About Me

Name: Virginia Daddy
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Some Thoughts on the Passing Scene

This is an election night, and certainly we can see somethings that may be afoot for the next year or two.  Republicans have won two big races, one of which is in Virginia.  I am pleased to see VA take back the state from the Democrats.  The state is a Conservative state, with only two or three predominantly Democratic areas, and these areas are small geographically.  It was depressing to have the entire state under the control of these small areas.  That seems to have changed tonight-- that is great.
 
But I wonder how much we can put into the GOP wins tonight, because Virginia is a conservative state and Corzine in New Jersey was in trouble for some time.  But regardless, I think there are some instructive lessons to be learned from each win.  I think it is clear that Obama does not dominate politics everywhere.  In other words, he is not invincible.  His existence is not the windfall for liberalism that he wants.
 
President Barrack Obama will minimize the results tonight.  But he will also be furious in private.  He has to be, because he is the rock star president whom everyone loves, at least he thinks he should be that president.  Basically, the actual significance of a GOP win is not much, but it is a big night symbollically, and Obama will get that.  He's seeing that his presence on stage is not the deciding factor he wants it to be.  It will be interesting to see how he reacts publically.  I expect he'll be gracious and say he'll work with these new governors.  He'll seem genuine, and maybe even invite Ken Cuccinelli, the new VA AG, for a beer.
 
And that I think is a big part of Obama's problem now-- he's a show, and he's void of much substance.  People here have known this for some time, but the rest of the world is starting to get it.  That's one thing that this night will show.  Exit polls don't show that people voted against Obama, but that's not the point.  The point is that voters are seeing an independance from him, and aren't concerned with him as much as he'd like.  The point is that he is more irrelevant than he'd like, and that trend is growing.  His aura is fading...
 
Of course, this is politics, and so much can change.  Will this trend continue?  I think it will.  There is no reason why it can't, and wrestling back Virignia, and ousting a corrupt leader will embolden the GOP. 
 
Now, do I care if the GOP wins?  Well, yes, I do.  I prefer the GOP, but the GOP is in flux.  Again, people know this here, but if the GOP can win these two races against a more unified Democrat front, conservatives can have hope.  Further, the result of the 23rd NY District in which the Conservative party put up a last minute but strong fight is a wonderful result for conservatives.  It makes you wonder what would have happened if he'd had more than a weekend alone to campaign...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (28) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I'm Offended!

I am offended this morning.  My wife told me as I strolled out of bed that Barrack Obama won the Nobel Peace prize.  My first response was that it was offensive.  I see from a quick glance around the net that others feel the same.  
 
It really makes you wonder if the Obama bought the committee.  Seriously, why would he be in the running if the award should be for people that have meaningfully enacted peaceful initiatives in the world.  He has done nothing, except give some speeches.  We all know this, and I won't rehash.  But his winning it is a sham, no less. 
 
He is an icon, though.  People still seem to worship him as if he were the chosen one.  This goes beyond this country, more than I thought.  Its really hard to believe why people think of him so highly.  To be fair, he has been very skillful in his rhetoric.  However, as people are beginning to see here, that skillful rhetoric is ultimately empty.  I would think his bubble will be burst on the international scene, too.
 
In truth, I think this award will be a hindrance to him here.  It has put him in a bind, where he can't escape a connection to his push for peace.  Its not that peace is a bad thing, but this will bind him from being aggressive in certain places.  It will also embolden his opposition here, which is already growing.  To say he's been overexposed before was an understatement.  Now, it goes astep beyond, and people will just get more tired of his cult-like following.
 
It is sickening, and it is offensive.  I won't even talk about the Nobel Committee, because if I remember right, didn't Gore win it for producing a movie about the environment?  Its a crock, and this only gives further evidence of that.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (22) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Lawyer's Manifesto

As a lawyer-in-training, I feel it is important to have goals as to what it is I want to achieve after fully joining the legal community.  Besides my studies, I have been working at the University assisting the general counsel's office.  My brief exposure here has given me an opportunity to hone in on what it is I hope to do in my future career.  But this manifesto is more focused on the bigger picutre, beyond my day-to-job, and what I feel a lawyer should do in his community.
 
-----
 
1) Protect the rights of everyone, even those you don't like.  Now, this does not mean you must accept every right as truly in existence, but it does mean that those that are truly rights, they must be protected.  Those that are not truly rights and have been abuses of times past or intrusions on others rights beyond what is reasonable, must be corrected.   The goal is that everyone retains the full rights they are duly afforded and rights should not be created out of expediency or beacause a few feel put out.
 
2)  Be active in the community.  Lawyers have a skills that can benefit any group or organization.  They know wise questions to ask and issues to examine in most any situation.  I had a professor last spring tell us our job is to worry for our client, and I think this applies even to community organizations in which we get involved with to make them more powerful in the community.  This greater involvement comes from effectively weaving through the dangers an organization can come across and situating itself to be most effective.
 
3)  Act honestly and within our given responsibilities.  We are attorneys, meaning our job is to help others understand and work through the legal system when they need to do so.  Of course, at the beginning of any such legal question is the possibility to change the law.  But how we approach that must be done in an honest and forthright manner.  We should use restraint whenever we are faced with the true possibility of enacting great change through the legal process.  This restraint comes from the reality that whenever we expand one group's rights, we limit the rights of another group.  If we overly seek to protect one group over another, we will act unjustly to the other group.  If our mission is to create maximum justice, there is a distinct possibility we must always be aware of how we affect all groups, not just our immediate client.  While we will work for our immediate client, this does not mean should abandon all of our principles in favor of this one client.  If we act selfishly to pad our wallet, we do little good in society. 
 
4)  Do not forget our other priorities.  As lawyers, often our time will be dominated by a given case or client.  This can be a good thing, but it can reach a point where we actually cause more harm than good from focusing too much on the one thing.  In such a situation, the case or client will be important, but there are other things that will always remain more important.  Family, community organizations, neighbors, church (if you go) and any such place where you have an opportunity to influence others outside of our profession.  Ignoring these aspects of life will hurt the job you do and it will hurt the people you are closest to.  This can be difficult to achieve, but it is necessary to find a way to do so.
 
5)  Seek to leave a lasting legacy.  Here, I do not mean a financial legacy, or a legacy listing all of your achievements.  Rather, I mean a legacy where people seek to emulate what you have done.  Be a hero, and have people truly miss you when you are gone.  Act proactively now to make the people around you better, and act fairly to all.  Seek to give people opportunities to better themselves by encouraing them to be proactive, too.  Do not give people they can have whatever  want simply because they want it, but create in them an ethic to work for what they want.  Teach them to play by the rules, and not to change the rules because they don't like them.  Do this in all facets of life, respecting everyone and every side of an issue. 
 
6)  Hate that which is dishonest and manipulative.  The law is to protect each and every member of society and is not there to pad your bank account.  Just because one person may be put out does not mean the law is broken.  As I said before, for every right expanded another is limited.  There are those that will take any feel good story and exploit it.  But this is not always good or even right.  Far too often, it will be to the detriment of society.  We all know, I think, what is truly right and what is truly wrong.  We should always remember this when putting together a case.
 
-----
 
Like it or not, lawyers do hold a special position in society, and it is one that can be easilly abused.  We should be wary of this power and act responsibly under our responsibilities in society.  Those responsibilities are limiting, but if applied correctly are very powerful
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (35) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Checking In...

What an end to the summer!  Somehow, I've ended up back in class and into the routine of reading cases and going to class, killing myself to do this thing called law school.  Where'd the time go? 
 
Anyway, its been a busy time in politics as well, at least an interesting one. 
 
Today, we lost an icon in the senate; whether you liked him or not, T. Kennedy is gone. 
 
Health care looms in some form or fashion, but only because the libs have to have it, and not because the public wants it.
 
Obama's aura is finally fading, too, as people see he's really not into making life for them better and is instead really in to advance a liberal agenda.
 
Beer summits have become cool, to our nations detriment. 
 
Yet, no solid conservative is stepping up to the plate that I've heard of yet.
 
And, yet, here I am taking a break from reading about administrative rule making.  I am sure I will have some thoughts on this, but my first inclination is to ask has government become so complicated and intrusive into so many parts of our lives that more lawyers work for governmental agencies than any other industry?
 
Kinda scary.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (17) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What is Freedom?

   Whenever I think of freedom, I can't help but think of Mel Gibson in Braveheart.  His rousing monologue ending with him screaming the word is a moving scene, no doubt.  But I still wonder what freedom is and how it is applied.  We all use the word to describe the ability to do what we want.  And given a pure definition, that would make sense.  We are only free when we can do what want without interference from someone else.  If we have interference, though, we are not free.
   So, what does that mean in a political sense, since everyone uses the term freely?  I will start by saying pure freedom in a political world is impossible, except for absolute monarchs, tyrants, and oligarchs who can set the rules and enforce them at will.  However, the freedom they would enjoy is not spread to everyone else, because they are subject to the wills of the tyrant. 
   If the above is the case, why does everyone use the term as much as they do?  I think the answer lies behind the intent of the Founding Fathers, which was not to guarantee absolute freedom but to maximize the people's freedom so they can enjoy "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  The Founders recognized the need to have a structured society, which would mean they would have to limit some freedoms while they maximized what was possible. 
   They intended to create a society with as minimal influence from above as possible.  Despite this broad goal, implementing it was a source of conflict.  The question was not generally how much interference (one could probably argue this was in question) but from where the interference should come from.  The options were a strong national government made up of the individual, or the directly from the states themselves.  Either way, they all agreed on a couple of things: to maximize our freedoms and that we ourselves should play a big role in doing so.
   So, what does it mean for us to play a big role in ensuring our own freedom?  There are really two components to that.  First, many Founders expected the populace to be active in civil affairs themselves by voicing their opinion on important local matters.  Second, they all emphasized the need to have a virtuous  populace and elected leaders to constantly and consistently protect our freedoms.  By staying involved, the people were able to stay intimately involved in public affairs and to keep the leaders accountable.  By staying morally vituous, they would be free from many temptations that power can bring.  This virtue was key, because a virtuous society would always seek to work together with other groups to maximize everyone's freedoms without trampling one in favor of another.  This meant acting responsibly and respectfully to others.
   What does this mean in defining freedom today?  If absolute freedom is impossible, and it takes involvement and virtue to maximize the freedoms we have, then people demanding rights at the expense of others is an abuse of freedom.  I believe part of virtue is respecting others rights to believe and do as they do.  In fact, this is tolerance.  So, tolerance is a part of freedom.  Far too many are intolerant today, and I don't think the problem is isolated to one group.  Why is that?  Before addressing that answer, let me state that a lack of tolerance is a problem because the intolerant demand others leave, change their behavior, or be subject to much derision.  If the people subjected to intolerance must live in this world, they are not free.
   Now, the reason why intolerance is a problem that spreads beyond just one group (most often conservatives are accused of it, but this is seriously in question) is because freedom has been a word that has lost its traditional meaning in American history, and by that, I mean the intentions of Founders have been lost. Freedom has come to be understood as only possible if it is pure.  The result is that too many think they should be able to do whatever they want at the expense of someone else.  Responsibility plays no role in defining freedom to far too many people today.  Respecting others has equally been erased from the day to day lives of far too many, with their personal freedoms as the prime reason for society to exist (in other words, society should conform to their views). 
   What has resulted is a battle for the chance to act as tyrants and tell people what they should do.  Social conservatives on the one hand telling liberals they shouldn't do certain things, and liberals are saying that conservatives shouldn't be able to do certain things.  Liberals are winning the verbal war by setting the tone of the debate, and by appealing the non-virtuous and selfish nature we all hold.  Absent from this view is responsibility.  But conservatives have responded by digging their heals and have not responded in the most effective fashion.  (I do think conservatives have a better view, but they fail to communicate effectively because they too forget much of what freedom must entail.)  The ultimate result of this battle is not freedom, but rather puts us on a road toward some form of tyranny.  And that result is unacceptable.
   Do I expect a change?  Unfortunately, I do not, though I hold hope that people will recognize that freedom in this country must be limited by ourselves.  Our self limiting of freedom must include the responsibility to accept that others may not view the world the same as we do, and this includes the views of liberals and conservatives (my views on this are that liberals are every bit as intolerant as conservatives, if not more so). 
   And for those who really feel compelled to live in a given way, this is a large country, and responsibility would suggest taking advantage of the vast array of geography, politics, and lifestyles that are given in this country.  This is true because the responsible thing to do is to accept a given community's commitment to a political or moral direction and find a place that is accepting to yours.  Do not force the community to change, because you are limiting their freedom by acting as a tyrant.  You are a tyrant because you force another to accept something they are not willing to accept while you get what you want.  You enforce your will at your will and at the expense of others' wills.
   So, then, what is freedom?  Freedom is knowing that you can't have everything, while doing what is responsible to maximize your liberty and the liberties of others.  If one of these aspects is missing, it is not freedom, but tyranny.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (56) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Conservative Conundrum

I was sitting in church yesterday listening to a sermon about Christmas in July.  A fine sermon, no doubt, but it hit me during the session that what conservatives need to do more of is respect others rather than tell them what to do.  This observation can hardly be considered novel, though.  This debate has permeated within the ranks of conservatism before.  The debate is whether or not conservatives, who hold certain things to be true and celebrate certain moral behaviors over the more destructive "free" ones, should demand of others that they follow the moral behaviors so they will  be  protected from the harms such as eternal damnation, disease, the shame of financial and personal ruin from drug use, unwanted pregnancies, etc. 
   All of those goals are good and noble, and we should seek to encourage others to follow these behaviors.  However, in doing so, we must be careful not to forget other conservative tenants to begin with.  If we forget the basic principles of conservatism, we will continue to lose people to these unfavorable ends.  So, what are the basic principles of conservatism that I speak of that we must first pay attention to?  They are freedom to act, freedom from government, responsibility for one's own welfare, and patience that they will see what is truly important.
   The freedom to act is a big thing to remember.  We all share a freedom to do what we think is best for our lives.  If we restrain people's right to live their lives, we become something we don't want to be: tyrants in our own right.  This will work counter to what it is we seek to achieve.  There is little doubt that we believe our views of life lead to a prosperous society and prosperity for the individual.  But when we force our views on others we creat a sense of rebellion in them and they act anyway, arguably worse than they would otherwise.  This is unacceptable, and leads to the second abuse that conservatives must be aware of.
   Before I move to the discussion of big government, let me address this idea that you may be thinking.  I would say that yes, this freedom to live is very similar to the liberals definition of the term.  We must allow people to make their own choices, and that means whatever they choose.  I differ from them in that I do not think people should choose certain things, while they give a virtual green light.  But I do emphasize their ultimate right to make the decisions they make, for better or for worse.
   The reason why I make this distinction is exactly the issue in a big and intrusive government.  If conservatives force their will on others then they are acting the same as a big government.  The freedom to act liberals hold and the expectation of big government is one of the biggest hypocracies of the left, but we must be careful to be consistent.  If we force our views on others we are just the same as those who want a big government, even if our use of force is to seek a radically different goal.  It is the use of force that is the problem here, not the goal.
   Another aspect is the responsibility to accept the consequences of one's own actions.  This is a radical departure with the left, who typically says "its not your fault."  Well, it is often your fault and only when you see that and take action to make it right or to accept your punishment will you improve.  On the other end of the spectrum if you succed and do well you should reap your just rewards, and not share it with those who are in fault.  These ideas are the same.  But the concept does not stop there in this discussion.  Often, social conservatives get bent out of shape when people get hooked on drugs or alcohol or sex or whatever and ruin their lives.  It is hard to watch these people do these things, but they do them of their own accord and have made the choice themselves.  Rather than berating them for it, remember, they made the choices they made.  You didn't.  You don't have feel responsible or necessarilly do anything about it.  Of course, it is good to seek to be active in the rehabilitation of someone like that, but you cannot make them change to begin with.  They must make the choice that they want to change before you can do anything at all.  This is not to say you should not communicate with them the problems they are in, but you must do so in a way that is respectable, otherwise, you come across as forceful.
   Patience is perhaps the key a conservatism.  We must be patient and respectful to those who see the world differently.  And I just said, we cannot make anyone do or think anything different than they do right now short of communicating to them respectfully.  If we say it well, and live our lives like we should, they will see what is good.  But if we are impatient and forceful, heels will be dug in and nothing will be gained.  But we must persistent and patient, conservatives will succeed, but we cannot force the issue beyond  certain boundaries. 
   Those boundaries are that we must respect everyone's right to choose to live, the responsibility not to overly intrude, and must respect the consequences that come from their decisions.  Of course there are other issues involved.  For example, when a spouse is addicted to pornagraphy or an alcoholic, these issues affect the entire family.  You often must get deeply involved.  But in answer to that I would say that if the relationship is that close, you must act appropriately.  This pice is addressed to how social conservatives act to society at large.  Another point I would like to address is that I do not consider myself libertarian.  I call myself conservative because I do not think people should be left completely to their own devices and that rules should apply, though I grant that this idea has certain libertarian tendencies. 
   I also wnat to address how the battle is being treated on the left.  They seek to shift the issue and change terms to mean something that suites their agenda.  How do we address these things?  To follow the above advise, I think.  The more conservatives push, the more justified they will be, and the worse it will be for conservatives.  Stepping back, and letting them live out the choices they have the right to make will be the best way to make the point.  But we must let them suffer the consequences of their choices, otherwise, nothing will be gained.  We need good conservative lawyers and judges to aid in this, and I hope to contribute in some way to that end in a few years.   
   Conservatives for some time now have pushed their agenda in a way that has turned many off, earning the nickname fascist, close minded, evil, etc.  Conservatives should indeed stick to their guns on the social issues they feel strongly about, but be careful not to push too hard.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (25) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Faded Glory?

   I was walking through Wal-Mart the other day and noticed an interesting T-shirt.  In preparation for the 4th of July, one of Wal-Mart's brands created several types of patriotic shirts and other clothing items.  Many were you're typical mass produced and solidly pro-America items.  Even this particular shirt looked like that at first glance.  It was a map of the United States with a old sort of look to it, with the American flag filling in the map.  The shirt actually looked fairly nice.  But what struck me as interesting about this shirt was that it was by this brand of Wal-Mart clothing, Faded Glory.  There's nothing wrong with the brand, or the shirt, but on this shirt, they put the name of the brand underneath the map of the country.  So, beneath the map, colored with the flag, there is a caption saying "Faded Glory". 
   I couldn't help but think of how that short little caption advertising the name of a clothing company is so apt at describing our nation today.  "Faded Glory."  This nation was once proud and thriving.  Its people were once proud and strong, united on almost all points.  Sure, there have been times of great discord, and significant differences.  Heck, this very nation I speak of once fought a war against its own brothers.  There have been other times, as well.  However, for the most part, the people of the nation have worked together, and separately I might add, to make this a better nation and themselves better people.  This nation did thrive after the Civil War, and before, becoming the most important nation in the world.  Economically, politically, militarilly, socially, and even culturally this very nation led the world.
   But something has happened along the way.  We still retain great relevence abroad, but its tainted now.  In my short 32 years on this earth I do not know much of what the reality of the past said, but I do know that even in that time something is very different.  As we hit the fourth of July  in this 233 year of this nations existence, I can't help but think that its broken, maybe even beyond repair. 
   One of the uniting sentiments of generations past was hope.  This hope I speak of was of a brighter future.  Men and women would work hard, not because they wanted to, but because they had to and because they wanted a better future.  This better future was for them, and for their children.  Looking around, it is hard to see that same hope in my generation, and increasingly in those that follow. 
   These people have been brought up in such prosperity they've had whatever they wanted.  Cell phones, MP3's, new cars at 16, no jobs, nice new clothes, little harsh discipline, and I could go on for some time.  The bottom line is that they've never had it tough.  They've never had to work, and little is expected of them. From the home to school they've had it easy, I think.
   Many of these people now expect to live the same life they've always led, and expect it to come frome somewhere besides their own labors.  They certainly won't live less they they've become used to, and they've been tought that they deserve the best in everything, because we all have worth and we are all equal.  Therefore, they must retain their status quo even if circumstances around them change.  And since everyone is worthy and supposedly equal this attitude is only entrenched because they "deserve" what they "deserve". 
   These two attitudes, certainly not the only ones, combine to begin to fade the once proud colors of the red, white and blue flag in the map on that shirt.  Complacency, laziness, and an overly large sense of self worth will continue to fade those colors to black.
   There are myriad problems in this nation now.  Politically, economically, socially this nation faces struggles like it has never before seen on such a grand scale.  From the state of the teachers that teach our children at school to the images and messages found on TV (and I am not just talking about the smut), and from the news media organizations to the factions that seek to promote only their agenda, and from the intrusion of our government into our lives to sharp division between rural and urban areas, and every where in between, the problems exist. 
   But the biggest problem is not one of these.  The biggest problem is the attitude far too many people have towards themselves and this nation.  Their self serving desires, apathy to learn what gave them the prosperity they felt two years ago, and a lack of willingness to fix the problems themselves is the biggest problem. 
   Without adjusting this attitude, the glory will contine to fade.  And on this wonderful day, it is hard to get too excited.  Rather, it is really rather somber to those who love what this country was, not what it is becoming.  I don't like writing this piece, because this is still a great country.  It is not too late to turn back, but I fear that will not happen, not any time soon, not until that map is faded and cannot be made out any more.  The nation is becoming something hardly recognizable, and that is a shame.
   
Tags: 4th of July  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (15) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hellooooo Nurse!

Through finals and finding a rythm since school is done, and splitting time watching the boys, time with the wife, and working part time for school credit at the university, I am ready to go.  Ready to go where, I am not sure, but ready. 
 
Its time to catch up on the news and figure out the state of affairs.  It seems Obama and Co are set to make this a socialist nation, and it seems the GOP is finally getting a pair.  Obama is still Obama, learning on the fly.  Nancy dug herself into a hole, that I think she's still in.  Biden's becoming a liability/joke, and Gingrich is giving conservatives direction.  We have a new nominee for the SCOTUS who has a couple serious question marks.  Beyond that, I don't know much, and look forward to catching up soon. 
 
A quick reflection on this past school year.  First, I survived.  I survived a move, a lonely wife, two kids who need a daddy and a very demanding curriculum.  I tried my best to give each party, because I think family is the most important thing in anyone's life.  Spouses need each other, and little boys need loving parents.  Law school requires a lot of attention and dedication, and it was difficult to fit everything in.  Did I do it well, I don't know.  I can come back to school next year, though I certainly am not top of the class.  My kids still like me, and so does my wife (I think).  I am still in the game, and that is good.
 
Since learning about the law, it has changed how I approach politics.  My beliefs are the same, as are the things I'd like to see happen in society.  But approaching the process to achieving them has changed.  I hope this will come out in future writings.  One thing I have learned is that although there is always a right answer and a wrong answer, the decision will often simply come down to who make the better argument concerning past decisions and existing statutes.  This argument will often include appeals to emotion and policy.  Depending on the judge sitting on the bench, the emotion can play a huge role (a reason why I am concerned that the new SCOTUS nominee may not be the best choice, if she makes her decisions on her experiences). 
 
Anyway, I hope to come back with a vengeance, and look forward to catching up with everyone's work.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (13) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A New E-Mail from DNC

Sorry to all those to whome I have not replied or visited, which is pretty much everyone as of late.  Finals push...
 
But here is another email from the DNC.  I do not like the smell of this...  Reeks of things to come.  And it looks like folks there are trying hard to "normalize" high taxes.
 
"Dear...

Earlier this week, President Obama announced a bold set of proposals to crack down on overseas tax havens and encourage job creation at home.

While hard working Americans pay our fair share, some of the largest, most powerful interests exploit tax loopholes that actually reward companies for creating jobs overseas and allow them to use tax shelters to avoid paying their rightful share.

To see the difference between your approach and theirs, check out our new Tax Fairness Calculator.

You can enter what you earn, find out what the average American owes on that amount, and then see what you could pay if you were a multi-national corporation. Try it out!

See what you could pay

Warning: Using this tax calculator may fill you with an irresistible urge to fix this broken system. Fortunately, that's exactly what we can do -- if we act together.

The special interests will fight hard for the status quo, and their lobbyists are already swarming in Washington. Now we have to stand up and show how much support the President's proposals really have out here in America.

After you use the Tax Fairness Calculator, please add your name to our public declaration saying that you stand behind the President's plan for tax fairness and job creation.

Try the calculator and add your name now:

http://my.barackobama.com/TaxCalculator

These proposals are a key part of the President's plan to get our economy back on track, and it's time for us to stand up and help make it happen. Working together to make our country a fairer, more prosperous place is the reason we built this movement.

Thanks so much,

Mitch

Mitch Stewart
Director
Organizing for America"

Donate
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (8) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Democratic Letter

I received the following email today from the Democratic Party.  Some time ago I had signed up to get emails so I could see what they are putting out.  I don't follow most, but this caught my eye.  See if you can figure out why...
"Dear...

Have you ever had a guest who overstayed his welcome and wondered, "why is he still here?"

After some of his recent interviews, former Vice President Cheney has shown that he clearly doesn't know when to pack it in.

In just the last week, he's gone on national television in an effort to tear down President Obama's agenda -- saying the President's economic programs will be "devastating to our society" and that his foreign policy makes us seem "weak" to the rest of the world.

I don't know about you, but I think it's time for him to stop sniping from the sidelines and let President Obama usher in the changes Americans demanded after eight years of Cheney's disastrous policies. That's why I want Cheney to go back home to Wyoming, and why I want you to help me get him there.

Will you help pay for Cheney's bus fare? A one-way ticket from Washington, DC to Jackson, WY costs $202 -- will you chip in to help us buy one for him?

Make a contribution: Send Cheney home

Normally, when a Vice President leaves office with a disastrous legacy and the support of less than one quarter of the public, I'd expect him to keep out of the spotlight.

But with the Republican "Party of No" out of ideas and without any new leaders to provide real solutions, failed leaders like Dick Cheney and Karl Rove have once again taken the helm of the GOP.

While President Obama has been working to tackle America's biggest issues, Cheney has been busy bashing the President in nationally-televised interviews -- warning about a "vast expansion of the deficit" and agreeing with Sean Hannity that the President is "naive."

This all from a man who after eight years in office left the country with two wars, a sky-rocketing deficit, rising unemployment, and an unprecedented financial meltdown.

If there's one person who should understand the crucial need to get this country back on track, it should be the man who took it so disastrously off course -- but he doesn't seem to get the message.

That's why we need to help him off the national stage and back home to Wyoming. Please take a look at the itinerary we put together and then chip in to get him on a Greyhound bus out of town:

https://www.democrats.org/CheneyBus1

Thank you for your help,

Jen

Jen O'Malley Dillon
Executive Director
Democratic National Committee "
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (25) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What Would Happen if Several States Seceded?

I was watching some of the protests briefly tonight between strudy sessions, but this question occurred to me: what would the liberals do if states seceded from the nation tomorrow? 
 
I mean, really, what would they do?  Raise an army and invade Virginia?  Bomb an island fort off the coast of Texas?  Certainly not from recruiting stations from Berkeley.
 
Might they stick some lawyers on those states and say you can't do that?  More likely, but this is a pretty funny response. 
 
Seriously, I don't know exactly what NY, VT, CA, or MA would do, but I do know it would be a lot of talking, and little action.  Police might be called, and the national guard, too.  But any use of force from the United States on the new nation(s) would go against so much of what the liberals in charge stand for and they would be discredited from the start.  I would think they would know this and act appropriately.
 
Might they work to keep the people from organizing their new nation?  Maybe, but again, such restriction would go against everything they supposedly stand for.
 
Might they libel and slander those leaving?  Absolutely.  That goes without saying.  But so what?
 
I know there are those who say it is illegal to secede, and there may well be laws on it.  There are inferrences in the Constitution, but who cares?  I do not intend to be flippant about the Constitution, but there is a simple proposition to uphold-- if the Constitution is broken and can't be fixed, throw it out.  If others want to keep it, fine, but there is nothing, except the desire for a unified nation, that suggests a state that doesn't want to be a part of it that they have to stay.
 
There is also another proposition to uphold, something liberals love to talk about, we all have a choice.  Naturally, the choice I speak of is much more fundamental than the one they like to talk about.  I speak of a choice to act or to not act.  Everything we do entails at least a chocie between two options.  Even when backed into a corner do we have a choice:  We can fight, or we can cave in. 
 
And we now have at least two choices-- we can fight the liberals to defeat the current governmental trends of expanding the national government at the expsense of the soveriegnty of the state governments, in direct affrontation to the 10th Amendment.  The 10th Amendment states:  "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibted by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."  A second choice is to give in and give up our rights.  A third is to leave it all behind and re-establish the spirit of the Constitution in a new government because Obama, Nancy, Harry and Co. are putting the final nails in its coffin.
 
What will they do?  Of course they will do everything they can to keep it from happening.  If a group successfully leaves their nation it will show them to be failures.  They will spin it that radicals who were against freedom left to create an intolerant and close minded nation.  But to those who care about what the Constitution actually says, the Constitution will be upheld. 
 
I quoted the 10th Amendment above.  It says two things about the powers not delegated in the Constitution.  First, it says the powers not delegated in the Constitution are to be given to the states, and second, if not to the states, to the people.  It is also important to recognize the context of the 10th Amendment.  It is part of the Bill of Rights, that was promised to be voted on after the ratification of the Constitution.  Anti-federalists, those more focused on states rights and wary of a strong national government and the Constitution, wanted them passed to ensure certain freedoms would not be infringed.  The 10th Amendment was a part of these protections that led to the ratification of the Constitution and specifically sought to protect the sovereignty of the states by limiting the federal governments powers by stating what is not in here is entrust to the states and the people.  The 10th Amendment was arguably the area of biggest tension at the Constitutional Convention-- establishing a viable nation while protecting the sovereignty of the states in a time when being from VA was more important than being an American.
 
It is arguable that the Constitution did imply certain powers to the federal government, but these are limited, and now through something known as the rational basis test, Congress has close to a blank check to do what they want.  Basically, the rational basis test states that if a law has a reasonable purpose and the law reasonably helps that purpose be reached, it will be allowed.  This, and under the excuse of implied powers, the federal government has just about rendered the 10th Amendment useless.  It has taken the states rights from them, and the people.
 
After all of that, you may be wondering what that has to do with my thought earlier?  If the spirit of the Constitution has been killed, the document has been murdered.  Some like to talk of a living and breathing document, but in their putting life into it, they have killed what was originally intended to be.  Therefore, it is dead. 
 
And this brings in the discussion of choice.  To those who think we live under a dead document, we have a choice-- to try to resuscitate it or to leave it behind and recreate somewhere else.  Either may work, but in the event the latter is chosen, what can be done to stop it?
 
A final point, many revolutionaries thought there should be a revolution every twenty five years or so.  They wanted them to keep government pure.  I am not necessarilly advocating revolution or secession, but if that is true, we are long over due.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (239) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama-- Our Star In Chief

Off the top of my head, what has President Obama done since being in office?  Besides the normal filling a cabinet, which he had a difficult time with, I am not sure.  I know he addressed Congress in his pseudo-State of the Union speech, but I am not sure what else he has done to govern.  What I do know is that he has given at least two prime time interviews, appeared on Leno, given several speeches to garner support for his policies, and held an online townhall meeting, this on top of his egregiously showlike campaign.
 
People have said that he is still campaigning.  Yes, I agree with that.  I feel he has not really gotten out of campaign mode.  But to me, its become even more fundamental than him constantly campaigning.  Rather, it looks as if he is so intent on being the star that its like governing is an after thought. 
 
Is anyone else as bothered by this precedent as I am?  Does it not raise questions as to how seriously he takes the position?  Does it not show that he may not care about us as much as he led on?  Is it possible that he's more concerned with what people think of him than he is about the state of the economy or the war?  I think to answer these questions, a simple yes would suffice. 
 
I write this open enough to know that we are but 60 days into his four year term.  A lot can happen in that time.  But his early precedent is disturbing as to where his priorities are.  Are they with the country?  Or are they to glorify his name?  He may have done some things I am not aware of.  As a first year law student, there is much I miss out on.  I do know he seeks to put more troops in Afghanistant, and that he supports the stimulus.  But it is fascinating how the first thing I remember, and probably most of the nation, is that he has appeared on Leno and a few other TV spots.  Actually, more people probably know he was on Leno than  his thoughts on Afghanistan or what is in the stimulus, or his failed attempts to fill the Cabinet.
 
It does bother me that Obama is doing so much to cater to and thus encourage this mass stupidity than he is holding up the job of President of the United States.  It bothers me that so many seem to buy it hook, line and sinker.  Sooner or later, when they see nothing coming from the Oval Office, they will wake up and see they've been had.  They've been had by a man too arrogant to care about anything else except seeing his face on TV, and those smiling faces staring back up at him.  How long will the star last?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (89) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Race and Legislating Morality

I just finished reading Grutter v. Bollinger (539 US 306, 2003).   As I read the majority opinion in this sharply divided case as written by Justice O'Connor, I couldn't help but think of the criticism often thrown against conservatives for wanting to legislate morality. 
 
For those who may not be familiar with Grutter, it was the 2003 case at the University of Michigan Law School that allowed it to continue with its amorphous affirmitive action admissions policy that essentially gave 'points' for being a minority, where such a classification was a 'plus' to their candidacy.  This, it was argued by the university, supported the goal to allow a 'critical mass' of minority students. 
 
I do not want to critique the opinion itself, but rather wish to use it as an example of the left's hypocritical stance on legislating morality.  As conservatives, we have all heard the critique that you cannot legislate morality.  However, it occurred to me while reading this case that this is exactly what the left does when they try to legislate various initiatives to reach equality in society.
 
Despite the argument that such measures, similar to what UM instituted, give opportunities to the disenfranchised and also force different racial groups together in order to break down barriers, they seek to force on people and idea that only one way of life is correct.  Now, I do not wish to say that I think racism of any kind is good, for it is not, but my immediate objection is indicative of why the measures in actuality legislate morality.  Morality is something that someone holds true as a way of life, and if the government is dictating that it is wrong to live a life in a given way, it is legislating morality.
 
Personally, I think it is natural and unavoidable that government do so, because government should be reflective of what society deems the appropriate way to live.  Thus, I have no strong objections to government stating, for example, that marriage should be between a man and a woman.  I also do not necessarily strongly advocate for that position coming from our government, instead, I think it must first be a decision on a personal level.  So it is with discrimination-- I think it first ought to be a matter of the heart of the individual, not coming down from a governmental imposition.
 
Of course, it must be ceded that a big difference between what the right seeks to legislate and what the left seeks to legislate is based on 'progress' and 'equality'.  But even in admitting these differences does little to change the problems with the criticism coming from the left.  To start with, who does not want to progress and who does not want equality for all?  Sure, we can point to the radicals on either side, but that is fruitless and I will not talk about it here.  It is the vast majority of rational thinkers that grant these two ideas.  However, defining progress and how to achieve equality get us immediately into the realm of morality. 
 
Progress to me is to focus on what got us where we are in the first place, thriving on the principles of virtue, hard work, and responsibility, all driven by faith in a Creator who rewards such behavior.  This is vastly different than many people out there.  To me, equality is only achieved when people recognize others for who they truly are, regardless of any percentage or number, and is only seen when people see with their hearts, not their eyes.  This may be the end goal of the liberals who espouse legislating equality, but they never state how we will get out of the circle, nor when.  O'Connor in Grutter stated that in 25 years "racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the itnerest approved today."  Amazingly absent is a discussion of how that will happen, and it relies on an expectation that people will forget the benefits they recieve from such legislative policy. 
 
I hope she is right, but I must state that such a goal is a moral goal, and allowing such affirmitive action provisions to continue, is just as moral as seeking to legislate that only men and women can marry.  As I close, I thought of but one more difference between these goals-- only one is universally accepted.  For who really objects to the idea that whites, blacks, and any other group is truly more or less capable than another?  So, why do we need Congress or the Supreme Court to tell us that this is so?  Possible answers exist, but that I will leave for another time.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (36) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Has Obama Already Failed?

There has been much broo-ha-ha over Rush Limbaugh's comments that he wants Obama to fail.  I say the Dems are playing an obvious game that anyone with half a brain should see through.  Of course, it is probable that most of Americans either don't have half a a brain, or just don't want to use it.  But that's another story.
 
I wonder, though, if Limbaugh is already going to be rejoicing, because I wonder if Barrack Obama, the man who came promising the world on a magic carpet, has already failed.  Lets look at a few things: his ego, his treatment of the media, his delegation, his failures to unite, failure to fill various positions, his thoughts on Gitmo, his other "new" personell choices, and probably most importantly-- the economy.  After all of that, I will raise a simple question, too-- based on these failings, is he even running the show?
 
First, his ego has already been shown to be large.  We knew this from before he was elected, though it has only become more manifest since his inauguration.  He doesn't take kindly to those who disagree, and he has certainly trumped himself up. 
 
Second, he has already shown disdain for the media, cutting them out of much of the process and showing favoritism to those who share certain thoughts...  The attack on Limbaugh is indicative of this tendency, but it goes even farther and closer to the White House.  He is already calling the shots on what will be presented through the 4th branch of government.
 
Third, he has delegated quite a bit.  The stimulus bill is a good example-- he basically seems to have told Congress to go at it, and come back to him with a good plan.  There are other examples, and the results have been less than what the public expected.  Congress is not willing to play the same game he is, yet he is staying out of the firing range.
 
Fourth, he has not united Congress.  At best, it remains as staunchly divided as it was before he took office.  I'd actually say that the GOP will be more vocal and be less willing to comprimise now than before.  At the same time, the Dems will certainly be less willing to work with the GOP since they have less to lose by sticking to their guns.  And because Obama is staying out of the fight, he is doing nothing to bring folks together, beyond saying people should do so.  He is not involved enough to make that happen.
 
Fifth, he has had trouble filling various positions, most notably Commerce Secretary.  In fact, some of his nominees have only called into question his wisdom and trust.  By them failing to pay taxes (not just one), his decisions and appointments have really called into question his decision making abilities. 
 
Sixth, his rush to judgment on Gitmo really is interesting.  He pretty much immediately says we are closing it down in one year, but when asked what he would do with the prisoners, the response is aking to "I dunno."  And unless things have changed, he as having trouble finding alternatives- other nations didn't want them, either.  And then when his advisors go check it out, the response is actually that these guys are treated pretty darn well.  Go figure.
 
Seventh, how much new blood has he brought in?  I think it is well documented how many Clinton holdovers he has, who certainly do not indicate change is a comin'.
 
Finally, the economy.  Isn't interesting how it has not stabilized like most thought since he took office?  Heck, even I held out hope for it to find some bottom and stay there pretty quickly after a) his election and b) after his inauguration.  We have seen a market that is anything but stable, and the bottom continues to drop.  We were just at a 12 year low.  I hate to put something on a president specifically, as to be fair, he typically has limited influence.  But this is different, I'd say.  Businesses are scared and confused as exactly what this man might do to them.  The market reflects this uncertainty, and I think it is fair to place much of the blame on the new president for creating this fear.
 
So, what does all this mean?  It means we have a president who doesn't seem like he knows what he is doing, and that is full of empty promises.  It means he really is an empty suit.  OK, he may well pull things together and save the nation.  But that looks like a distant dream. 
 
Here's why: people rarely change.  Obama has shown some character traits that are likely to dominate his term as president.  His ego and short leash on those who disagree with him are not likely to go away.  He will rush to decisions again, and he will allow Congress to act so he can wash his hands over their policy mistakes.  Despite his lofty rhetoric, he has not instituted an ounce of change, and likely will not attempt to bring it any more than he has.  And despite the rhetoric, he will not be able to change the conservative movement against him (something Bush experienced going the other way). 
 
So, through all of this, I really wonder how much Barack Obama is truly calling the shots.  I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I think he is heavilly influenced by his most trusted advisors.  I think many in the Democratic party saw early on a dynamic candidate and a person who could draw a crowd-- to his credit, Obama is a great speaker.  They found someone who perfectly fit the mold as a change candidate-- a "black" man with a Harvard education who came from a poor background, who could speak of unity like few others, and who had no problem bringing attention to himself or doing whatever he needed to win. 
 
And I think they, as much as him, will drive decisions in the White House.  They got him there (I don't think he could have done it without the likes of Axelrod), and they will continue to pull strings.  A great example is the current outcry against Limbaugh.  They cater to the portion of our population who either does not care, or who doesn't know enough to care.  I do think everything has been calculated to this group, and my bet is that when they start to see who they really elected, they will turn.
 
So, do I know that he has already failed?  No.  There is no way to know.  But I think he's heading that direction.  Rush Limbaugh, you may well get your wish.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (24) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Test of Federalism?

In the next few weeks, months, and years, the United States of America has an important agenda on its hands.  This agenda is to push the limits of the Federalist system our government was set up under.  We will get to see its flexibility or lack thereof.  We will get to see if it can withstand the advances in technology that has in many ways made our nation smaller.  We will test the limits of free speech in ways yet unseen.  Perhaps more importantly, we will test the wisdom of those who stepped back from the limitations our Founders put on who could participate the most in our Republican Democracy.
 
What is the situation?  We have a new president who swept into office with promises of hope, accountability, and change.  The promises made by this president carry with them policies and legislation that will push the limits of our system.  This is because they will greatly expand the reach of the federal government in ways never before seen.  The budget, for instance, has already been exanded eponentially beyond previous levels, but there are other changes that will follow that will also cause trouble-- the ability of states to act on their own, the freedom of speech that has acted as a 4th branch of government will likely be restricted, and the responsibility to act on one's own behalf will be trimmed as well.
 
The test of Federalism will come not only in how the public reacts, but how our representatives at all levels of government respond to the expansion of the national government.  Also, I would expect, there to be important cases decided by our courts that will aid in determining the ultimate scope and outer limits of these governmental expansions. 
 
This article will not address how these will come to pass, as those topics are essays (perhaps books) in and of themselves.  But they will happen, at least these battles should happen.  They are brought up as a warning to those who care about our nation, for we are at a cross-road. 
 
The cross-road will not determine the fate of the nation, for it will go on.  But it will determine the type of nation it will be well into the future.  For, the people that pave the path can succomb to the pressure brought by hope and change, or they can overcome the temptation to blindly follow these lofty and idealistic, but hardly realistic, goals.  The decision to follow the emotionally uplifting sentiments of the trend and its easy intellectual foundation will conflict with the seemingly harsh realities that accompany the more logical and time tested policies that made this nation great. 
 
The cross road will require those who are willing to withstand the onslaught of new policies designed to bring people together and uplift all (without, of course, stating how that is to be done, or more importantly, when is it accomplished), to speak critically, loudly, but rationally.  It will require those willing to stand up to act at home and enforce the separation of powers our founders intended to work against the evils of an intrusive national government. 
 
I suspect many things brought by the new president will face challenges due and guaranteed under our Federalist system.  It was desigend to do exactly that-- protect against non-virtuous men and a Federal government that intrudes too much into our lives.  Part of the brilliance of the system is flexibility, but certainly, our founders thought there were limits to that.  Here, we will begin to really see what those really are.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (49) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12345678Next »