In today's Wall Street Journal, there was an article written by Gary Fields titled Shorter Sentences Sought for Crack. The gist of the article is that the Obama Administration has told Congress that they favor equal penalties for crack and powder cocaine. Right now if you have five hundred grams of crack cocaine on you, you will be given a minimum sentence of five years. The same minimum goes for those who have only five grams on them.
I applaud the Obama Administration in this step towards equality (and towards what I believe should be the ultimate goal, ending the failed war on drugs). Some teenager may have just got in with the wrong crowd and be caught with five or six grams of crack cocaine, yet would be given that five year minimum prison sentence. Does that really make sense?
One statistic that is used in the article is the fact that more than 52% of the federal prison systems 204,000 inmates are serving time for drug crimes. Worth the taxpayer dollars? I would disagree. Plus, I see the current prison system as dysfunctional and grossly ineffective.
So here it is: I support this decision, President Obama! I don't get to say it often, but I will say it whenever I have reason to.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Bye Bye Arlen!
Arlen Specter, Senator from Pennsylvania, switched to the Democratic Party today. Good riddance!!!! He was FAR from Conservative.
I understand that Senators are usually a lot more centrist than Representatives, since they must represent the wide range of views of their home state. But there is a fundamental issue when a Senator is so centrist/left that they can switch parties without really altering their views at all. What I mean by this is that I believe it didn't matter which party he was a part of, that he will probably vote the same way regardless of his party line.
Sadly, he fits in much better with the Democrats.
The Conservative Party, the Republicans, need to and are becoming the party of fiscal discipline. Specter was one of three Senate Republicans who approved of the stimulus bill and allowed it to be passed. This bill was the epitome of big government spending. Personally, I refuse to support any candidate who votes for fiscally irresponsible and economically damaging bills such as the bailout and the stimulus. I followed through by not voting for Norm Coleman (I know I know look where that got us, been there had that debate).
But all in all, I am quite pleased with Specter switching parties. I look forward to the Senate race in a couple years where the Republican Party will have a solid candidate in Pat Toomey.
Consider joining me in donating $20 to his campaign when the time comes!
Friday, April 24, 2009
Save the Polar Bears!
At work one day a few months back I got into a discussion about global warming with a co-worker. They gave a very simple and understandable example of how environmental legislation can and will create unprecedented intrusions into the private lives of citizens.
First, one must take note of the words used in the environmental debate. The enivros as I like to call them (think Al Gore) are moving away from using the term "global warming," and for good reason. Think about it: if we start experiencing cooler weather (as we have the past couple years) and this trend continues, their arguments will be hurt.
Instead the new phrase to use is "climate change."
How ironic that we are concerned about climate change, since climate has been changing since the beginning of time! This is just a tactic to keep the issue on the table...forever.
But here is the story you need to hear. The polar bear was added to the endangered species list last May, the first species to be put on the list due primarily due to "global warming" concerns. "So what" one might say. But here is how the far left enviros could use this event to support a green agenda that would intrude into our lives and increase taxes.
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) which was passed in the 1970s could open up for government to put restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions, or tax these emissions heavily based on the fact that they are contributing towards making an endangered species extinct. Anything and everything that emits greenhouse gases could be taxed.
Some on the left might say this logic is ridiculous and nothing of the sort would ever happen. All I have to say to that is: cap and trade. End of Story.
First, one must take note of the words used in the environmental debate. The enivros as I like to call them (think Al Gore) are moving away from using the term "global warming," and for good reason. Think about it: if we start experiencing cooler weather (as we have the past couple years) and this trend continues, their arguments will be hurt.
Instead the new phrase to use is "climate change."
How ironic that we are concerned about climate change, since climate has been changing since the beginning of time! This is just a tactic to keep the issue on the table...forever.
But here is the story you need to hear. The polar bear was added to the endangered species list last May, the first species to be put on the list due primarily due to "global warming" concerns. "So what" one might say. But here is how the far left enviros could use this event to support a green agenda that would intrude into our lives and increase taxes.
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) which was passed in the 1970s could open up for government to put restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions, or tax these emissions heavily based on the fact that they are contributing towards making an endangered species extinct. Anything and everything that emits greenhouse gases could be taxed.
Some on the left might say this logic is ridiculous and nothing of the sort would ever happen. All I have to say to that is: cap and trade. End of Story.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Bachmann on Glenn Beck
Congresswoman Michele Bachmann was on Glenn Beck today. She truly is a taxpayer's best friend. Check it out:
Monday, April 20, 2009
My View on Gay Marriage
Last night Perez Hilton asked Miss California, Carrie Prejean, whether or not she thought that gay marriage should be legalized. Here's the clip.
First of all, what the heck? A JUDGE of the competition asks for a contestant's view on an issue he clearly is totally emotionally involved in. He obviously expects the candidate to spout his view, since he IS the judge. But nope she was not going to be used like that, and told truthfully what she thought regardless of the ramifications of her answer.
This got me thinking about marriage legislation and the government. What does marriage mean to the government? You basically register with the government and you get a piece of paper, your marriage certificate. You also get certain legal rights such as being able to be in the hospital room of your spouse as well as some tax implications.
Morally, many Christians believe that gay marriage is wrong. There are a number of verses in the bible which point out that argument. This issue has divided the country, with some calling for a Constitutional amendment barring same-sex couples from becoming married and defining marriage as one man and one woman.
Here's the problem: married couples are given more rights than unmarried couples, some of which were stated above. How do you reconcile this clearly unequal status in the government's eyes as well as stand up for your morals.
My Standing
Why is the government even in the business of marriage? Why are they not certifying confirmations, baptisms, bar-mitzvah's, and more? Marriage is much more than a piece of paper and a standing in the government's eyes. Can't two people love each other and be very close if they are of the same sex? Obviously the answer is yes, as many same-sex couples ARE obviously in love with each other. Should they not have the convenience of joint tax returns as well as be able to be at the other's dying bedside?
Get the government OUT of marriage. Allow "registration" of "unions" for both man and woman couples AND same-sex couples. Allow the church to deal with the issue on a level playing field. If a same-sex couple gets married in a formal ceremony, your issue should not be with the government but with the minister who gave the ceremony. The government is not going to stop any same-sex couples from becoming married, it just won't happen. There will always be some state with legalized marriage. What is almost laughable is the fact the couple can be married in one state but not in the other.
Legislating marriage is legislating morality, and the problem is people have different levels of morality. There are some laws that pertain to morality that are meant to protect one person or the other, such as young children from sexual predators, but this is truly a situation where there is not a victim.
After that somewhat serious blog post, I thought I'd lighten the mood with this: best man fail :P
First of all, what the heck? A JUDGE of the competition asks for a contestant's view on an issue he clearly is totally emotionally involved in. He obviously expects the candidate to spout his view, since he IS the judge. But nope she was not going to be used like that, and told truthfully what she thought regardless of the ramifications of her answer.
This got me thinking about marriage legislation and the government. What does marriage mean to the government? You basically register with the government and you get a piece of paper, your marriage certificate. You also get certain legal rights such as being able to be in the hospital room of your spouse as well as some tax implications.
Morally, many Christians believe that gay marriage is wrong. There are a number of verses in the bible which point out that argument. This issue has divided the country, with some calling for a Constitutional amendment barring same-sex couples from becoming married and defining marriage as one man and one woman.
Here's the problem: married couples are given more rights than unmarried couples, some of which were stated above. How do you reconcile this clearly unequal status in the government's eyes as well as stand up for your morals.
My Standing
Why is the government even in the business of marriage? Why are they not certifying confirmations, baptisms, bar-mitzvah's, and more? Marriage is much more than a piece of paper and a standing in the government's eyes. Can't two people love each other and be very close if they are of the same sex? Obviously the answer is yes, as many same-sex couples ARE obviously in love with each other. Should they not have the convenience of joint tax returns as well as be able to be at the other's dying bedside?
Get the government OUT of marriage. Allow "registration" of "unions" for both man and woman couples AND same-sex couples. Allow the church to deal with the issue on a level playing field. If a same-sex couple gets married in a formal ceremony, your issue should not be with the government but with the minister who gave the ceremony. The government is not going to stop any same-sex couples from becoming married, it just won't happen. There will always be some state with legalized marriage. What is almost laughable is the fact the couple can be married in one state but not in the other.
Legislating marriage is legislating morality, and the problem is people have different levels of morality. There are some laws that pertain to morality that are meant to protect one person or the other, such as young children from sexual predators, but this is truly a situation where there is not a victim.
After that somewhat serious blog post, I thought I'd lighten the mood with this: best man fail :P
Sunday, April 19, 2009
BJ Lawson speaking at the Raleigh Tea Party
I blogged often about BJ Lawson during the last campaign cycle. I am holding out hope he will run again in either 2010 or 2012 for the House of Reps. Check out this video of him at the tea party in Raleigh this past Wednesday:
Friday, April 10, 2009
Minnesota Representatives/Senators love taxes
The National Taxpayers Union rates members of Congress annually and gives them a grade which is determined by their voting record and how often they voted in the interest of taxpayers.
Minnesota failed miserably.
As far as representatives were concerned, Michele Bachmann is the ONLY representative who received an A with an 81%. John Kline received a B- with a 61% and Jim Ramstad a C- with 43%.
Keith Ellison, Betty McCollum, Jim Oberstar, Collin Peterson, and Tim Walz all received an F. Collin Peterson ranked the highest of this group, with a 21%.
The Senators were no better. Amy Klobuchar received an embarrasing but expected 4%, while the "Conservative" Republican Norm Coleman received a D with only 31%.
The election is over and I hate to revive this point, but this just re-affirmed my belief that I did the right thing by NOT voting for Norm Coleman. I support very few of the positions he has shown to support in his previous term, and the 31% rating he got just shows that he was far from fiscally conservative.
On a lighter note, Michele Bachmann received a very high score. She is truly a fiscal conservative who is representing the Minnesota taxpayer at a time when few Minnesota politicians (Democrats and Republicans alike) seem to be.
Minnesota failed miserably.
As far as representatives were concerned, Michele Bachmann is the ONLY representative who received an A with an 81%. John Kline received a B- with a 61% and Jim Ramstad a C- with 43%.
Keith Ellison, Betty McCollum, Jim Oberstar, Collin Peterson, and Tim Walz all received an F. Collin Peterson ranked the highest of this group, with a 21%.
The Senators were no better. Amy Klobuchar received an embarrasing but expected 4%, while the "Conservative" Republican Norm Coleman received a D with only 31%.
The election is over and I hate to revive this point, but this just re-affirmed my belief that I did the right thing by NOT voting for Norm Coleman. I support very few of the positions he has shown to support in his previous term, and the 31% rating he got just shows that he was far from fiscally conservative.
On a lighter note, Michele Bachmann received a very high score. She is truly a fiscal conservative who is representing the Minnesota taxpayer at a time when few Minnesota politicians (Democrats and Republicans alike) seem to be.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Man detained and harassed at airport for carrying cash
Thank you Transportation and Security Administration! You are doing so much to protect us! A man (from the Campaign For Liberty) is detained by the TSA for carrying cash in the airport and then interrogated. All Steve (the detained) did was constantly ask if they had the legal authority to do what they were doing.
This video has gone viral with over 200,000 views after a little more than a week. Just another example of abuse by the TSA.
Again, thank you TSA. So much. Keep up the good work.
This video has gone viral with over 200,000 views after a little more than a week. Just another example of abuse by the TSA.
Again, thank you TSA. So much. Keep up the good work.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Political I.Q.
I recently finished an excellent book Increase your Financial I.Q. by Robert Kiyosaki. One theme that he re-iterates over and over (as well as in other books) is the lack of financial I.Q. today. Many people just trust their money to people such as financial planners and mutual fund managers to manage their money instead of deal with it themselves. He explains that the reason why more people are not wealthy is because of their lack of financial knowledge.
Granted, it does take time and effort to become knowledgeable about finances, but with something as important as wealth and management of our wealth why do many put it on the back burner and make no effort to increase their knowledge of financial matters? Well, I will let you ponder that yourself but the point I want to make is that most people have a very small political I.Q. A friend of mine recently helped with both the Franken and Obama campaigns last fall becoming quite active with the campaign. What I find amazing is that they do not know the difference between the Keynesian and Supply-side economic camps. They do not understand that underlying these contrasting agendas is an economic belief that we can spend ourselves out of a recession versus creating incentives to grow the economy.
Besides that, how many people vote based on shallow beliefs? I would bet many vote Democratic because their parents are Democrats or Republican because their parents are Republican without a second thought. Others might believe restricting gun ownership will solve violence problems despite the fact that the second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. Most people are likely unaware that the Federal Reserve is a private bank and not a part of the government, yet has control of the monetary policies of the United States. Besides this, many do not know what the Constitution says and how the government has overstepped the Constitution.
I know someone (actually, multiple persons) who voted for Obama for his economic policies. I can guarantee you that most of these people do not understand his economic policies, nor the fundamentals of Keynesian economics (versus Supply side and Austrian). Now I am not saying that you need to know everything about every candidate and political issue, but it is important to have a political I.Q. in the same way it is important to have a strong Financial I.Q. Some may be overwhelmed by politics and feel it is beyond their understanding. Let me ask you this: If you were trying to make a million dollars in one year with only $1,000 to work with, would you not feel overwhelmed and defeated? The important thing is to simply start. Read a political book that you would not normally read. Expose yourself to new ideas. Focus on one issue and try to have a general understanding (The War on Drugs is a great place to start – very interesting subject!) and then move on to another issue.
You will be surprised how applicable a political I.Q. is to your life. Here’s one way: the government will probably in one tax or another take over/nearly half of whatever income you take in and spend it on primarily unconstitutional and wasteful things. So spend a little time here and there improving your political I.Q. It can only help you.
Granted, it does take time and effort to become knowledgeable about finances, but with something as important as wealth and management of our wealth why do many put it on the back burner and make no effort to increase their knowledge of financial matters? Well, I will let you ponder that yourself but the point I want to make is that most people have a very small political I.Q. A friend of mine recently helped with both the Franken and Obama campaigns last fall becoming quite active with the campaign. What I find amazing is that they do not know the difference between the Keynesian and Supply-side economic camps. They do not understand that underlying these contrasting agendas is an economic belief that we can spend ourselves out of a recession versus creating incentives to grow the economy.
Besides that, how many people vote based on shallow beliefs? I would bet many vote Democratic because their parents are Democrats or Republican because their parents are Republican without a second thought. Others might believe restricting gun ownership will solve violence problems despite the fact that the second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. Most people are likely unaware that the Federal Reserve is a private bank and not a part of the government, yet has control of the monetary policies of the United States. Besides this, many do not know what the Constitution says and how the government has overstepped the Constitution.
I know someone (actually, multiple persons) who voted for Obama for his economic policies. I can guarantee you that most of these people do not understand his economic policies, nor the fundamentals of Keynesian economics (versus Supply side and Austrian). Now I am not saying that you need to know everything about every candidate and political issue, but it is important to have a political I.Q. in the same way it is important to have a strong Financial I.Q. Some may be overwhelmed by politics and feel it is beyond their understanding. Let me ask you this: If you were trying to make a million dollars in one year with only $1,000 to work with, would you not feel overwhelmed and defeated? The important thing is to simply start. Read a political book that you would not normally read. Expose yourself to new ideas. Focus on one issue and try to have a general understanding (The War on Drugs is a great place to start – very interesting subject!) and then move on to another issue.
You will be surprised how applicable a political I.Q. is to your life. Here’s one way: the government will probably in one tax or another take over/nearly half of whatever income you take in and spend it on primarily unconstitutional and wasteful things. So spend a little time here and there improving your political I.Q. It can only help you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
