Obama trying to tell college kids what to major in. What? you thought it was your choice to make? You must have been mistaken. You forgot that we live in America. You thought we had freedoms that no other country on earth has had before, or since. You sad, sad person. If you want the freedom to chose what you want to study, you need to go to France, or England. Obama is foolish enough to think that the promise of huge profits and a wealthy lifestyle (like his) are all thatpeople think about when they chose a major. After all, there is no one in the engineering field or the computer design field right? I guess I was ahead of the curve when I chose to major in Political Science. Surprisingly, there were other students in my class. I guess because, you know, people have different passions and they like to focus on their passions.

He also stated that Wall Street will have less of a role in the economy then they did in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. We all know how bad times were in the 80s and 90s. No one had jobs, no one was able to buy himes that they could afford, and there were so many people on welfare. What an awful time it was. Thankfully, Obama wants to make sure terrible times like that will never happen again. He wants to make sure good times like the 30s will always happen. The more government control over the private sector the better.

Every night, I dream of waking up in a world where everyone is equal. I makes me so happy that Obama is telling people what to do with their money, and taking the money that people worked hard to earn. A friend of mine is going to school to get his Master’s degree so he can open up his own business one day. He does not realize that the government is the one and only answer to all the economic problems that we will ever encounter. After all, who knows more about economics than Congressmen who have not opened up a math book in 30 years. In college, the only math class I took was math for non-math majors. I guess I am perfect candidate to run the economy. It can’t be any worse than it was in the 80s and 90s right? Those were such awful times.

Todd Thurman

The Swine Flu Epidemic. PANIC!!!

May 3, 2009

In the first victory of the Obama Office of Messaging, he correctly told people not to panic and remain calm. This did not stop several people from taking drastic steps to avoid something much more rare than the influenza virus, and with much less mortalities. Unfortunately, Joe Biden, in his usual flippant self, all but declared a national emergency when he told people to avoid tight spaces like airplanes and subways. A week after Obama tried to rest fears of “swine flu”, he has taken a different route. Well, like Rahm Emmanuel said: “never let a good crisis go to waste”. This is a good chance for Obama to appear like a leader, even though there is no real problem. When asked if the White House was overreacting, the answer was ‘of course not‘. How can they overreact to somerthing we know nothing about?

It’s not like the White House has never overreacted to a non-existent problem. It’s not like we devoted two years and hundreds of millions of dollars to the Y2K “problem”. The Y2K hysteria led people to become “Y2K Survivalists” and they lived their life off “the grid”. Instead of people living “off the grid” they are wearing surgical masks. It’s like SARS all over again. Obama needs to realize that, unlike when he was a State Senator, or a Junior Senator, his words have meaning. Even if Obama thinks his words as a State Senator had meaning (he was against the Iraq War as a State Senator, and he though tit carried as much weight as casting a vote in the US Senate against the Iraq War) they didn’t. They have a lot of weight behind them now. He is the leader of the free world. He needs to start acting like it. For such a good orator, he needs to understand that he can’t be so negative all the time.

When Roosevelt had his infamous “fireside chats” he reassured worried Americans that everything was going to be alright. Obama uses negative messages to get support for his worthless policies and complete unreadiness for the Office of the Presidency. Obama does this because he knows it is easier to control people with fear then it is with optimism. When the stimulus bill was in front of congress he said that the “time for talk was over” and that the economy would fail if the bill did not pass. He thought the bill was so important so he gave to his Moron-in-cheif Joe Biden to control. He also stated that Caterpillar would be able to hire people they laid off if the Stimulus passed. It passed, but Caterpillar was not able to hire people back because the Stimulus was not responsible. So now with Swine Flu, are we going to see legislation with tons of pork-barrel spending. How about a bill that gives every state 100 billion dollars to fight Swine flu. that way, by the time the sates get the money the epidemic will be erraticated. I wouldn’t put it passed Pelosi and her lackey Harry Reid.

Todd Thurman

No More Souters!

May 1, 2009

That was the rallying cry in 1992 after his vote in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case that sought to overturn Roe v. Wade. He was appointed by Bush (the first President Bush) but tended to vote more liberally. Bush tried to nominate a moderate to appeal to everyone, but he nominated a liberal and alienated his base (which he did a lot). So when it came time for him to nominate another Justice in 1991 (which ended up being Clarence Thomas) the rallying cry was “No More Souters”.

In the majority opinion for Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Souter wrote:

overruling the first was anything but a surrender to political pressure and an unjustified repudiation of the principle on which the Court staked its authority in the first instance. So to overrule under fire in the absence of the most compelling reason to reexamine a watershed decision would subvert the Court’s legitimacy beyond any serious question

So wait. When the Court rules in favor of abortion with no Constitutional authority to do so it is somehow, not giving in to political pressure? Read the opinion. There is nothing that says that a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy is in the constitution. All it says is that is protected by the right of privacy that was created in the Griswold v. Connecticut case. Aside from that, it is a history of abortion. The argument was that abortion has been happening since the beginning of time, so we should not limit ourselves. Well, Justice Harlan, you know what else has been going on since the beginning of time? Slavery. Does that mean it is OK? Of Course not. Does it only apply to Abortion? Polygamy has also been going on since the beginning of time. How DARE the Court deny my right to marry as many women as I want.

So now that Souter is retiring, I can only hope that Obama chooses a Justice that actually follows the Constitution, but seeing Obama’s record of implementing a far left agenda, that has about a zero percent of happening. IT is sad that this country will continue to be shaped by people who are not elected and have life terms. It has become nothing of what the founders intended it to be. The Court is FAR the “least dangerous branch“. I would go as far as saying that the Supreme Court is the most dangerous branch, but that honor currently goes to Nancy Pelosi and the disgraceful Congress. But just so I can go on record: No more Souters!

Business 1, Government 0

April 12, 2009

In another striking blow to liberals who assume that Government is the answer to all of life’s problems and businesses are inherently evil, Hyundai has introduced a deal on cars that is better than Car Salesman In Chief, Barack Obama’s deal on the terrible GM Cars. Hyundai’s deal is better on more than just one level though. Let’s say, for example, you lose your job, and after 3 months, you still don’t have one and you trade your car back to Hyundai (without damaging your credit) the loss is solely on Hyundai. If your GM car breaks down (very likely) and the Government steps in and covers your warranty, the loss is solely on you. That’s right kids. The Government cannot create  wealth or profit.

This is what is so hard to understand for a lot of people on the left (The Brookings Institute understands it well though and liberals should take note). The government does not create wealth. The only money that the government has is money that it takes from citizens via taxes. So the money that the government used to be the money that you had. The government takes no “hit”, as it were, just you. If you thought it took forever to get a warranty replacement before, just wait until the government takes control of it. If I were GM, I would sit on the 60 Days Obama gave them to reorganize. It is very doubtful to me that he would cut off ANY government aid and let them file for Chapter 11. It would make him look like a jackass for the months of fear-mongering he did saying that GM was too big to fail.

The Case for Bankruptcy – Contrary to what most people think, Bankruptcy (Chapter 11) does not mean that a company will cease to exist. It means that all of their debts will be forgiven and they would have to reorganize. They can get rid of management, renegotiate contracts and present their case to an arbitrator and they will decide if it is viable to keep the company going like that, or if it needs to be sold. Circuit City recently went out of business because the reorganization effort did not satisfy the judge and no one wanted to buy them because no one thought that they would be profitable. If anyone thinks that a business will be profitable, someone will buy it. GM and Chrysler defintely have the potential to be profitable and they would have been bought.

The ONLY thing that Government intervention does is keep the bad policies of the management in place, along with contracts that may, or may not be justified afloat with federal tax dollars. This creates a problem. With the government as the chief benefactor of funds, there is no way for GM to be profitable. The government cannot create wealth, it can only redistribute what is already in the monetary system. It becomes a net gain of zero because the worker is being paid by taxes instead of from the profits of a company that actually creates wealth.

Remeber in about 1999 when K-Mart went bankrupt? What happened? Nothing. They were bought by Sears, and now are more profitable then ever. Sears had a business plan and executed it. The government has no business plan. The governments plan is to ask people WHO HAVE ALREADY FAILED what the plan should be. That’s the governemt for you. As inefficient as ever.
Todd Thurman

Ron Paul’s Tax Credit Misnomer

March 12, 2009

What? Ron Paul not making any sense? Now I have heard everything. The video is from a recent appearance on Neil Cavuto’s show. The main argument of the segment was earmarks. Earmarks are indeed a problem with Members of Congress; they can’t help themselves with their pet projects. There is an old saying that goes “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Well, it is very true for earmarks. When legislation was passed, congress had no way to see how the oney they just appropriated was being spent, and often, it was not being spent the way they wanted it to be (shocking, I know). So they decided that the best way to have the money spent where they wanted to be was to put it into legislation and thus, earmarks were born. I am not talking about earmarks though.

No, I am talking about one little quote by Ron Paul at around the 2:00 mark. Where he says that he does not vote for appropriations bills, but he does vote for tax credits. That way he can get “more money back to the people”. Sounds nice. However, it is wrong. You see, if Dr. Paul votes for tax credits, he is voting for more government spending. According to Brookings and the Urban Study Center (neither is a friend to conservatives)

The press has widely reported that the difference between Senate and House stimulus bills is mostly about tax cuts (Senate) versus spending (House).  That’s wrong.  The main difference is about who runs the spending programs-the IRS or program agencies

The Heritage Foundation states:

This kind of credit is actually a spending program because it directs money to a targeted group based on political considerations. Economically, it is no different than if Congress passed a spending bill that simply sent checks in the same amount to the same people. The only difference is that it is run through the tax code.

The Tax Foundation, an organization dedicated to letting people have the most of their money as possible says this about Tax Credits:

While some might consider this a wise compromise, it is not the best solution for from an economic perspective. There is no way hold businesses harmless through tax credits from a minimum wage increase; nor is it equitable to provide tax credits to some businesses that employ minimum wage workers and not others. Targeted tax credits simply cannot accomplish the stated goals and they have a number of negative consequences for the overall economy.

So, it seems that everyone is in agreement that tax credits are spending under a different name. But somehow, Dr. Paul votes for tax credits and votes against spending. Things aren’t adding up here.

Todd Thurman

Advice to President Barack Obama on Judicial Nominees

March 11, 2009

Today at The Heritage Foundation I had the opportunity to attend a panel hosted by former Attorney General Ed Meese. The panel was put in place to give President Barack Obama advice when he chooses his nominations for the Judicial system (the Supreme and Appellate courts). On the panel were Walter Dellinger, Stuart Taylor, and Jonathan Adler.

Dellinger had a bevy of advice for him. They were simple, yet important pieces of advice. The first piece was to select someone who is humble. He said that opinions would be far more persuasive if they were honest. Weighing both sides equally and walking us through the decision making process that lead them to whatever decision they made. Instead opinions are written explaining only their view and we are just supposed to accept it. He also said that Obama should pick judges that play nicely with others. If Justices can get other judges to be more bipartisan, it could help guide the Supreme Court as well as lower courts in future decisions.

Dellinger also stated that diversity is good, but Obama must understand the limits of it. He used the example of Roman-Catholic Judges. Once the third Roman-Catholic is appointed, it is no longer a story. There will always be a “Roman-Catholic seat” from then on. He also said that President Obama can look outside of the judicial world for qualified candidates. Justices do not necessarily have to be judges. Dellinger would nominate Lee Hamilton if he was nominating people. Dellinger wanted to hear a healthy debate on whether or not it is better to have Intellectuals or Practitioners on the Appellate Courts. Lastly, Dellinger stated that he should look for experience rather than someone who is trying to shape the future. He noted that there is a certain type of growth that stops when you are appointed to the bench.

Stuart Taylor echoed the need to nominate judges that had humility. Taylor also suggested that Obama appoint justices that were moderate. Not too far to the left, not too far to the right. He also noted that it will be difficult for Obama to reconcile campaign rhetoric (saying that he will appoint liberal judges) with votes and stances that he has taken. For example, he voted for controversial amendments to the Patriot Act, as well as wiretapping and a national fingerprint registry. A nominee that supports these initiatives will alienate his base, but a nominee that opposses these initiatives will erode his national security policies. (Dellinger disagreed with the notion that Obama had to support his base because he will never have a contested Democratic primary again).

Jonathan Adler was the last to speak. He commented that Obama will have power to shape the Court, but he will have much greater power to shape the appellate courts. He cited a Brookings study that stated that Obama will be able to nominate 1/3 of the Appellate Court judges in his first terms. Presidents usually appoint that many in two terms. Adler echoed humility, but also stressed the need to vett nominees, but at the same time, he cannot allow seats to sit empty. Renominating Bush appointees should also not be off the table. He weighed in on the question that Dellinger asked (whether or not it was better to have intellectuals or practitioners on the Appellate) saying it was better to have intellectuals on the Appellate. (He also applauded Mr. Meese and Reagan for making a conscience effort to get intellectuals like Bork on the Appellate).

The advice to the Senators confirming the Judges was to hang a big sign on the back wall that says : IT IS NOT ABOUT YOU!

Here is the video of the event

Todd Thurman

Thoughts on the Current State

February 9, 2009

All through the campaign, Obama ran as a moderate conservative. Moderate conservatives were willing to give him a shot because they agreed with a lot of what he said. Moderate liberals knew that he was not Bush and that was enough for them. Far left liberals were hoping that he was lying in his campaign and he would rule from the left (you know, exactly how he has his entire life). People on the far right did not have a horse in this race, so they voted for Sarah Palin.

He ran as a candidate of “change” that was going to clean up Washington. He said that his presidency would be the most transparent presidency in history. He changed the White House Web site and promised to put all of his Executive Orders and transcripts of press conferences. After a very rocky start of publishing none of that, they seem to be keeping up to date now.

Let’s now focus on the people he has nominated. Notwithstanding Charles Rangel, the Head of the House Ways and Means Committee (they actually write the tax code) not understading how taxes work, Obama nominated Tim Geithner to head up the Treasury (which includes the IRS) who has also failed to pay his taxes. The left claimed that it was merely an oversight. A $44,000 oversight. I love the hypocrisy here when the left crucified Joe the Plumber because they found out that he owed $1200 in back taxes, but look away when seemingly no one in their party pays taxes. How can a man head up the branch of government that collects taxes not know how to pay his own taxes? Makes absolutely no sense. How could he even be nominated?

Tom Daschle owed more in back taxes ($150,000) than 95% of the country makes in an entire year. It’s understandable though because he didn’t know he had to pay taxes for his personal driver. Forgive me if I don’t feel sorry for him in the least. Don’t people go to jail for not paying their taxes? Why are these people being elevated to some of the top positons in the land?

Everything comes circling back for Obama. See, he ran as a moderate conservative (tax cuts, more responsibility, less government spending). But anyone who was familiar with his record, knew that there was no chance of him being a far left liberal president. Which is why he nominated Tom Daschle. Daschle is in favor of a National Health Board which also breaks an Obama campaign promise of “if you like your health plan, you can keep it.”

Maybe I am just being cynical, but congress is the last entitty I would trust to do anything for me. OK, second to last. The Supreme Court is the very last thing I would trust to decide when life begins. No idea why the black robe makes people think they are clairvoyant like that.

Much, much more to be said – To be continued.