I was listening to NPR today, yes I’m a conservative who listens to NPR.  I can only take so much of Rush and Friends.  Anyway back to the issue they had a interview with John Edwards and his quest to end poverty.  The thing I found interesting is he kept saying he wanted to end poverty but supported policies that actually increase poverty. I will look at a few of the key aspects of this issue to define why Edwards is so far off on this issue.  The biggest problem is that in this country we define poverty as a percentage of the population, so as we bring people out of poverty the line moves and they are once again in poverty.  It’s pretty tough to get people out of poverty if you keep moving the line.  If we look at previous definitions of poverty it would be those who have no means of feeding themselves.  If we look at it this way there are very few in poverty in this country, because the religious organizations, and other charitable organizations are taking care of those who hunger in this country.  If the need increased I’m confident that there would be plenty of generous people that would step up to meet that need.  As we as a society continue to improve however, we keep raising the standards.  Now if you don’t have health care you are in poverty, but even this is taken care of if there is a true medical emergency  emergency rooms will take anyone regardless of there ability to pay.  I believe that in reality poverty is a non-issue in this country.  There are people with less, and there life is more challenging as a result.  But we have no right to be wealthy, that has to be earned.  The policies that are being promoted by Edwards are actually hurting what he is fighting for.  We first have to realize that the one thing that has made this country so wealthy and powerful is that companies big and small produce and generate wealth.  The Government takes from that wealth and produces little to nothing to make our country progress.  Any program that increases government programs is taking away from the ability to expand our collective wealth.  There has been no communist that has been economically successful.  You might argue that China is successful, but the only reason they are gaining economic power is that they have adopted a more open market like we have here.  The fact is that redistribution  of wealth and strong government control of business has only produced wide spread suffering and economic misery.  Universal Health care, Expansion of Welfare, and expansion government programs have a net affect of increasing poverty because we are taking away from those that produce.  We should be grateful to Bill Gates, and the many other entrepreneurs that have provided so many jobs for our country.  They are the only reason we have such great potential in this country.  Business and Corporations should be congratulated and praised, but instead Edwards and the other Liberals Criticize and punish the very people that make our country great.If Edwards really wanted to reduce the poverty in this country he would quit giving speeches, because that gig only produces a few jobs and start a large petroleum Company Drilling in Alaska.  Not only would he provide a lot of jobs, but he would help drive down oil prices making it easier for millions of Americans to make it on there current incomes.  While he runs the company, he could push his friends in Congress to lower taxes, so he can afford to expand his business further, and provide better benefits to his employees.  The tax cuts would benefit many other businesses so they could expand.   Pretty soon every worthwhile American would be well employed and we would look to other countries to fill the need for further growth.  Not only would we end poverty in America, but we would take great steps to reducing poverty world wide.  The fact is that Business is the answer not Government.  Is Edwards blind to facts, or does he have some other motive for position on this issue? 

The second amendment has become a key issue in the presidential campaign.  When listening to both Obama and Clinton, it is very clear that they don’t understand the second amendment.  In reality I think very few people truly understand the purpose and core principals in the second amendment.

As we look at the constitution and it’s ammendments it is very clear that the purpose of the constitution is to set up a goverment that is ultimately still controlled by the people.  It sets out a clear structure for a government where no individual becomes too powerfull and where decision makers are held accountable to the people through elections.  After our basic government structure was set the Bill of Rights was written to ensure that strict limits were placed on the goverment so that the people would continue to keep the control in our goverment.

These rights are :

• First Amendment – Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly; right to petition

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

• Second Amendment – Right to keep and bear arms.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

• Third Amendment – Protection from quartering of troops.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

• Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

• Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

• Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

• Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury.

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

• Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

• Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

• Tenth Amendment – Powers of states and people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

 

Why is it so important that the right to bear be in the bill of rights.  Is it so that we can go hunting? Is it so we can defend ourselves?  To me it is clear that neither of these reasons are good enough to be put in the constitution.  Our founding fathers recognized that in countries where arms are not held by the common people it is very easy for that government to fall into military rule.  By keeping the people armed it is possible for states and communities to raise militias to prevent military coos.  It keeps the power with the people.    Knowing this it becomes clear that the people need the right to bear arm for the specific pourpose to defend against the military, either our own or from an invading force.  

 

It is clear based on current and proposed laws that this understanding is nonexistent.  We have a ban on assault rifles, we are trying to limit purchases to one per month.  We are placing strict limitations on handguns.  We are giving the government a registry so they can track who has what weapons.  All of these are specifically weakening the peoples ability to fight against a military force.   It is clear that the people should have the right to possess arms at least equal to those in the possession of our military or foreign militaries. 

 

With the removal of Mitt Romney from the race, it looks like John McCain will be the Republican nominee.  I too am not thrilled with a few of John’s decisions, Particularly in regards to limiting free speech with the McCain Fingold bill.  But, in all reality he does look at issues with a similar logic to my own.  His decision to support the comprehensive immigration bill despite the rhetoric and hype produced by the party base showed me that he understands the issue better than most, and has the courage to make a decision despite the unpopularity of the decision.  Voting against the Bush tax cuts, and many other of his votes shows his understanding that the biggest threat to our economy is our ballooning national dept.  Now, I think he has learned that tax cuts do not decrease revenue, he will make better decisions regarding taxes in the future.  All in all he will be strong on national security issues, and good with foreign affairs, good on government waste,  moderate on personal rights and moderate  on the economy.  That is certainly better than either of the Democratic candidates which would be poor on National security, Fair with foreign affairs, poor on personal rights and abysmal on the economy.

I do not believe that I have to agree on every issue with a candidate to support them.  I have to admit that it is hard to find a candidate that believes we should cut the National Endowment for the Arts, Health and Human Services, Department of Education, Food Stamps, CHIP, and basically everything except the department of defense, and what is necessary to take care of national transportation issues, Cut Income Tax and go back to a voluntary tax system that we used to have.  But there are not many politicians out there promising to cut government programs and particularly welfare. So I choose my candidates based on who I think is best of the likely contenders. John McCain is definitely the best option now out of those that have a chance of winning.

Well the big day is here.  I went to the polls to put in my vote for who I would like to support in the presidential election.  As I considered the candidates I would consider for office it came down to three people.  Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Ron Paul.  Although I like the passion of Ron Paul, and some of his ideas, his understanding of our economy, and how our finance system works is not based in reality.  Sure in speeches it sounds great, but when it comes down to what really works in a global economy, many of his initiatives don’t hold water.  Besides the president does not make laws, and I seriously doubt his ability to get much done with congress.  John McCain is a very viable candidate and I like his ability to work with the other side of the isle  on a variety of issues.  I’m not like many of the radio folks that hate McCain.  Although the Immigration bill he supported had some flaws, I agree with McCain that we need a comprehensive solution to deal with it.  Enforcement 1st, won’t work without a structured system to deal with the underlying reasons for illegal immigration.  In the end though I question his judgment dealing with the elimination of free speech through campaign finance reform.  I voted for Mitt Romney,  He is a solid candidate that has a proven track record of correcting problems.  He is the only candidate that seems to have a sound understanding of our economy, and what it will take to keep it running.  He seems to look first toward private industry as a solution to our problems rather than the government. He has sound judgment, and knows how to lead.

One quick gripe about the media.  I keep hearing the media talking about Hillary as being the candidate of experience. Let’s look at this experience.

As far as I can figure the only political experience that I can figure out that she has is as a junior senator for the last 7 years.

No I do not consider the Non-Policy making  position of first lady as experience.

Unfortunately  Hillary has a great deal of experience in Real-Estate fraud, Commodities  exchange fraud, alleged sexual experience with multiple partners in the White House, sticking with an unfaithful husband and experience collecting government property for personal use from Air Force 1.

I ‘m not sure the experience she has is the experience our country wants.

Obama has taken the election in Ohio, and is set to take New Hampshire tonight. After the Ohio election, I felt the first tinge of hope that Hillary Clinton may not be the Democratic Nominee.  The excitement was diminished somewhat after the election when I  heard his speech after the election.  I realized that Obama is a powerful orator af the likes that we have not seen in recent history.  With Hillary there are as many people that hate her that love her, which provides an opportunity to beat the Democrats in November.  With Obama’s power of public speaking, he will be a very difficult candidate to beat.

I was teaching a Citizenship in the Community merit badge for the local Boy Scouts, and had a student make a statement in a presentation that really got me thinking.  When addressing the question What do you like about your community, he responded, “the people in our community live by the words that Kennedy said, ‘Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country’”.  As I contemplated the challenges our country has faced, how could this attitude have influenced the situation.  When Katrina hit, would it have been different if the people looked for ways to help rather than sitting and waiting for the government to step in?  Would the Education system be different if rather than complaining about the failed system, we volunteered our time to help make our schools better?  Would our National Dept be any lower, if our legislators didn’t feel that the only way to win elections is by promising handouts.

As I look at the slate of Democratic Presidential candidates I can not see any link between there promises, and these powerful words be President Kennedy.  They are simply creating a huge list of unsustainable programs without asking the people demanding the services to step up and take some responsibility.  In reality it is far more than the Democratic Party, the Republican Party to has gotten into the habit of carelessly throwing money at problems.  Thus under Republican control we have run up the National Dept to record levels.   Maybe it is time to quit asking what our goverment can do for us.  The more the government gives, the worse our lives will become.

A popular song among Liberals now days is “Dear Mr. President” by Pink.  I could link to her site but I don’t believe she deserves it.  Back to the issue. This song asks a few questions that epitomize the liberal perspective, and shows how little they really understand.  I would like to briefly address a few of the key questions it asks and explain why or Dear President is right on target with these issues.

What do you feel when you see the homeless on the street?  I’m not quite sure what the president has to do with the right of an individual to choose the street as a home, but the unemployment rate under his presidency is lower than it has ever been, jobs pay more even before the minimum wage hike than they ever have, and there is a tremendous amount of opportunity.  I realize that a large portion of the homeless are not mentally capable of sustaining a job, but we have closed down many of the institutions that helped these people because the liberal establishment felt that it was inhumane.  Another big portion of the homeless are there due to substance abuse, gee I wonder which party supports the free use of drugs, and is the least supportive of teaching and strengthening families?

How do you feel when a mother can’t say good bye?

Probably much the same as he did when Clinton’s weak stand on terrorist led to the deaths of over 2000 Americans on 9-11.  I’m shure because I’ve seen it he is deeply compassionate and deeply saddened when a soldier dies. Despite the sadness, he looks a the situation and thinks about what is best for our country, and what is best for the world.  You can criticize all you want about his foreign policy but we have not had a mainland attack since 9-11, and it is not because the terrorists have not tried.  Apparently he is doing something right.  I always find it ironic that the Musicians and actors are so supportive of the terrorist position.  It is actually them who are the most hated among Islam nations because of there liberal points of view.  Remember, being gay in an Islamic country is punished by the death penalty.  For some reason they have the mistaken notion that if leave the Middle East, they will leave us alone.

There is much more to discuss about this song and it’s issues but it will have to wait for another post.

There are many rumors going around on the internet that CNN corespondent Lou Dobbs may make a bid for the White House as a third party candidate.  Based solely on his immigration views I think he would be great but in his heart he is still a liberal.  This speculation creates an interesting question.  If he were to enter the race based on his popularity he would take a significant portion of votes, but where would they come from?  Would it hurt the Republicans or Democrats, or both?

I believe that the biggest losers would be the Democrats, but he would also take a chunk of the Republican base.   Is it possible for him to actually win as a third party Candidate?  I know everybody has thought based on previous experience that third parties only siphon votes from the big two, and have no real chance of winning.  This still may be true, but Lou would put this theory to the test.  He seems to be more down the middle than any third party candidate we have ever seen.  In the past the third parties have been made up of people that are just plain crazy, or candidates that were ever further right, or further left than the primary candidates.  Lou would be running right down the center, and based on public opinion he is on the right side of many issues.  I still don’t think he could win but he could make things interesting.

I’m listening to a debate on CNN regarding the low poll numbers of congress.  They are now discussing the “Tragedy” of our broken government.  It seems like when our government is running efficiently we end up with more government programs, more spending, and less opposition to the expanding government.  I for one am grateful that our government is not working efficiently.  It simply is putting the brakes on reckless government spending and expansion.  I admit I would like the government work together on a few key issues.  I would love to see taxes cut in half or even eliminated, I would like to see all federal funding for arts, education, and social programs cut.  But these things are highly unlikely.  Based on the things our congress and president want to do and are pushing, I relieved to know little is getting accomplished.