Last week I published my endorsements for various offices. Among those was my endorsement for former US Army MAJ and current Sheriff of Pinal County, AZ, Paul Babeu for Arizona's 4th US Congressional District.
I stood by Paul Babeu despite an outcry over his "coming out" as gay. I do not see homosexuality as a detractor from leadership ability. I have several gay family members. One of them has remained in a monogamous relationship for over a decade. I know heterosexual marriages, with kids, that haven't lasted that long. I am friends with a gay couple that has been together even longer. They remain devoted to each other. All of the above have rather conservative values regarding how people should be treated, fiscal policies, government intervention, and the like. Granted, most of them lean more towards the Libertarian Party than GOP.
I endorsed Babeu based upon his policies and his platform. He has been a sheriff in Arizona and understands the needs of the people. He understands, and has been on the front lines, regarding crimes committed by illegal immigrants, "coyotes", drug smugglers and illegal arms smugglers. He has been involved in investigations and raids of locations the housed sex-slaves and their slavers. I have seen the ill effects of human trafficking and sex-slavery around the world. The fact it happens here in the US is appalling.
Paul Babeu stands for many of the same things I believe.
After he came out, I stood with him, still. In my eyes he is still the same person who has been a great sheriff for Pinal County and stood with Cochise County for many issues that affect our border areas. His being a former Military Officer actually solidified that support.
Now, that very fact is among the reasons I withdraw that endorsement and support.
Yes, you read that correctly. I RETRACT that support.
Sorry, Paul, but these latest allegations end it.
I have looked into the allegations concerning the DeSisto School.
I don't care if you ended up having an affair with a former student, if no longer a student at the time of the relationship. I am friends with many of my former teachers, professors, and military instructors. I also keep in touch with many of my former students. I am engaged to one of my former students. Our personal relationship began well after she graduated. However, Paul, if he was your student at the time of the affair, as your sister alleges, that crosses a line with me. However, your sister's words are suspect as even your niece thinks she is a little, shall we say, looney. So, the jury is out on those allegations.
The DeSisto school was set-up as a special environment with stricter discipline for "troubled" teens that had "some talent". I translate that to mean it was a school used as a "last chance" to keep kids from making one of those life-changing decisions that would have put them on a path of decadence rather than prosperity. These kids likely had discipline problems and behavioral issues. They may have needed a stricter environment to help them see a better way to live.
I do not like some of the policies at the school Some of them I think may have gone too far, though I agree with them in a limited scope. For example, "Cornering" is nothing more than putting a kid in the corner. It is just a version of what, today, we call "Time Out". It is altered to work on older children using ostracizing. However, if continued for more than a reasonable time, it is not effective and does turn from discipline to abuse. That duration is still up to speculation. However, more than 8 hours is probably excessive. 14 hour sessions for days on end goes beyond excessive.
Utilizing other students to assist in strip searches is a little overboard. I can see using another student as a witness to insure no sexual abuse takes place as a good policy protecting both the students and the cadre. However, having students search each other is unacceptable.
I have no issues with group showers. We had group showers after PE when I was in HS. There was no sexual abuse. Abuse would be more likely in private showers where cadre could enter private stalls without oversight. There should have been adequate oversight to prevent any such abuse.
The "farm" also doesn't bother me. It teaches that a work ethic equates to survival and enjoying individual liberty. However, more than a day or two is excessive. It would be best served as something done on weekends, primarily.
"Sheeting" I do disagree with. I have never been a fan of the "dunce cap". This takes that practice to a new and abusive level.
But the school's policies are not what have me withdrawing support. I suspect that many of these "horror stories" from former students are just "sour grapes" for having made decisions that led to their attending the school. I suspect they are "sour grapes" these students hold for making decisions to take actions that required some level of discipline. So, I do suspect many of these allegations are greatly exaggerated. However, I do suspect some amount of abuse did occur, regardless.
I pull my support because Paul Babeu was the headmaster at the school. He was a leader. I pull that support because, while he may not have participated in the abuse or condoned it, he let it happen. If he was complicit, as the investigation alleges, then he is not the leader I thought him to be. If he was complacent, that is just as bad. It means he was negligent in his duties to make sure such abuses didn't happen, and to do his best to mitigate, prevent, or report them. If Paul Babeu releases a statement that he attempted to end such practices, then he failed as a leader because he was ineffective in stopping it.
Paul Babeu is vocal on Eric Holder's role in the "Fast and Furious" scandal. I have stated that if Eric Holder knew about "Fast and Furious" he is guilty of covering it up. He is guilty of facilitating drug cartels that are directly linked to terrorist groups that are at war with our country. If the truth is that Eric Holder was not wholly aware of "Fast and Furious" until after Brian Terry was murdered, then he is, at a minimum, guilty of criminal negligence. Paul Babeu has echoed many of my statements.
So, given the alleged abuses of the DeSisto School, Paul Babeu holds the same pecuniary responsibility concerning the activities at the school under his watch as Eric Holder concerning "Fast and Furious".
This alleges hypocrisy. These allegations concerning the DeSisto School are grave. Babeu can deny involvement and innocence regarding the abuses. He probably is. My problem is that there is no evidence he did a damned thing to stop it. Any good he did at the school is undermined by the actions of the cadre there. Just as leaders involved with Abu Garaib in Iraq are held responsible for the actions taken by the rogue MPs, because those leaders failed to keep those MPs from committing those abuses; Paul Babeu is responsible for any abuses that did occur at the school during his tenure. It was his job to keep lines from being crossed. He failed. Even if the abuses prove exaggerated, he failed to promote the truth. It doesn't matter if he was investigated by authorities or not.
Sheriff Babeu, I hope these allegations prove to be false. I hope you the best in your career. I hope you are vindicated. I hope all the good work you have done in Arizona isn't undermined by these events. However, at this time, I can no longer support your bid as a US Congressman. I do hope you prove me wrong.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Thursday, February 23, 2012
The Time Of Choosing: This is Who I Endorse
Over the past several months we have watched candidates come and go. The vetting process has weeded out several possibilities including a few some of us would have liked to see continue.
In the Presidential GOP Primary, right out of the gate, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels declined to run. I know several people who still mourn his decision, though the residents of the state of Indiana should not be among them, as they have retained a great leader. I prefer Governor Jan Brewer from Arizona. However I am a little biased.
In local, state, and US Congressional races we have also seen information revealed on carious candidates. Again, some we liked found their ways to the sidelines while others remain.
I will admit that I have not kept the best vigilance on races outside of Arizona. The very few I have followed have been some of the best new members of the house. For example, in Michigan's 3rd CD there is a whiz-kid named Justin Amash. Representative Amash has stood strong on the tenets of fiscal conservatism, responsible spending, national defense, and limited government. Yes, he is one of the "Tea Party Freshmen". In his 13 months in office, he has done well. I endorse him for a second term.
In Florida there is a great leader. His name is LTC Allen West. Again you find a strong supporter of our Military Service Members. Rep. West also stands for fiscal conservatism as well as Legislative Conservatism. "Legislative Conservatism" is a term I use to describe a legislator who prefers limited government intervention in individual lives and liberty. Some may call that "Social Conservatism". However, voting against increased regulations on "farm dust" is not a social issue. It is not, directly, an economic or fiscal issue. It is a bureaucracy versus liberty issue. Rep. West is another among those hailed by the "Tea Party".
I also endorse any GOP or Libertarian candidate that can send Debbie Wasserman-Shultz of Florida back into the private sector to be victim of the very "social reforms" she championed, at least until the damage can be undone. And her name is Karen Harrington. I endorse her. So does Mark Levin, so she's in good company.
That same sentiment goes for Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Waxman (whose face was the base model for the Orcs in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy), Sheila Jackson-Lee (the bane of Houston, TX), and Maxine Waters. I will damn near kiss the feet of any conservative who sends the above packing.
Not only is this going to be a key election year for the US House, and a stiff battle to retain control for the GOP, but the US Senate races are what will make or break this country. Since 2010, the bare Democrat majority in the Senate has managed to block every attempt for this government to act fiscally responsible in a way that will allow the economy to recover. Those acts passed by the Senate, particularly those between 2009 and 2011, actually stagnated any growth.
There are 8 seats held by Republicans that need to be retained. Among them is Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts. Given the state he represents, he has done a fabulous job. I encourage his state to retain him in office for another term.
While Barbara Boxer may arguably be the more reported US Senator from California, Diane Feinstein is the senior of the two. Not only has she entrenched in the US Senate through multiple terms, her voting record demonstrates a primarily statist partisan leaning. She and Boxer have both assisted in damaging the Citrus Orchards in California by rationing irrigation water to the detriment of farmers and their employees. California has one of the most abysmal economies in the country. Businesses are migrating out of the state to Texas, Nevada, and Arizona. While that is good news for the unemployed in Arizona, it is bad news for the state of California. Elisabeth Emken is the GOP candidate opposing Feinstein's bid for re-election. Ms. Emken has long advocated patients' rights. She understands the medical and social concerns of parents of autistic children. She supports less government involvement, a balanced budget, repealing PPACA (Obamacare). She also supports reducing regulations and taxes on California business owners which will bring commerce back to California. That will enhance the economy of the entire Southwest Region of the United States.
In Arizona we have a key Senate Race for Sen. Kyl's seat as he retires. I like a lot of what Jeff Flake has done in his political career. However, I have a small issue with voting for a man named "Flake" from a town named "Snowflake". In all seriousness, he'd make a good senator. However, My endorsement goes to his GOP opponent, Wil Cardon. Wil has two major drawbacks. His first is "inexperience". However, his time as a business owner and his links to the people of Arizona mitigate that lack of legislative experience with a fresh outlook where it is greatly needed. His second drawback goes with the fresh outlook. Mr. Cardon looks like he is fresh out of high school. However, you shouldn't let that "Opie Cunningham" (yes, I realize I just blended two different characters played by Ron Howard) "apple pie face" keep you from focusing on the issues. Cardon stands for strong border security, legal immigration, halting illegal immigration, and doing what is needed to allow businesses to run themselves. He has watched the federal government interfere and restrict productivity and free trade.
While I am on the topic of Arizona, I mentioned two US House of Representatives candidates I endorsed. The first is SFC (ret) Frank Antenori. Frank served in the AZ House, then in the AZ Senate. Among his accolades include several veterans programs, SB 1070, Arizona Concealed Carry Laws (pro-2nd Amendment), a balanced budget, Fiscal Conservatism, and strong views on border security & illegal immigration. I could go on for days about Frank, a retired US Army Special Forces NCO. Some people already have heard me do so.
In Arizona's 4th CD, there is a man who has brought a lot of controversy recently. I have been approached and asked if my mind has changed. No it has not. I plan to write a whole article on the reasons. I still strongly endorse and support MAJ Paul Babeu, the former US Army Office, OIF Vet, and current Pinal County Sheriff. Paul has stood strong with Sheriff Joe Arpaio for more freedom in border states' rights to assist in controlling the border. Babeu also stands for strong measures against illegal aliens and the drug & sex smugglers among them. Sheriff Paul knows that Islamic Extremists of many ethnic backgrounds invade among those border jumpers. As somebody who has fought against them first hand in Iraq, he understands the threat they pose. Paul Babeu is also pro-2nd Amendment. He will say that armed, law-abiding citizens defending their own lives, properties, and families represent a key line in defending this nation and maintaining our liberty. Law abiding citizens legally carrying concealed firearms also present a great deterrent to crime.
Paul Babeu has "come out" as gay. So what? His views are still conservative. He is still a patriot and a war hero. He was gay when he served honorably. He was gay when he did his great work as Sheriff of Pinal County. Nothing has changed. He is still the same man. I endorse him fully.
Now we get to the heart of the matter. I am sure everybody is waiting with bated breath on who I support for President of the United States.
If you have read this far, I congratulate you on your patience.
On February 22, 2012 the Arizona GOP hosted the 20th GOP Primary debate. This may be the last debate of the season, though there are rumors two of the remaining debates may not be canceled.
I scored the debate with 5 possible points per question with any rebuttals and redirects granted + or - points for each. That gave 70 possible points for the questions. I also awarded bonus points based upon standing in the polls & number of delegates already acquired. I then awarded points based upon "face time". I ranked audience response for some additional points. Finally, I gave points for staying on topic and sticking to key points of their platforms. So, the overall total points possible was 100.
Here is how they did:
Rick Santorum: 82 points.
Mitt Romney: 73 points.
Ron Paul: 69 points. The subjects of Iran and Syria sunk him.
Newt Gingrich: 87 points.
I have heard numerous arguments on why so-in-so is "not electable". The banter came to a point that I looked up the word "electable" in order to see what everybody meant. To quote a line from The Princess Bride, "I do not think this word means what you think it means". "Electable" simply means that the person is capable of holding the office, legally, and performing the duties of that office if elected. Guess what? All four remaining GOP candidates ARE electable. All four of them would do a far better job than Barack Obama.
With the backing of the GOP, all four of them (even Ron Paul) stand a great chance against Obama. United, any of the four could win. The fight will be for conservatives to get out on the streets and get independents to the polls to vote. That is the fight. The majority of eligible voters in this country are sick of Obama. This election will come down to an electoral fight, not a popular one.
I have heard people say they would stay home if one of these guys or another got the nomination. I am among them. I will admit that Ron Paul's foreign policy, myopic view of international relations, and lack of interest in the Intelligence Community scare me. But his fiscal views are great. I also like his take on individual rights. Despite my reservations, if he got the nomination, I would vote for him as the lesser of two evils. But he will NOT get my endorsement.
Rick Santorum has some good views. I think his tax policy still retains too high a rate. I also worry about some of his religious views which do not match with mine. I am more for religious freedom than being preached to by a politician. But I will say, among these four, he is my second choice. His major drawback is that I do not hear, from him, enough about individual and state liberties. I see Mr. Santorum of more like Nixon than like Reagan. I also think he lacks sufficient knowledge about supply-side economics.
I have heard much rhetoric about Willard "Mitt" Romney being the champion who can bring the "independent" vote. However, he is the one candidate who seems to have the least views on anything. Most of the campaign, he has spent time knocking down every other candidate's views, then adopting the pieces of them that the people seem to like. He changes his mind on these issues like most people should change their underwear. To be honest, I hear Bill Clinton more than I hear Ronald Reagan when Willard speaks. I am not a huge fan of the Clinton years. The only good things to come out of Clinton's dynasty were those shoved down his throat by congress with Newt Gingrich at the helm of the House. However, I will take Clinton over Obama any day. Willard is more conservative than Clinton was on his best day. He is not a bad choice. However, after nearly 5 years of his campaigning, I still do not know what he stands for. In that, he is a poor communicator and a poor executive. He'd get my vote if he got the nomination. But he is, by far, not the best choice of the four.
Sorry Ann Coulter, but I think your crush on him is more about hormones than about the issues. Again, that draws a parallel to Clinton who I heard women say they voted for because "He's such a charming and handsome man".
After 20 debates, numerous speeches, reading several books, doing much research I am endorsing the candidate who I think will be best for America. I endorse Newt Gingrich.
Chuck Norris endorsed Newt after a lot of deliberation. If you read his articles up to and including his endorsement, you will see why Chuck did so. My reasons fall in line with many of Chuck's.
Art Laffer endorsed Newt Gingrich. Art Laffer is the brain behind the "Laffer Curve" and the leading mind in supply-side economics. Supply-Side economics largely involve getting the government out of private business and allowing the market to prosper. Those policies lead to greater federal revenue and a more prosperous nation.
Last night's debate cinched it for me. Newt mentioned the 10th Amendment several times. He got back to the basics of his message and platform. For more details, you need to read his books. His plans are simple. The analysis of how they would work is detailed and historically validated.
Newt is the only one I have heard invoke the Federalist Papers, John Locke, Montesquieu, and Toqueville in the debates.
Herman Cain was my first choice, because of his fiscal policies and his plan to segue towards The Fair Tax. Newt's program is similar and a more responsible segue.
Newt is the only one with a common sense approach to immigration reform to include securing the borders, drastically reducing illegal immigration, and promoting legal immigration. Governor Jan Brewer stated that Newt had the best plan of the four, though she has not yet endorsed any of the candidates. Governor Rick Perry, another border-state governor, has endorsed Newt. I live on the border. Border issues go hand in hand with crime and economy here.
Newt has a large Tea Party backing. I am a huge fan of the three tenets of the Tea Party.
I am all for education reform and putting the responsibility and power into the hands of the parents. I am for local and state governments having larger roles than the federal government. I have watched union member comprachicos indoctrinate kids for too long. I have had to teach High School graduates who don't even know the preamble to the US Constitution or the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address. Newt's education policies go in line with the 10th Amendment, reduce the influence Marxist-Socialists have on our children, and allow parents to have more of a say in the raising of their children. It does NOT take a village or a tribe. It take a mother and a father!
Newt's energy policy makes sense and puts Americans back to work producing for themselves. We should make OPEC compete for our dollars in exchange for their oil, not the other way around.
Newt has been involved in the defense department and military affairs on several levels. He is a student of history. Any Intelligence Analyst or Tactician will tell you that studying history and patterns goes a long way in preparing to fight a future battle, if necessary. Newt is a military brat. He knows the life military families lead. He is also a huge supporter of the VA and veterans' issues.
There you have it. I endorse Newt Gingrich for the Republican Party Nomination.
In the Presidential GOP Primary, right out of the gate, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels declined to run. I know several people who still mourn his decision, though the residents of the state of Indiana should not be among them, as they have retained a great leader. I prefer Governor Jan Brewer from Arizona. However I am a little biased.
In local, state, and US Congressional races we have also seen information revealed on carious candidates. Again, some we liked found their ways to the sidelines while others remain.
I will admit that I have not kept the best vigilance on races outside of Arizona. The very few I have followed have been some of the best new members of the house. For example, in Michigan's 3rd CD there is a whiz-kid named Justin Amash. Representative Amash has stood strong on the tenets of fiscal conservatism, responsible spending, national defense, and limited government. Yes, he is one of the "Tea Party Freshmen". In his 13 months in office, he has done well. I endorse him for a second term.
In Florida there is a great leader. His name is LTC Allen West. Again you find a strong supporter of our Military Service Members. Rep. West also stands for fiscal conservatism as well as Legislative Conservatism. "Legislative Conservatism" is a term I use to describe a legislator who prefers limited government intervention in individual lives and liberty. Some may call that "Social Conservatism". However, voting against increased regulations on "farm dust" is not a social issue. It is not, directly, an economic or fiscal issue. It is a bureaucracy versus liberty issue. Rep. West is another among those hailed by the "Tea Party".
I also endorse any GOP or Libertarian candidate that can send Debbie Wasserman-Shultz of Florida back into the private sector to be victim of the very "social reforms" she championed, at least until the damage can be undone. And her name is Karen Harrington. I endorse her. So does Mark Levin, so she's in good company.
That same sentiment goes for Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Waxman (whose face was the base model for the Orcs in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy), Sheila Jackson-Lee (the bane of Houston, TX), and Maxine Waters. I will damn near kiss the feet of any conservative who sends the above packing.
Not only is this going to be a key election year for the US House, and a stiff battle to retain control for the GOP, but the US Senate races are what will make or break this country. Since 2010, the bare Democrat majority in the Senate has managed to block every attempt for this government to act fiscally responsible in a way that will allow the economy to recover. Those acts passed by the Senate, particularly those between 2009 and 2011, actually stagnated any growth.
There are 8 seats held by Republicans that need to be retained. Among them is Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts. Given the state he represents, he has done a fabulous job. I encourage his state to retain him in office for another term.
While Barbara Boxer may arguably be the more reported US Senator from California, Diane Feinstein is the senior of the two. Not only has she entrenched in the US Senate through multiple terms, her voting record demonstrates a primarily statist partisan leaning. She and Boxer have both assisted in damaging the Citrus Orchards in California by rationing irrigation water to the detriment of farmers and their employees. California has one of the most abysmal economies in the country. Businesses are migrating out of the state to Texas, Nevada, and Arizona. While that is good news for the unemployed in Arizona, it is bad news for the state of California. Elisabeth Emken is the GOP candidate opposing Feinstein's bid for re-election. Ms. Emken has long advocated patients' rights. She understands the medical and social concerns of parents of autistic children. She supports less government involvement, a balanced budget, repealing PPACA (Obamacare). She also supports reducing regulations and taxes on California business owners which will bring commerce back to California. That will enhance the economy of the entire Southwest Region of the United States.
In Arizona we have a key Senate Race for Sen. Kyl's seat as he retires. I like a lot of what Jeff Flake has done in his political career. However, I have a small issue with voting for a man named "Flake" from a town named "Snowflake". In all seriousness, he'd make a good senator. However, My endorsement goes to his GOP opponent, Wil Cardon. Wil has two major drawbacks. His first is "inexperience". However, his time as a business owner and his links to the people of Arizona mitigate that lack of legislative experience with a fresh outlook where it is greatly needed. His second drawback goes with the fresh outlook. Mr. Cardon looks like he is fresh out of high school. However, you shouldn't let that "Opie Cunningham" (yes, I realize I just blended two different characters played by Ron Howard) "apple pie face" keep you from focusing on the issues. Cardon stands for strong border security, legal immigration, halting illegal immigration, and doing what is needed to allow businesses to run themselves. He has watched the federal government interfere and restrict productivity and free trade.
While I am on the topic of Arizona, I mentioned two US House of Representatives candidates I endorsed. The first is SFC (ret) Frank Antenori. Frank served in the AZ House, then in the AZ Senate. Among his accolades include several veterans programs, SB 1070, Arizona Concealed Carry Laws (pro-2nd Amendment), a balanced budget, Fiscal Conservatism, and strong views on border security & illegal immigration. I could go on for days about Frank, a retired US Army Special Forces NCO. Some people already have heard me do so.
In Arizona's 4th CD, there is a man who has brought a lot of controversy recently. I have been approached and asked if my mind has changed. No it has not. I plan to write a whole article on the reasons. I still strongly endorse and support MAJ Paul Babeu, the former US Army Office, OIF Vet, and current Pinal County Sheriff. Paul has stood strong with Sheriff Joe Arpaio for more freedom in border states' rights to assist in controlling the border. Babeu also stands for strong measures against illegal aliens and the drug & sex smugglers among them. Sheriff Paul knows that Islamic Extremists of many ethnic backgrounds invade among those border jumpers. As somebody who has fought against them first hand in Iraq, he understands the threat they pose. Paul Babeu is also pro-2nd Amendment. He will say that armed, law-abiding citizens defending their own lives, properties, and families represent a key line in defending this nation and maintaining our liberty. Law abiding citizens legally carrying concealed firearms also present a great deterrent to crime.
Paul Babeu has "come out" as gay. So what? His views are still conservative. He is still a patriot and a war hero. He was gay when he served honorably. He was gay when he did his great work as Sheriff of Pinal County. Nothing has changed. He is still the same man. I endorse him fully.
NOTE: 29 FEB 2012 I HAVE RESCINDED MY ENDORSEMENT OF PAUL BABEU.
READ HERE TO SEE WHY .
READ HERE TO SEE WHY .
Now we get to the heart of the matter. I am sure everybody is waiting with bated breath on who I support for President of the United States.
If you have read this far, I congratulate you on your patience.
On February 22, 2012 the Arizona GOP hosted the 20th GOP Primary debate. This may be the last debate of the season, though there are rumors two of the remaining debates may not be canceled.
I scored the debate with 5 possible points per question with any rebuttals and redirects granted + or - points for each. That gave 70 possible points for the questions. I also awarded bonus points based upon standing in the polls & number of delegates already acquired. I then awarded points based upon "face time". I ranked audience response for some additional points. Finally, I gave points for staying on topic and sticking to key points of their platforms. So, the overall total points possible was 100.
Here is how they did:
Rick Santorum: 82 points.
Mitt Romney: 73 points.
Ron Paul: 69 points. The subjects of Iran and Syria sunk him.
Newt Gingrich: 87 points.
I have heard numerous arguments on why so-in-so is "not electable". The banter came to a point that I looked up the word "electable" in order to see what everybody meant. To quote a line from The Princess Bride, "I do not think this word means what you think it means". "Electable" simply means that the person is capable of holding the office, legally, and performing the duties of that office if elected. Guess what? All four remaining GOP candidates ARE electable. All four of them would do a far better job than Barack Obama.
With the backing of the GOP, all four of them (even Ron Paul) stand a great chance against Obama. United, any of the four could win. The fight will be for conservatives to get out on the streets and get independents to the polls to vote. That is the fight. The majority of eligible voters in this country are sick of Obama. This election will come down to an electoral fight, not a popular one.
I have heard people say they would stay home if one of these guys or another got the nomination. I am among them. I will admit that Ron Paul's foreign policy, myopic view of international relations, and lack of interest in the Intelligence Community scare me. But his fiscal views are great. I also like his take on individual rights. Despite my reservations, if he got the nomination, I would vote for him as the lesser of two evils. But he will NOT get my endorsement.
Rick Santorum has some good views. I think his tax policy still retains too high a rate. I also worry about some of his religious views which do not match with mine. I am more for religious freedom than being preached to by a politician. But I will say, among these four, he is my second choice. His major drawback is that I do not hear, from him, enough about individual and state liberties. I see Mr. Santorum of more like Nixon than like Reagan. I also think he lacks sufficient knowledge about supply-side economics.
I have heard much rhetoric about Willard "Mitt" Romney being the champion who can bring the "independent" vote. However, he is the one candidate who seems to have the least views on anything. Most of the campaign, he has spent time knocking down every other candidate's views, then adopting the pieces of them that the people seem to like. He changes his mind on these issues like most people should change their underwear. To be honest, I hear Bill Clinton more than I hear Ronald Reagan when Willard speaks. I am not a huge fan of the Clinton years. The only good things to come out of Clinton's dynasty were those shoved down his throat by congress with Newt Gingrich at the helm of the House. However, I will take Clinton over Obama any day. Willard is more conservative than Clinton was on his best day. He is not a bad choice. However, after nearly 5 years of his campaigning, I still do not know what he stands for. In that, he is a poor communicator and a poor executive. He'd get my vote if he got the nomination. But he is, by far, not the best choice of the four.
Sorry Ann Coulter, but I think your crush on him is more about hormones than about the issues. Again, that draws a parallel to Clinton who I heard women say they voted for because "He's such a charming and handsome man".
After 20 debates, numerous speeches, reading several books, doing much research I am endorsing the candidate who I think will be best for America. I endorse Newt Gingrich.
Chuck Norris endorsed Newt after a lot of deliberation. If you read his articles up to and including his endorsement, you will see why Chuck did so. My reasons fall in line with many of Chuck's.
Art Laffer endorsed Newt Gingrich. Art Laffer is the brain behind the "Laffer Curve" and the leading mind in supply-side economics. Supply-Side economics largely involve getting the government out of private business and allowing the market to prosper. Those policies lead to greater federal revenue and a more prosperous nation.
Last night's debate cinched it for me. Newt mentioned the 10th Amendment several times. He got back to the basics of his message and platform. For more details, you need to read his books. His plans are simple. The analysis of how they would work is detailed and historically validated.
Newt is the only one I have heard invoke the Federalist Papers, John Locke, Montesquieu, and Toqueville in the debates.
Herman Cain was my first choice, because of his fiscal policies and his plan to segue towards The Fair Tax. Newt's program is similar and a more responsible segue.
Newt is the only one with a common sense approach to immigration reform to include securing the borders, drastically reducing illegal immigration, and promoting legal immigration. Governor Jan Brewer stated that Newt had the best plan of the four, though she has not yet endorsed any of the candidates. Governor Rick Perry, another border-state governor, has endorsed Newt. I live on the border. Border issues go hand in hand with crime and economy here.
Newt has a large Tea Party backing. I am a huge fan of the three tenets of the Tea Party.
I am all for education reform and putting the responsibility and power into the hands of the parents. I am for local and state governments having larger roles than the federal government. I have watched union member comprachicos indoctrinate kids for too long. I have had to teach High School graduates who don't even know the preamble to the US Constitution or the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address. Newt's education policies go in line with the 10th Amendment, reduce the influence Marxist-Socialists have on our children, and allow parents to have more of a say in the raising of their children. It does NOT take a village or a tribe. It take a mother and a father!
Newt's energy policy makes sense and puts Americans back to work producing for themselves. We should make OPEC compete for our dollars in exchange for their oil, not the other way around.
Newt has been involved in the defense department and military affairs on several levels. He is a student of history. Any Intelligence Analyst or Tactician will tell you that studying history and patterns goes a long way in preparing to fight a future battle, if necessary. Newt is a military brat. He knows the life military families lead. He is also a huge supporter of the VA and veterans' issues.
There you have it. I endorse Newt Gingrich for the Republican Party Nomination.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Proof That Statism is a Mental Disability?
Today I wish I were more of an Ann Coulter fan. There are times she says things that I cheer on. Other times there are things that make me wish she'd get her fact straight and take a class in sentient logic. Yes, there are times that libertarians and conservatives will disagree with each other. However, I know Ann wrote (and has stated in various media outlets) that "liberalism" is a "mental disorder". Ann is not the only person I have heard make that statement. I am not even sure if she is the author or if she quoted somebody else. However, I would love to cite her right now. Perhaps someone who is a more avid fan will enlighten me.
The topic of today is not how much of a fan of Ann Coulter I am. It is, again, unemployment figures and government subsidies.
I wrote an article praising charity in a free-market environment. I support many charities and do quite a bit of volunteer work. My fiancee is on the board of one charitable Non-Profit Organization. I am an unpaid, elected volunteer officer in another. Based upon its definition, charity is only charity if it is freely given. If it is taken unwillingly through the use of force, it is theft.
It has become rather apparent to anybody with a little common sense and knowledge of basic math that the U3 scale unemployment numbers released by the US Department of Labor are false. They are skewed to the point of fraud. There are people who have been out of work longer than the 99 weeks of unemployment subsidies. After that time period expires, they are considered no longer part of the work force, even if they are still actively submitting their resumes, attending job fairs, and even making it as far as being one of 25 interviewed for a single job opening. Those people, if not "on unemployment", are still not counted as part of the labor force. So, those published statistics come from a faulty sample population.
Now, it can be debated on whether or not I am among the unemployed. According to the U3 I have not been for over 24 years. I retired from the military last August. As of August 1st, 2011, I have not been employed. I do some freelance work from time to time. It pays very little and sometimes costs me more to do it than I make. Because I retired and receive a pension, I am not unemployed per the U3 system. So, despite my paycheck less than half of what I made while active duty, I cannot apply for unemployment subsidies. I paid into those subsidies for over 24 years.
That is where things get muddled. If deemed "unemployed", a person can apply for and receive an unemployment subsidy check for 99 weeks. That is almost two years. Some people pay into the unemployment fund. But almost 30% of those receiving those unemployment subsidy checks never paid in a cent. That means that those working and paying taxes are paying, currently, for those who never contributed. If some "progressive" (read: Marxist-Socialist) wants to bring up the concepts of "fair share" and "equal pay" right now, go ahead. I will agree that things are not equitable or fair. Those who never contributed should not steal from those who did.
But here we move towards the latest development. When they reach that 100th week unemployed, people are filing for disability compensation from social security. Among those disability claims is an increase to 43% of claimants filing for disability compensation due to, get this, MENTAL DISABILITY! That is right, $200 Billion a year in claims for MENTAL DISABILITY!
By and large, most of these people filing for this disability compensation are socialists. They must be if they believe that society owes them compensation for their disability. And the claims are for intangible injuries of being mentally disabled.
If I had an actual mental disability, I would be outraged. Wait, I do have such a disability called PTSD. I was injured (PTSD is an injury, not an illness) defending this country. Yes, the citizens of the US do owe me some form of compensation. However, I don't receive any, currently. Yes, I am OUTRAGED that lazy moochers who never served this country believe that they are owed compensation for mental illnesses. I guess laziness and desire to be taken care of by the nanny-state (being a socialist) actually IS a Mental Disorder. The government handing these people a compensation check for that mental illness just proves Ann Coulter's statement is correct.
No, I am not poking at those with legitimate mental disorders. People who received head injuries at work do deserve some compensation from their employers. Those with legitimate mental disabilities should receive some form of charity or assistance. I know a few who are willing and able to do work on some level. I have friends who did work until their legitimate mental health problems made it near impossible for them to do so. These are the people that should be insulted by the socialist moochers and leeches filing for disability when their unemployment hand-outs run out.
I do not like the social security system. I support individual accounts where you earn dividends based upon contributions. These days, it is a Ponzi scheme. The payments I make to social security (yes, social security payments still come out of my military pension check), go to my father and other people over 65 who are retired. They do not go into my personal account. it is my money, but it goes to other people. That is not how the system was sold to the American people.
My largest grief is that the money I pay into social security, at the barrel of a gun (forced by the government), is going to those who paid far less into it than I have. There are those in their 20s who worked a whole couple of years that are now claiming a disability. They receive social security payments far greater than their contributions. You add this latest statistic and the blatant government-endorsed, fraudulent claims for mental disabilities that are unfounded as a means to continue receiving a form of government subsidy beyond the subsidized 99 weeks, and you have rampant socialism at work. I oppose socialism. These people demonstrate what is wrong with socialism. The few are forced to support the many. Eventually, most will have nothing.
This is the desire of the left. They want an oligarchy of their chosen few to tyrannically rule over the many. These fraudulent subsidy claimants just further those insipid plans.
So there you have it. The government has now approved socialism and liberalism as a "mental disorder", and is compensating people who have it by stealing from those who wish to work, produce, trade, and achieve.
The topic of today is not how much of a fan of Ann Coulter I am. It is, again, unemployment figures and government subsidies.
I wrote an article praising charity in a free-market environment. I support many charities and do quite a bit of volunteer work. My fiancee is on the board of one charitable Non-Profit Organization. I am an unpaid, elected volunteer officer in another. Based upon its definition, charity is only charity if it is freely given. If it is taken unwillingly through the use of force, it is theft.
It has become rather apparent to anybody with a little common sense and knowledge of basic math that the U3 scale unemployment numbers released by the US Department of Labor are false. They are skewed to the point of fraud. There are people who have been out of work longer than the 99 weeks of unemployment subsidies. After that time period expires, they are considered no longer part of the work force, even if they are still actively submitting their resumes, attending job fairs, and even making it as far as being one of 25 interviewed for a single job opening. Those people, if not "on unemployment", are still not counted as part of the labor force. So, those published statistics come from a faulty sample population.
Now, it can be debated on whether or not I am among the unemployed. According to the U3 I have not been for over 24 years. I retired from the military last August. As of August 1st, 2011, I have not been employed. I do some freelance work from time to time. It pays very little and sometimes costs me more to do it than I make. Because I retired and receive a pension, I am not unemployed per the U3 system. So, despite my paycheck less than half of what I made while active duty, I cannot apply for unemployment subsidies. I paid into those subsidies for over 24 years.
That is where things get muddled. If deemed "unemployed", a person can apply for and receive an unemployment subsidy check for 99 weeks. That is almost two years. Some people pay into the unemployment fund. But almost 30% of those receiving those unemployment subsidy checks never paid in a cent. That means that those working and paying taxes are paying, currently, for those who never contributed. If some "progressive" (read: Marxist-Socialist) wants to bring up the concepts of "fair share" and "equal pay" right now, go ahead. I will agree that things are not equitable or fair. Those who never contributed should not steal from those who did.
But here we move towards the latest development. When they reach that 100th week unemployed, people are filing for disability compensation from social security. Among those disability claims is an increase to 43% of claimants filing for disability compensation due to, get this, MENTAL DISABILITY! That is right, $200 Billion a year in claims for MENTAL DISABILITY!
By and large, most of these people filing for this disability compensation are socialists. They must be if they believe that society owes them compensation for their disability. And the claims are for intangible injuries of being mentally disabled.
If I had an actual mental disability, I would be outraged. Wait, I do have such a disability called PTSD. I was injured (PTSD is an injury, not an illness) defending this country. Yes, the citizens of the US do owe me some form of compensation. However, I don't receive any, currently. Yes, I am OUTRAGED that lazy moochers who never served this country believe that they are owed compensation for mental illnesses. I guess laziness and desire to be taken care of by the nanny-state (being a socialist) actually IS a Mental Disorder. The government handing these people a compensation check for that mental illness just proves Ann Coulter's statement is correct.
No, I am not poking at those with legitimate mental disorders. People who received head injuries at work do deserve some compensation from their employers. Those with legitimate mental disabilities should receive some form of charity or assistance. I know a few who are willing and able to do work on some level. I have friends who did work until their legitimate mental health problems made it near impossible for them to do so. These are the people that should be insulted by the socialist moochers and leeches filing for disability when their unemployment hand-outs run out.
I do not like the social security system. I support individual accounts where you earn dividends based upon contributions. These days, it is a Ponzi scheme. The payments I make to social security (yes, social security payments still come out of my military pension check), go to my father and other people over 65 who are retired. They do not go into my personal account. it is my money, but it goes to other people. That is not how the system was sold to the American people.
My largest grief is that the money I pay into social security, at the barrel of a gun (forced by the government), is going to those who paid far less into it than I have. There are those in their 20s who worked a whole couple of years that are now claiming a disability. They receive social security payments far greater than their contributions. You add this latest statistic and the blatant government-endorsed, fraudulent claims for mental disabilities that are unfounded as a means to continue receiving a form of government subsidy beyond the subsidized 99 weeks, and you have rampant socialism at work. I oppose socialism. These people demonstrate what is wrong with socialism. The few are forced to support the many. Eventually, most will have nothing.
This is the desire of the left. They want an oligarchy of their chosen few to tyrannically rule over the many. These fraudulent subsidy claimants just further those insipid plans.
So there you have it. The government has now approved socialism and liberalism as a "mental disorder", and is compensating people who have it by stealing from those who wish to work, produce, trade, and achieve.
Monday, February 13, 2012
An Era of Indoctrination
In September of 2011, a teacher in San Antonio, TX brought his students to a TEA Party run town hall meeting. His entire intent was to "demonstrate free speech" by getting up in front of the panel and call them racists and Nazis. Given that this man teaches "Government", you would think he knows the differences between National Socialism and the limited-government ideals set up by our US Constitution. His actions and words demonstrated quite the opposite. He also demonstrated that he doesn't teach. He uses his classroom to indoctrinate his students in his political ideology: Socialism. I wrote a article about this event shortly after it was publicized.
I oppose indoctrinating school-aged children in political ideology. They should be taught the tenets of all of the different forms of government in an unbiased fashion. If any bias is given, it should be to the philosophies behind the establishment of our Constitutional Republic. Why? The answer is simple: That is the history of OUR country. It explains what our founders considered most important. It demonstrates how we became the nation we are. It is not really a bias. It is American History. It is not indoctrination.
In less free countries around the world, such as North Korea, school children are forced to sing and chant, praising their current and past tyrants. In Germany between 1933 and 1938, German Children were forced to chant and sing in praise of Adolf Hitler. In China, children are taught to sing in praise of Chairman Mao, another tyrant who wished to be worshiped by the youth of their nation.
During the years of the Bush Administration, could you imagine the public outcry if your school kids had come home singing songs praising President Bush or Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld? Public school teachers would have gone on strike if such a directive was handed down by school administrators. During "Black History Month" during the first four years of that administration, did kids sing in praise of Secretary of State, General (ret) Colin Powell? No, it didn't happen.
However, the socialist comprachicos are at it yet again. They are teaching your kids songs to praise the candidates and politicians the socialists within teachers' unions want you to vote for. They are indoctrinating the kids to believe that the failed ideologies of socialism are what "right looks like", and against the system of government our country adopted in 1789. This is in hopes of molding the kids' minds and thoughts to what they want your kids to think, and depriving them of the proper faculties of reason and critical thinking. They wish to insure that critical thinking does not include or automatically rejects the basic tenets of the Federalist Papers and the writings of Locke, Montesquieu, Paine, Madison, Franklin, and Jefferson.
Again, in a state long viewed as a bastion of conservative thought and love of Constitutional Republicanism, the state of Texas, the comprachicos are again hard at work. For "black history month", kindergarten students at Tipps Elementary School in Houston,TX are being forced to learn a chant in praise of President Obama. It is a campaign song, without a doubt:
The school is now claiming that students were sent home with permission slips, and only 25 were returned with parents granting permission. I wonder if those 25 will now be granted special favors for their compliance.
This indoctrination of our kids is not new. Since 2009, Mark Humphrys has documented numerous times public school students were brainwashed into worshiping Obama as though he is some form of deity.This is repulsive. Among our founding colonists was William Penn and the Quakers. Remember, that group was persecuted because they refused to bow and remove their hats to any man, including the English king. The state of Pennsylvania (means "Penn's Woods") is named for them. That is the spirit out country was founded with, not one that worships elected officials as gods.
Now, I will not claim that the comprachicos are choosing states such as Texas, Georgia, and other largely conservative states. I just have eyes on a couple of them. It so happens that the two largest examples I have written about have taken place in Texas. I have also seen such indoctrination in Arizona schools. However, if these efforts indeed are higher in more conservative states, it makes sense. Those are the places that the socialist indoctrination machine need to work harder in. They need to overcome the parental influence in morals, values, and liberty. Those values and morals have a stronger foothold in the more conservative states. So, how do the socialists win the future to succeed in destroying our Republic? Simple, they brainwash the kids of those more conservative areas so they are not so conservative when they reach voting age.
If you don't think that these faux-educators, these indoctrinating comprachicos believe that they know what is best for your kids more than their parents, watch the video below. Debbie Squires of the Michigan Principals' Association (or some similar socialist group name) tells you flat out that is what they believe. She is one of the comprachicos:
The Carolina Journal reports that schools there are now inspecting lunches brought from home, forcing parents to pay for replacement meals if they don't like what you packed for your child. This is nothing less than a form of indoctrination and the government forcing parents, at the barrel of a gun, to give up their parental rights to the nanny-state. It is a theft of individual liberty, yours and your child's.
The next logical step is our Pledge of Allegiance being changed to an oath of fealty to Marx, Engels, Hobbes, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ailinsky, Castro, Chavez, and, yes, Obama. If it comes to that, I think I'll stand up and sing Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA" or this song by the rock band Madison Rising:
I oppose indoctrinating school-aged children in political ideology. They should be taught the tenets of all of the different forms of government in an unbiased fashion. If any bias is given, it should be to the philosophies behind the establishment of our Constitutional Republic. Why? The answer is simple: That is the history of OUR country. It explains what our founders considered most important. It demonstrates how we became the nation we are. It is not really a bias. It is American History. It is not indoctrination.
In less free countries around the world, such as North Korea, school children are forced to sing and chant, praising their current and past tyrants. In Germany between 1933 and 1938, German Children were forced to chant and sing in praise of Adolf Hitler. In China, children are taught to sing in praise of Chairman Mao, another tyrant who wished to be worshiped by the youth of their nation.
During the years of the Bush Administration, could you imagine the public outcry if your school kids had come home singing songs praising President Bush or Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld? Public school teachers would have gone on strike if such a directive was handed down by school administrators. During "Black History Month" during the first four years of that administration, did kids sing in praise of Secretary of State, General (ret) Colin Powell? No, it didn't happen.
However, the socialist comprachicos are at it yet again. They are teaching your kids songs to praise the candidates and politicians the socialists within teachers' unions want you to vote for. They are indoctrinating the kids to believe that the failed ideologies of socialism are what "right looks like", and against the system of government our country adopted in 1789. This is in hopes of molding the kids' minds and thoughts to what they want your kids to think, and depriving them of the proper faculties of reason and critical thinking. They wish to insure that critical thinking does not include or automatically rejects the basic tenets of the Federalist Papers and the writings of Locke, Montesquieu, Paine, Madison, Franklin, and Jefferson.
Again, in a state long viewed as a bastion of conservative thought and love of Constitutional Republicanism, the state of Texas, the comprachicos are again hard at work. For "black history month", kindergarten students at Tipps Elementary School in Houston,TX are being forced to learn a chant in praise of President Obama. It is a campaign song, without a doubt:
The Barack Obama Song
Who is our 44th President?
Obama is our 44th President
Who is a DC resident?
Obama is a DC resident
Resident, President
Obama is our 44th President
Who is a DC resident?
Obama is a DC resident
Resident, President
Who’s favorite team is the Chicago White Sox?
Obama’s favorite team is the Chicago White sox
Who really thinks outside the box?
Obama really thinks outside the box
Outside the box, Chicago White Sos
Resident, President
Obama’s favorite team is the Chicago White sox
Who really thinks outside the box?
Obama really thinks outside the box
Outside the box, Chicago White Sos
Resident, President
Who really likes to play basketball?
Obama really likes to play basketball
Who’s gonna answer our every call?
Every Call, Basketball
Outside the box, Chicago White Sox
Resident, President
Obama really likes to play basketball
Who’s gonna answer our every call?
Every Call, Basketball
Outside the box, Chicago White Sox
Resident, President
Who’s famous slogan is Yes we can?
Obams’s famous slogan is Yes we can
Who do we know is the man?
Barack Obama is the man
He’s our man, Yes we can!
Every Call, Basketvall
Outside the box, Chicago White Sox
Resident, President
Who won a grammy for “Dreams of my Father”?
Obama won a grammy for “Dreams of my Father”?
Now can you guess who’s a famous author
Barack Obama is a famous author
Obams’s famous slogan is Yes we can
Who do we know is the man?
Barack Obama is the man
He’s our man, Yes we can!
Every Call, Basketvall
Outside the box, Chicago White Sox
Resident, President
Who won a grammy for “Dreams of my Father”?
Obama won a grammy for “Dreams of my Father”?
Now can you guess who’s a famous author
Barack Obama is a famous author
Famous Author, Dreams of my Father
He’s our man, Yes we can!
Every Call, Basketball
Outside the box. Chicago White Sox
Resident President
He’s our man, Yes we can!
Every Call, Basketball
Outside the box. Chicago White Sox
Resident President
Who wants to go to college at Yale?
Malia & Sasha will go to college at Yale
Who’ll make sure they won’t fail?
Barack & Michelle know they won’t fail
Malia & Sasha will go to college at Yale
Who’ll make sure they won’t fail?
Barack & Michelle know they won’t fail
They won’t fail, they’re going to Yale
Famous Author, Dream of my Father
He’s our man, Yes we can!
Famous Author, Dream of my Father
He’s our man, Yes we can!
Every Call, Basketball
Outside the box, Chicago White Sox
Resident, President
Continue reading on Examiner.com
The school is now claiming that students were sent home with permission slips, and only 25 were returned with parents granting permission. I wonder if those 25 will now be granted special favors for their compliance.
This indoctrination of our kids is not new. Since 2009, Mark Humphrys has documented numerous times public school students were brainwashed into worshiping Obama as though he is some form of deity.This is repulsive. Among our founding colonists was William Penn and the Quakers. Remember, that group was persecuted because they refused to bow and remove their hats to any man, including the English king. The state of Pennsylvania (means "Penn's Woods") is named for them. That is the spirit out country was founded with, not one that worships elected officials as gods.
Now, I will not claim that the comprachicos are choosing states such as Texas, Georgia, and other largely conservative states. I just have eyes on a couple of them. It so happens that the two largest examples I have written about have taken place in Texas. I have also seen such indoctrination in Arizona schools. However, if these efforts indeed are higher in more conservative states, it makes sense. Those are the places that the socialist indoctrination machine need to work harder in. They need to overcome the parental influence in morals, values, and liberty. Those values and morals have a stronger foothold in the more conservative states. So, how do the socialists win the future to succeed in destroying our Republic? Simple, they brainwash the kids of those more conservative areas so they are not so conservative when they reach voting age.
If you don't think that these faux-educators, these indoctrinating comprachicos believe that they know what is best for your kids more than their parents, watch the video below. Debbie Squires of the Michigan Principals' Association (or some similar socialist group name) tells you flat out that is what they believe. She is one of the comprachicos:
The Carolina Journal reports that schools there are now inspecting lunches brought from home, forcing parents to pay for replacement meals if they don't like what you packed for your child. This is nothing less than a form of indoctrination and the government forcing parents, at the barrel of a gun, to give up their parental rights to the nanny-state. It is a theft of individual liberty, yours and your child's.
The next logical step is our Pledge of Allegiance being changed to an oath of fealty to Marx, Engels, Hobbes, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ailinsky, Castro, Chavez, and, yes, Obama. If it comes to that, I think I'll stand up and sing Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA" or this song by the rock band Madison Rising:
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Is Right to Work a Union Laborer's Best Bet?
Recently, the "Right to Work" debate has gained in intensity. Unions attempt to block RTW legislation as legislation and referendums in various states seem to push for RTW laws and amendments to be enacted.
Governor Scott Walker came under fire for restricting collective bargaining of state government workers, proposing they take an active role in contributing to their own benefits, such as pension funds and insurance policies. However, the laws he lobbied for and saw passed by his state cut the state's budget deficit dramatically and bolstered the state's economy in this recession. This improved things in both the public and private sectors for employers and individual citizens. However, one of the most vocal segments against these laws was the teachers' union. That demonstrated that the union is more out for itself than for the teachers and the students, who benefit more from Gov. Walker's plan.
It is obvious that the reason that unions detest RTW policies is that they don't like prosperity, individual freedom, and what is best for the workers. They want power and to push a Marxist or Ailinsky based ideology in an attempt to control the government and the economy. They want the economy to fail. They want the workers dependent upon them instead of self-sufficient. That is a grievous departure from the intended purposes of their conception.
Their support of socialist agendas becomes obvious in their support of policies that further federal intervention into people's lives and the "common man's" dependency upon government subsidies. If you have read my past essays here and here, you know my thoughts on why these are bad. There are experts far smarter than I who can give even more reasons why these subsidies are economically a poor idea. Even the "Occupy" crowd sees the subsidies given to chosen oligopolies as unacceptable. The Heritage Foundation released a study that shows under the current administration the "common man" is 23% more likely to be subsidized by federal funds. That is an affront to individual liberty. It is an attack against individual responsibility and merit. It tells our individual workers that they are incapable of thinking or doing for themselves. Yet many of these unions take portions of the dues paid to them by their members and use them to support socialist-leaning politicians and to lobby for these socialist programs. That is counter-productive.
In many cases, these donations are forced. The unions twist their clients' (the workers/members) arms and force them to give to these lobbyist groups and other organizations, even if the members wish to employ their individual rights to not do so. Michele Malkin produced this piece that contains many complaints from union members being strong-armed into donations and use of their dues to support causes and political agendas its members don't necessarily agree with. It includes an SEIU member talking about the abuses, including his "raise" just turning into higher union dues payments.
Anybody who has done any amount of real study and research into the founding principles of our great nation knows that the Declaration of Independence, The Federalist Papers, and the US Constitution are founded upon the philosophies of Aristotle, Locke, and others who believed in prosperity through individual inalienable rights to prosper on their own merits and acumen. They also know that our economic structure is historically based upon the theories of Adam Smith.
Free Market Capitalism, its benefits, and the prosperity it generates are lauded in the works of more modern economists such as Art Laffer, Stephen Moore, and Milton Friedman.
Unions in America originated in an effort to create a "labor market". Their origins were very capitalist in nature. They sought to organize skilled workers into companies that provide a necessary capital, an inherent service to employing companies. Organized, the workers could, in theory, bargain with the production and manufacturing companies as a supplier. The idea was to use the laws of supply and demand to come to an agreed upon market price. It makes sense. Labor is as much capital as the raw materials used to manufacture a product. Companies negotiate using the laws of supply and demand as well as basic free-market trade to find a mutually beneficial contract for those suppliers to sell their product, raw materials such as steel, wood, plastic, oil, machinery, etc. to the client -- the manufacturing company. In that aspect, the unions became just another supply company. The product supplied was human capital, otherwise known as the service of a labor force.
Free market trade such as the spirit that formed the unions in the first place should also allow for those smaller suppliers to attempt to compete for those contracts. In human capital, the smallest supplier is the individual worker. The competition of the individual, non-union laborer is beneficial to all, including the union workers. It promotes a better product (labor) and allows the market to generate better contracts for those "labor supply companies" i.e. unions.
If unions really cared about providing that better product for a more prosperous compensation (wages and benefits), they would embrace Right to Work. Of course, the union administrators want a monopoly that can control the companies they supply as well as their members. However, the members themselves would prosper more from RTW. Why? It's simple. If RTW amendments are passed in a state, the unions would have to sell themselves to the individual laborers. They would have to step up and actually provide benefits to the workers above what the individual workers could provide for themselves through personal investments into those benefits or an employer providing matching funds as part of those benefits.
The union members need to really look and ask "what is the union doing for me? What services do they provide for my dues that make them worth the cost?". If the workers were FREE to ask those questions, the unions would have to compete to supply a bigger bang for their clients' bucks. This would enable the unions to actually provide competitive services to the workers and actually BENEFIT the workers. It would enable the workers to concentrate more on the service/products they produce. That would make the companies employing them more productive and prosperous. Then the end-clients, the consumers paying for those end-products, would get a better product or service for their money. Many of those consumers are the individual laborers themselves. So, everybody benefits. It makes sense. Nobody does anything for free. It's human nature. Everybody does things to fill their own needs, desires, aspirations. We call that "the Pursuit of Happiness".
How does this apply to teachers' unions? Well, first ask what the products the individual teachers provide are. The products are the students, the graduates, the youth of our great nation, who represent our future prosperity. The unions want their cut of government funds. They don't want the cut to improve education. they want it to use to influence politics. They want it to line their own pockets. they want it to further Marxist ideologies through the comprachicos they brainwashed. They do not care about better education supplies and facilities. And they really do not care about teachers' salaries, though they use those to force/bribe teachers to step in line with the unions' agendas. It's why charter schools and private schools provide a better product (students, graduates) to the clients: parents and the country at large. If the teachers' unions in the public education system had to compete with non-union teachers in the public system, they would spend more time concentrating on providing better services to their members and less time on things that have no bearing on education. Then the teachers would actually see real benefits coming from the unions. They would have a product to sell for those union dues instead of extorting educators for high dues. Educators may actually see a benefit in union membership versus having to pay for an invented illusory necessity.
RTW laws and amendments bring unions back to their free-market roots. They increase prosperity for end-clients, consumers, unions, and workers alike. That is why laborers should (and many do) support RTW in their states.
Governor Scott Walker came under fire for restricting collective bargaining of state government workers, proposing they take an active role in contributing to their own benefits, such as pension funds and insurance policies. However, the laws he lobbied for and saw passed by his state cut the state's budget deficit dramatically and bolstered the state's economy in this recession. This improved things in both the public and private sectors for employers and individual citizens. However, one of the most vocal segments against these laws was the teachers' union. That demonstrated that the union is more out for itself than for the teachers and the students, who benefit more from Gov. Walker's plan.
It is obvious that the reason that unions detest RTW policies is that they don't like prosperity, individual freedom, and what is best for the workers. They want power and to push a Marxist or Ailinsky based ideology in an attempt to control the government and the economy. They want the economy to fail. They want the workers dependent upon them instead of self-sufficient. That is a grievous departure from the intended purposes of their conception.
Their support of socialist agendas becomes obvious in their support of policies that further federal intervention into people's lives and the "common man's" dependency upon government subsidies. If you have read my past essays here and here, you know my thoughts on why these are bad. There are experts far smarter than I who can give even more reasons why these subsidies are economically a poor idea. Even the "Occupy" crowd sees the subsidies given to chosen oligopolies as unacceptable. The Heritage Foundation released a study that shows under the current administration the "common man" is 23% more likely to be subsidized by federal funds. That is an affront to individual liberty. It is an attack against individual responsibility and merit. It tells our individual workers that they are incapable of thinking or doing for themselves. Yet many of these unions take portions of the dues paid to them by their members and use them to support socialist-leaning politicians and to lobby for these socialist programs. That is counter-productive.
In many cases, these donations are forced. The unions twist their clients' (the workers/members) arms and force them to give to these lobbyist groups and other organizations, even if the members wish to employ their individual rights to not do so. Michele Malkin produced this piece that contains many complaints from union members being strong-armed into donations and use of their dues to support causes and political agendas its members don't necessarily agree with. It includes an SEIU member talking about the abuses, including his "raise" just turning into higher union dues payments.
Anybody who has done any amount of real study and research into the founding principles of our great nation knows that the Declaration of Independence, The Federalist Papers, and the US Constitution are founded upon the philosophies of Aristotle, Locke, and others who believed in prosperity through individual inalienable rights to prosper on their own merits and acumen. They also know that our economic structure is historically based upon the theories of Adam Smith.
Free Market Capitalism, its benefits, and the prosperity it generates are lauded in the works of more modern economists such as Art Laffer, Stephen Moore, and Milton Friedman.
Unions in America originated in an effort to create a "labor market". Their origins were very capitalist in nature. They sought to organize skilled workers into companies that provide a necessary capital, an inherent service to employing companies. Organized, the workers could, in theory, bargain with the production and manufacturing companies as a supplier. The idea was to use the laws of supply and demand to come to an agreed upon market price. It makes sense. Labor is as much capital as the raw materials used to manufacture a product. Companies negotiate using the laws of supply and demand as well as basic free-market trade to find a mutually beneficial contract for those suppliers to sell their product, raw materials such as steel, wood, plastic, oil, machinery, etc. to the client -- the manufacturing company. In that aspect, the unions became just another supply company. The product supplied was human capital, otherwise known as the service of a labor force.
Free market trade such as the spirit that formed the unions in the first place should also allow for those smaller suppliers to attempt to compete for those contracts. In human capital, the smallest supplier is the individual worker. The competition of the individual, non-union laborer is beneficial to all, including the union workers. It promotes a better product (labor) and allows the market to generate better contracts for those "labor supply companies" i.e. unions.
If unions really cared about providing that better product for a more prosperous compensation (wages and benefits), they would embrace Right to Work. Of course, the union administrators want a monopoly that can control the companies they supply as well as their members. However, the members themselves would prosper more from RTW. Why? It's simple. If RTW amendments are passed in a state, the unions would have to sell themselves to the individual laborers. They would have to step up and actually provide benefits to the workers above what the individual workers could provide for themselves through personal investments into those benefits or an employer providing matching funds as part of those benefits.
The union members need to really look and ask "what is the union doing for me? What services do they provide for my dues that make them worth the cost?". If the workers were FREE to ask those questions, the unions would have to compete to supply a bigger bang for their clients' bucks. This would enable the unions to actually provide competitive services to the workers and actually BENEFIT the workers. It would enable the workers to concentrate more on the service/products they produce. That would make the companies employing them more productive and prosperous. Then the end-clients, the consumers paying for those end-products, would get a better product or service for their money. Many of those consumers are the individual laborers themselves. So, everybody benefits. It makes sense. Nobody does anything for free. It's human nature. Everybody does things to fill their own needs, desires, aspirations. We call that "the Pursuit of Happiness".
How does this apply to teachers' unions? Well, first ask what the products the individual teachers provide are. The products are the students, the graduates, the youth of our great nation, who represent our future prosperity. The unions want their cut of government funds. They don't want the cut to improve education. they want it to use to influence politics. They want it to line their own pockets. they want it to further Marxist ideologies through the comprachicos they brainwashed. They do not care about better education supplies and facilities. And they really do not care about teachers' salaries, though they use those to force/bribe teachers to step in line with the unions' agendas. It's why charter schools and private schools provide a better product (students, graduates) to the clients: parents and the country at large. If the teachers' unions in the public education system had to compete with non-union teachers in the public system, they would spend more time concentrating on providing better services to their members and less time on things that have no bearing on education. Then the teachers would actually see real benefits coming from the unions. They would have a product to sell for those union dues instead of extorting educators for high dues. Educators may actually see a benefit in union membership versus having to pay for an invented illusory necessity.
RTW laws and amendments bring unions back to their free-market roots. They increase prosperity for end-clients, consumers, unions, and workers alike. That is why laborers should (and many do) support RTW in their states.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Who Should I Endorse?
The title of this blog is not an invitation for candidates to contact me and beg for an endorsement. First of all, I am a "nobody" in the grand scheme of things. My endorsement would amount to just one man's voice among millions.
However, in that grand scheme of things, people pay attention to who endorses whom. It applies influence in making decisions when it comes time to vote. With that much being true, the only endorsement I have paid any attention to among the GOP presidential candidates was Art Laffer's endorsement. I hold Mr. Laffer in very high regard when it comes to economic policies. He is a selling point in favor of Speaker Gingrich. However, he is not the deciding factor. My endorsement of any of the presidential candidates will come when I cast my ballot in the primary. Right now, I am leaning towards somebody, yes. However, I do not yet have the data to make a final decision.
I will say that if any of the three conservatives gets the RNC nod, I will vote for their electoral delegates come November.
Recently, Kurt Sclichter wrote OP-EDs concerning the necessity to pay attention to Congressional races on both the state and federal levels. While Mr. Schlichter concentrated more on the upcoming US Senate races in one of his OP-EDs, the case holds true for both houses. While we needs strong leadership in the Senate, we need to maintain a conservative hold in the House. We need to have the conservative message heard at the grassroots and local level as well as in Washington. The US House of Representatives presents the best vehicle to bridge both/ This is true no matter who wins not only the GOP Presidential nod, but the general election in November.
However, in the legislature battles, I have chosen sides, for now.
Sheriff Paul Babeu is running for Arizona CD-4. His background as a former US Army Major and Iraq War Vet gives him strong points. However, where he has me sold are his efforts to reform immigration policies and seek tougher policies against illegal immigration. Along with "Sheriff Joe", Paul has stood for a secure and free Arizona. He stand for maintaining Second Amendment Rights as granted by the US Constitution and intended by the Federalist Papers. He is the first candidate I have been excited about since Ronald Reagan ran against Jimmy Carter in 1980. While I won't tell anybody for whom they should vote, I will highly suggest looking at his website and taking time to hear him speak. I also suggest checking out his competition and making up your own mind. Alas, I don't live in CD-4 and cannot vote for him.
This past Saturday, February 4, 2012, I had the pleasure of hearing both Jesse Kelly and Frank Antenori pitch their cases for the vacancy left by Rep. Gabby Giffords. Rep. Giffords is a brave lady. I don't agree with most of her stances on most issues. However, she was pro-Second Amendment, something that is rare among those in her party. Despite those differences, I hope her all the best. I also hope that the criminal who shot her suffers the full weight of the law when he is sentenced.
After looking at Jesse Kelly, I can see his strengths. In his run against Giffords, he lost by a small margin, doing quite well. His views are solidly conservative. He would make a good US Representative for Southeast Arizona. I could easily see him in many offices. He is young and can do well for Arizona and our nation.
However, I will throw my support behind his competition. Frank Antenori won me over. Here is why I support Frank as the GOP candidate and US Representative for Arizona CD-8:
Frank is a retired US Army Non-Commissioned Officer and Green Beret. While it is obvious that I have a special place in my heart for Soldiers running for office, Frank is more than that. He and I are both retired senior NCOs. So, I know how Frank thinks. NCOs are the ones who take amorphous ideas and turn them into reality. They make things happen. They seek out the mission and make it successful. Ideas are all fine and dandy. NCOs take them to fruition. That is what a congressman does, in my book.
Frank has experience having to hit the ground running both in his former Army Career and as a state representative. He knows how to fight for what the people want and stand his ground. He knows how to influence and push for bipartisan support of conservative issues.
He assisted in passing AZ SB 1070.
He sponsored the Purple Heart Scholarship in Arizona.
He promoted a the bill establishing and funding ($4M) the formation of the AZ State Guard to assist with border and ranch security.
He has fought for AZ to nullify "Obamacare". He promises to seek to repeal it if elected to the house.
He is a free-market capitalist and believes in Supply Side economics.
Frank is for union reform as far as how they influence politics. He is for Right To Work laws. However, he does understand the history of labor unions and sees they do serve a purpose. He wishes them to return to those roles and for membership to be voluntary for workers.
He fought to balance the AZ state budget and will fight for a balanced budget amendment to the US Constitution.
He opposes pork spending. He fought against such spending , working with TEA Party and other conservatives against such spending in Arizona.
He is strong on border issues. CD-8 is a border community. We saw multiple fires this past summer. Some of them were deliberately set by those who facilitate smuggling, sex slavery, and drug trade along the border. During those fires, FEMA and other federal agencies came in and took over. They didn't listen to locals who understand the terrain. While we needed federal assets to fight the fires, we didn't need them to take over the efforts. When the Monument Fire raged not far from where I live, federal bureaucracy impeded the efforts during one part of the battle, allowing the fire to spread unmitigated. People here theorize that had those bureaucrats not taken over leading the efforts, fewer homes would have been destroyed. We cannot know if that would have been the outcome. However, Frank supports limiting federal jurisdiction and pushing for greater cooperation between state and federal agencies/assets.
Among other border issues is that of border security. Frank understands one basic concept of defense: You cannot emplace an obstacle effectively without overwatch. That means that a fence along the border is all fine and dandy. However, it is worthless without ample "boots on the ground" watching it, patrolling it, and enforcing it. He is for more people on Arizona's southern border, a coalition and partnership between Federal and State agencies. He opposes the divisive efforts against the state having authority to protect its citizens.
If you argue that most illegals come here just for work, etc, and are not criminals otherwise; then I am here to tell you that the damage they do to private property is criminal. The issue is more than just walking across a line in the desert. It is about the trash and filth left along their ratlines. It is about the rape trees where young girls are abused. it is about the fires started and property damage. It is about the theft and vandalism. It is about the damage to ranches and cattle. It is about the damages to vineyards and orchards. It is about the murders of ranchers such as Robert Krentz. The crimes illegals commit extend much deeper than just crossing a line in the desert.
Frank didn't try to pull wool over our eyes. He flat out told people what congress can do about things, and what they cannot. He explained that no one representative (or senator) can get things to happen on his own. So he is ready to band with those who have similar issues and battle with them, not against them. He understands teamwork.
Frank is pro-Second Amendment and Pro-Concealed Carry Permits for law abiding citizens.
Be it Jesse Kelly or Frank Antenori who eventually gets the nomination, I will support them for the Congressional Seat against the Democrat opponent. However, for that nomination, I endorse Frank Antenori. The Primary is April 17th.
However, in that grand scheme of things, people pay attention to who endorses whom. It applies influence in making decisions when it comes time to vote. With that much being true, the only endorsement I have paid any attention to among the GOP presidential candidates was Art Laffer's endorsement. I hold Mr. Laffer in very high regard when it comes to economic policies. He is a selling point in favor of Speaker Gingrich. However, he is not the deciding factor. My endorsement of any of the presidential candidates will come when I cast my ballot in the primary. Right now, I am leaning towards somebody, yes. However, I do not yet have the data to make a final decision.
I will say that if any of the three conservatives gets the RNC nod, I will vote for their electoral delegates come November.
Recently, Kurt Sclichter wrote OP-EDs concerning the necessity to pay attention to Congressional races on both the state and federal levels. While Mr. Schlichter concentrated more on the upcoming US Senate races in one of his OP-EDs, the case holds true for both houses. While we needs strong leadership in the Senate, we need to maintain a conservative hold in the House. We need to have the conservative message heard at the grassroots and local level as well as in Washington. The US House of Representatives presents the best vehicle to bridge both/ This is true no matter who wins not only the GOP Presidential nod, but the general election in November.
However, in the legislature battles, I have chosen sides, for now.
Sheriff Paul Babeu is running for Arizona CD-4. His background as a former US Army Major and Iraq War Vet gives him strong points. However, where he has me sold are his efforts to reform immigration policies and seek tougher policies against illegal immigration. Along with "Sheriff Joe", Paul has stood for a secure and free Arizona. He stand for maintaining Second Amendment Rights as granted by the US Constitution and intended by the Federalist Papers. He is the first candidate I have been excited about since Ronald Reagan ran against Jimmy Carter in 1980. While I won't tell anybody for whom they should vote, I will highly suggest looking at his website and taking time to hear him speak. I also suggest checking out his competition and making up your own mind. Alas, I don't live in CD-4 and cannot vote for him.
This past Saturday, February 4, 2012, I had the pleasure of hearing both Jesse Kelly and Frank Antenori pitch their cases for the vacancy left by Rep. Gabby Giffords. Rep. Giffords is a brave lady. I don't agree with most of her stances on most issues. However, she was pro-Second Amendment, something that is rare among those in her party. Despite those differences, I hope her all the best. I also hope that the criminal who shot her suffers the full weight of the law when he is sentenced.
After looking at Jesse Kelly, I can see his strengths. In his run against Giffords, he lost by a small margin, doing quite well. His views are solidly conservative. He would make a good US Representative for Southeast Arizona. I could easily see him in many offices. He is young and can do well for Arizona and our nation.
However, I will throw my support behind his competition. Frank Antenori won me over. Here is why I support Frank as the GOP candidate and US Representative for Arizona CD-8:
Frank is a retired US Army Non-Commissioned Officer and Green Beret. While it is obvious that I have a special place in my heart for Soldiers running for office, Frank is more than that. He and I are both retired senior NCOs. So, I know how Frank thinks. NCOs are the ones who take amorphous ideas and turn them into reality. They make things happen. They seek out the mission and make it successful. Ideas are all fine and dandy. NCOs take them to fruition. That is what a congressman does, in my book.
Frank has experience having to hit the ground running both in his former Army Career and as a state representative. He knows how to fight for what the people want and stand his ground. He knows how to influence and push for bipartisan support of conservative issues.
He assisted in passing AZ SB 1070.
He sponsored the Purple Heart Scholarship in Arizona.
He promoted a the bill establishing and funding ($4M) the formation of the AZ State Guard to assist with border and ranch security.
He has fought for AZ to nullify "Obamacare". He promises to seek to repeal it if elected to the house.
He is a free-market capitalist and believes in Supply Side economics.
Frank is for union reform as far as how they influence politics. He is for Right To Work laws. However, he does understand the history of labor unions and sees they do serve a purpose. He wishes them to return to those roles and for membership to be voluntary for workers.
He fought to balance the AZ state budget and will fight for a balanced budget amendment to the US Constitution.
He opposes pork spending. He fought against such spending , working with TEA Party and other conservatives against such spending in Arizona.
He is strong on border issues. CD-8 is a border community. We saw multiple fires this past summer. Some of them were deliberately set by those who facilitate smuggling, sex slavery, and drug trade along the border. During those fires, FEMA and other federal agencies came in and took over. They didn't listen to locals who understand the terrain. While we needed federal assets to fight the fires, we didn't need them to take over the efforts. When the Monument Fire raged not far from where I live, federal bureaucracy impeded the efforts during one part of the battle, allowing the fire to spread unmitigated. People here theorize that had those bureaucrats not taken over leading the efforts, fewer homes would have been destroyed. We cannot know if that would have been the outcome. However, Frank supports limiting federal jurisdiction and pushing for greater cooperation between state and federal agencies/assets.
Among other border issues is that of border security. Frank understands one basic concept of defense: You cannot emplace an obstacle effectively without overwatch. That means that a fence along the border is all fine and dandy. However, it is worthless without ample "boots on the ground" watching it, patrolling it, and enforcing it. He is for more people on Arizona's southern border, a coalition and partnership between Federal and State agencies. He opposes the divisive efforts against the state having authority to protect its citizens.
If you argue that most illegals come here just for work, etc, and are not criminals otherwise; then I am here to tell you that the damage they do to private property is criminal. The issue is more than just walking across a line in the desert. It is about the trash and filth left along their ratlines. It is about the rape trees where young girls are abused. it is about the fires started and property damage. It is about the theft and vandalism. It is about the damage to ranches and cattle. It is about the damages to vineyards and orchards. It is about the murders of ranchers such as Robert Krentz. The crimes illegals commit extend much deeper than just crossing a line in the desert.
Frank didn't try to pull wool over our eyes. He flat out told people what congress can do about things, and what they cannot. He explained that no one representative (or senator) can get things to happen on his own. So he is ready to band with those who have similar issues and battle with them, not against them. He understands teamwork.
Frank is pro-Second Amendment and Pro-Concealed Carry Permits for law abiding citizens.
Be it Jesse Kelly or Frank Antenori who eventually gets the nomination, I will support them for the Congressional Seat against the Democrat opponent. However, for that nomination, I endorse Frank Antenori. The Primary is April 17th.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)