Jefferson on Good Government (a warning to Congressional Democrats and Pres. Obama)

After watching President Obama's address tonight I needed something to lift my political spirits. While Governor Jindal's response began the process, I decided to pull a book off my shelves of Thomas Jefferson's Writings. I decided to read his first inaugural address. As I approached the middle of his speech, I about jumped out of my chair when I read the following segment that, unfortunately, only dampened my spirits even more in relation to our current political situation:
"...what is more necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens--a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."
President Obama, your trillion dollar spending spree is, by your own admission, going to be funded simply from a tax hike on the upper 2% of Americans. Just because they may have enough bread to feed their family doesn't mean you have a right to all their excess. Don't forget, either, that the upper 5% of income earners actually stimulate economic growth more than any government plan will.
Thank you Thomas Jefferson for being so principled and sound in your moral reasoning that you had to go and make my day worse.

UPDATE: We WON the War on Terror! It's Over!

Check out this article straight from the AP. Apparently I'm not the only one boggled by the fact that the War on Terror is suddenly....gone?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/24/napolitano-avoids-mentioning-terrorism-remarks-congress/

Lincoln on Obama's Wealth Redistribution Plan

Lincoln and Obama hand in hand? I don't think so. Here's a core philosophy of Lincoln's that he articulated early in his career and believed in ardently throughout his service. In light of the current administration's plans to play the noble Robin Hood in taking from the rich and giving to the poor, let's see what Lincoln had to say on the subject:
"Some have laboured, and others have, without labour, enjoyed a large proportion of the fruits. This is wrong, and should not continue. To secure to each labourer the whole product of his labour, or as nearly as possible, is a most worthy object of any good government."
Can that actually be Lincoln's position? Did he actually just infer that Obama's government, then is bad government? Lincoln was opposed in economic and political princple to a welfare state funded from the coffers of a federal government. Let us offer assistance without breeding dependence, and let us have faith in the people and not the government to step in and exercise charity.

We WON the War on Terror! It's over!

During my regular reading President Obama's agenda on the White House website, I could find absolutely no mention of, allusion to, or even faint recognition of the War on Terror. There is a lot that can be inferred from that fact. The most obvious reason (though, unfortunately, wrong) is that it's over! When a war is begun and fought and then suddenly vanishes from the Commander-in-Chief's agenda of the army waging the war, that implies it has ended--either by victory, defeat, or stipulation. Terrorism hasn't been defeated, we certainly haven't, and we haven't reached an amicable understanding. So what happened? Partisan politics. Obama's refusal to acknowledge the War on Terror, simply because President Bush actually uttered those words so often. Apparently, the War on Terror was somehow President Bush's own private little war, one that somehow fundamentally changed and ceased to be a war and has morphed into a simple foreign policy issue. Granted there are agenda points relating to al-qaeda, but how is it not still a War on Terror? Sounds like somebody's going to a pre-9/11 mentality. Apparently we're not at war with terror anymore...or Obama has played the role of hypocrite perfectly once again as he stands as the supreme example of the partisan politician blowing hot steam about being bipartisan.

P.S. Just in case you were wondering if simple semantics was a tool of Obama's partisanship in this case, here's the definition of war straight from Oxford: "1: a state of armed conflict between different nations, states, or groups; 2: a state of hostility or intense competition between groups; 3: a campaign against something undesirable."
I guess none of those apply to al-Qaeda and religious extremists anymore. So what changed?

Way to go Congress!

By the way, the new congressional approval ratings are out and they have soared to an all-time high! 31 percent! Funny, since the Democrats won control of the Congress 2 years ago they have consistently had the majority of the country UNsatisfied with them and DISapproving of their job performance.

Finally--something I can support Obama on!

The past few weeks have been among the most politically depressing of my life. From the Mexico City Policy to closing Guantanomo, from SCHIP to Unions, I have opposed everything Obama has actually done while in office. Well, today I heard that the White House officially came out in opposition to restoring the Fairness Doctrine. Good for them! Finally, something positive from that quickly crumbling house. A pillar still stands in some back room corner! Unfortunately, if Obama gives Pelosi and Reid as much control over future legislation as he did on this stimulus bill then the resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine may still be a possibility. Hopefully not, the freedoms contained in that little document called the Bill of Rights are just as important today as they were by those apparently senile, out of touch old men over 200 years ago. I won't go into what the Fairness Doctrine actually is, but I'm sure a quick Google search will yield positive results if you're curious. In the meantime, at least it can't be said of me that I fight against EVERYTHING the President stands for politically.

The Government Stimulus Package

So are we all ready for the greatest expansion of power that the federal government has ever seen? Thomas Jefferson must be rolling in his grave (although Hamilton must be smiling). I've always found the best way to get out of financial trouble is to spend more money you don't have to go deeper into debt you're already in. It only took Obama a few weeks to spend more money than the Bush administration spent in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Not to mention that even illegal immigrants can receive up to $1000 in stimulus money. Contained within the 1588 page bill itself (how many people do you think actually read it? attempt it at http://readthestimulus.org/) is a stipulation that people with an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number are eligible for up to $1000 (per couple, $500 individual; see http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D960U4HG0&show_article=1) in government handout money (the Democrats specialty). TIN's are different than SSN numbers. To obtain one, all you need to do is return a completed form to the IRS. Yikes.

Another thought, when was the last time the government reached into the private sector of business without making more red tape, regulations, watch dogs, beauracratic loopholes, and simply a big confusing mess? This could get ugly. Maybe I'll put in a bid to build that dog park in California, after all, they allocated nearly a million bucks for it. How hard can it be to throw some sod on some flattened dirt? I mean come on, do dogs need gold slides and silver lined monkey bars to play on?

Bottom line, I think this economic stimulus is one of the worst pieces of legislation to pass our Congress and has potential to do damage to this country that could take a generation to repair. It's easy to create a huge entangling mess of government control, but it's harder and takes even longer to clean up that mess. I'm sick to even hear it referred to as an economic stimulus bill. This bill will stimulate the government more than the economy. There is no compelling economic theory to support it. Obama himself has lied blatantly on several occasions to fuel the fear in the people to garner their support for it. He claimed that there were no serious economists who oppose this plan. Boy did that bring them out of the wood work, with over 200 signing a petition of warning about the dire consequences this bill could produce. These are leading economists from the Wall Street Journal, prestigious universities on both coasts, and former economic government officials (see http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/01/28/economists-against-the-stimulus/).

Another Obama lie, the one that has me throwing my lunch at the TV every time I hear it? "We are in the worst economic crisis of our lifetimes." "This is the greatest economic disaster since the Great Depression." Not to mention other similar comments. FACT: The Carter economy Reagan inherited was statistically 3.4 times worse than this one by the government's own standards of measurement. Mortgage rates are around 5%, they were 16% in 1980. Unemployment is still well below 10%, while Carter's economy produced unemployment that reached nearly 11% (see http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=248) . Not to mention inflation had skyrocketed under Carter while it is till in relative control today (see http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/HistoricalInflation.aspx?dsInflation_currentPage=0). Interest rates were much worse. Bottom line: the economy of Jimmy Carter was the worst since the Great Depression to a degree that today's economy doesn't even begin to compare to. Last I checked, Barack Obama was alive during those years. Guess that means that this economic situation is NOT the worst of his lifetime, or even mine for that matter. A President who deceptively distorts history to serve his own current political situation is no President that I will ever trust. The politics of fear is his greatest weapon, as it was FDR's in passing his revolutionary and radical programs of the New Deal that even 7 years after their implementation had failed by admission of FDR's own treasury secretary.

All in all, Congress just worsened our economic situation but will conveniently blame Bush as their failure comes to light over the coming years. Funny how a key trigger in this was the housing market, where lending standards have been considerably weakened by legislation passed by the Democrats in 2006 and even Clinton in 1998, yet you never hear about that. Funny how Obama can be so narrow minded as to throw a blanket failure on all of Bush's economic policies of the past 8 years. Did he forget the crisis after 9/11? Bush helped us recover from that in an amazing fashion. Going back to Carter's economy, Reaganomics saved us from that and led to one of the longest periods of economic recovery and prosperty of the modern age. The theory behind Reagaonmics is the theory behind much of Bush's policies, more money to the people (the current plan will give us $13 a week in tax breaks). Why don't we ever hear about the success of Reagonomics? Why isn't Carter's economy ever mentioned? Reagonomics worked, and in a short period of time. After that same period of time elapses from this current bill, 75% of the money still won't even be in the economy. That dog park probably won't even be built. But a few more illegals might be watching CNN on their new plasma TVs.

I hope I'm wrong. But my continuing research does nothing to allay my fears and only serves to fuel them. Government IS the problem, not the solution. Giving them more power is not the answer. Reagan said "Entrepreneurs and their small enterprises are responsible for almost all the economic growth in the United States," not the government.

Welcome, One and All!

Our previous blog was primarily my thoughts on political matters, both past and present. I often felt guilty for not posting more on our family, and I often felt to post some sort of politically related entry quite often, so here's a new site just for that. I hope this can become a haven of political discussion where personal insults and attacks can be left on the recycle bin of your computer. I don't dare hope for it to be a bipartisan blog-I hope for a variety of political orientations to be represented-but do expect it to be a respectful blog.

One of my primary desires in this blog is to elicit discussion, whether complex or simple. I hope to move beyond superfluities and get at the heart of core political ideologies. One of my hopes is to discuss how those ideologies have been manifest throughout history, how they were even created, and further how current political situations reflect such ideas. On a simple note, I also hope for discussion on simple things relating to current events and events now considered history.

Another hope is to make this very much a place of spiritual discussion as well. Political ideas are often taught within my religious faith, and presumably that of the majority of this blog's readers. Scriptures as well as modern day prophets have given counsel on political matters--some very clear and overt, while at times it appears in veiled form through teaching us about gospel principles with direct political underpinnings (such as principles of welfare and consecration). Something I will do quite frequently is post quotes for discussion, often letting the quote itself without any of my commentary be a springboard for discussion. I will use quotes from prophets and politicians alike.

With that said, let me state right up front my core political values and ideologies. I am a conservative, though not so much a Republican. My most liberal stance is my bourgeoning opposition to the death penalty. The majority of my political principles were embodied by Ronald Reagan, thus I claim to be a Reagan conservative (I used this term before Hannity). At my core, I am about smaller government. I believe more power should be found in state governments and less in the federal when it comes to domestic issues, especially welfare and healthcare. I agree with the statement that government IS the problem and NOT the solution. I believe that people are the solution, and that they don't need government subsidies or organizations to empower them to enact solutions to the majority of ailments in our society. As such, I am a strong proponent of capitalism and free enterprise. I believe we should be rewarded by ability and not need when it comes to the federal government. I despise any government entity that destroys the agency of its people through forced welfare rather than exhibiting faith in its people. We the people are why the government exists, and we the people should be the guiding voice in politics today. I feel most politicians speak a different language, a problem I feel has been created by too much government. As it has grown and become increasingly complex and harder to understand, "We the people" have somehow gotten left by the wayside in favor of "We the government."

Enough said. You'll obviously get to know more about my views through this blog. I'll try to keep it updated often, but remember, the only way I know of it's being read is through comments and discussion! As we all participate, I hope there will be a synergy that helps us all understand ourselves much better.