Showing posts with label POLITICS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label POLITICS. Show all posts

Saturday, August 15, 2009

Lemmings for Obama

Top 10 Reasons Obamacare Is Wrong for America

by Human Events

08/12/2009

(Compiled by the Heritage Foundation)

1. Millions Will Lose Their Current Insurance: President Obama wants Americans to believe they can keep their insurance if they like. Proposed economic incentives, plus a government-run health plan would cause 88.1 million people to see their current employer-sponsored health plan disappear.

2. Your Health Care Coverage Will Probably Change Anyway: Even if you keep your private insurance, eventually most remaining plans will have to conform to new federal benefit standards. Moreover, the necessary plan “upgrades” will undoubtedly cost you more in premiums.


3. The Umpire Is Also the First Baseman: The main argument for a “public option” is that it would increase competition. However, if the federal government creates a healthcare plan that it controls and also sets the rules for the private plans, there is little doubt that Washington would put its private sector “competitors” out of business sooner or later.

4. The Fed Picks Your Treatment: President Obama said: “They’re going to have to give up paying for things that don’t make them healthier. ... If there’s a blue pill and a red pill, and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well, why not pay half for the thing that’s going to make you well.” Does that sound like a government that will stay out of your healthcare decisions?

5. Individual Mandate Means Less Liberty and More Taxes: President Obama is open to the imposition of an individual mandate that would require all Americans to have federally approved health insurance. This unprecedented federal directive not only takes away your individual freedom but could cost you as well. Lawmakers are considering a penalty or tax for those who don’t buy government-approved health plans.

6. Higher Taxes Than Europe Hurt Small Businesses: A proposed surtax on the wealthy will actually hit hundreds of thousands of small business owners who are dealing with a recession. If it is enacted, America’s top earners and job creators will carry a larger overall tax burden than in France, Italy, Germany, Japan, etc., with a total average tax rate greater than 52%. Is that the right recipe for jobs and wage growth?

7. Who Makes Medical Decisions? While the House and Senate language is vague, amendments offered in House and Senate committees to block government rationing of care were routinely defeated. Cost or a federal health board could be the deciding factor. President Obama himself admitted this when he said, “Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller,” when asked about an elderly woman who needed a pacemaker.

8. Taxpayer-Funded Abortions? Nineteen Democrats recently asked the President to not sign any bill that doesn’t explicitly exclude “abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan” or any bill that allows a federal health board to “recommend abortion services be included under covered benefits or as part of a benefits package.” Currently, these provisions do not exist.

9. It’s Not Paid For: The CBO says the current House plan would increase the deficit by $239 billion over 10 years. And that amount will likely continue to rise over the long term.

10. Rushing It, Not Reading It: We’ve been down this road before -- with the failed stimulus package. Back then, we also heard that we were in a crisis and that we needed to pass a 1,000-plus-page bill in a few hours -- without reading it -- or we would have 8% unemployment. Deception is the only reason to rush through a bill nobody truly understands.

Sunday, July 5, 2009

Birds of a Feather...

Take this hypothetical: imagine that Barack Obama announced that he was going to hold a referendum on legalizing a third term for himself. Imagine that even his attorney general, Eric Holder, advised him that it was illegal. Imagine that the Supreme Court ruled that holding the referendum was unconstitutional. In spite of that, let's imagine that Obama coerced the FEC into holding the referendum anyway. Then - let's further imagine -- we found out that Venezuelan strongman Chávez (who has pulled off a similar power grab in his own country) was financing the referendum. What should the Joint Chiefs do in such a case? And if they removed Obama from office, would they be destroying the Constitution or preserving it?


This is exactly what has occurred in Honduras, to a tee. The Honduras Attorney General and their Supreme Court did exactly that - ruled that President Manuel Zelaya's referendum was unconstitutional. The Honduran Generals did what they had to do. But then Chávez, Zelaya's friend and ally, announced: "I have put the armed forces of Venezuela on alert." And at that point Barack Obama spoke out - to side with Zelaya, Chávez and dictatorship. Obama said he was "deeply concerned" about what was happening in Honduras and called upon that nation to "respect democratic norms."


Obama is on the same side as Chávez, Ortega and the Castro brothers...Dictator's for life...VIVA LA PRESIDENTE!

Sunday, February 15, 2009

Economics 101



Calvin and Hobbes is a comic strip written and illustrated by Bill Watterson, following the humorous antics of Calvin, an imaginative six-year old boy, and Hobbes, his energetic and sardonic—albeit stuffed—tiger. The pair are named after John Calvin, a 16th-century French Reformation theologian, and Thomas Hobbes, a 17th-century English political philosopher.[1] The strip was syndicated daily from November 18, 1985 to December 31, 1995. At its height, Calvin and Hobbes was featured in over 2,400 newspapers worldwide. To date, more than 30 million copies of the 18 Calvin and Hobbes books have been printed.[2]


Calvin and Hobbes comics are still fresh, 'enlightening' and funny.

Friday, February 6, 2009

Top 10 Reasons to Oppose the Stimulus



The Government is getting ready to spend your money like a bunch of drunken sailors on shore leave.

1. The Stimulus Will Not Work
Our history is replete with examples of “stimulus” spending failing to move our economy toward prosperity—Bush just tried it, Ford tried it. Even Christina Romer, Obama’s Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers agrees. Romer wrote in a study, “Our estimates suggest that fiscal actions contributed only moderately to recoveries.” The New Deal didn’t end the Great Depression and Obama’s stimulus package won’t end this recession. In fact, two UCLA economists published a study in 2004 finding FDR’s similar New Deal policies prolonged the Great Depression by seven years. It fails because you don’t increase economic output by taking a dollar from one person and giving to another. The idea of “stimulus” spending falls for the “ broken window fallacy”—the allure of what is seen versus what is not seen. We will see the jobs created by the government spending. What we won’t see are the jobs lost because consumers have less money to spend because the government got the money its spending from us—the only place it can get money.

2. The Stimulus follows the same plan that ruined Japan’s economy
Japan, after a dramatic market crash and a drop in real estate prices responded with government spending not unlike what the US Congress is considering today. In fact, they had 10 stimulus bills between 1992 and 2000, spending billions on infrastructure construction, building bridges, roads, and airports as well as pouring money into biotech and telecommunications. While many countries enjoyed booming economies and falling unemployment during this time, Japan had a lost decade, seeing its unemployment more than double. They spent double the US level of GDP on infrastructure, and now have a lousy economy and have one of the highest national debts in the world. After 10 stimulus packages, Japan has gone from having the second biggest economy in the world by a long shot, to being well behind the new number two, China, and is close to falling behind India. We do not want to follow their lead.

3. The Stimulus is full of Wasteful Projects
While we were told the stimulus bill would focus on rebuilding America’s infrastructure—mainly the roads and bridges—only 5% of the current bill goes to such projects. The rest of the bill goes to pet projects like:
o $400,000,000.00 for researching sexually transmitted diseases
o $200,000,000.00 to force the military to buy environmentally-friendly electric cars
o $34,000,000.00 to renovate the Department of Commerce headquarters
o $75,000,000.00 for a program to end smoking which, if successful will bankrupt the State Children’s Health Program Democrats are about to pass (SCHIP) that is paid for by cigarette taxes
o $650,000,000.00 for digital TV coupons
o $50,000,000.00 for the National Endowment for the Arts
These programs are just the 2008 version of the “ midnight basketball” program that derailed Bill Clinton’s attempt to ram through a “stimulus” bill in 1992. Despite that bill failing, the economy quickly recovered and the economic boom of the 1990s began.

4. The Government Can’t Afford the Stimulus
President Bush pushed the government deep into a $1.2 trillion deficit this year, the third time he has set a record for biggest deficit ever, and President Obama’s stimulus bill follows his lead, piling on more debt. The deficit in 2008 amounted to about 8 percent of GDP. The entire debt is about 35 percent of GDP. Even for those who do still believe in Keynesianism, it is important to remember his theory didn’t start with the government already over a trillion dollars in the hole, he was generally operating from balanced budgets.

5. We Can’t afford the Stimulus
How much is $825 billion? The Heritage Foundation has calculated that that comes to over $10,000 per American family. To further put that in context, on average, families annually spend:
o $2,230 on apparel and services
o $3,595 on health care
o $4,322 on food at home
o $11,657 on shelter

6. The Stimulus is Bigger Than the Economic Output of Most Countries
If this bill were a country, it’d be the 15th largest country in the world, ranking between Australia and Mexico. It is bigger than the economies of Saudi Arabia and Iran combined. In fact, the $875 billion it calls for is more than all the cash in the United States.

7. Central Planning like the Stimulus Doesn’t Work, Ask the USSR
If centrally planned government spending on a grand scale produced economic growth, the Soviet Union would have won the Cold War. If government spending on a grand scale produced economic growth we would be in the middle of the Bush Boom right now. It doesn’t. Working, saving, and investing leads to economic output and increases in productivity lead to growth. As economics professor Steven Horwitz said, “The stimulus plans assume consumption is the source of growth. It is not. It is the consequence of said growth.”

8. Remember the $750 Billion Bailout from this Fall?
It was just a couple months ago when we were told if we would just quickly hand over $750 billion to the Treasury Secretary to bailout his friends on Wall Street, he would make the economy all better. That didn’t work, and neither will an additional $825 billion.

9. This Money Doesn’t Grow on Trees
And this has nothing to do with paper money being made of cotton and linen. The only way the government gets money is through taxing, borrowing, or printing—that is, it has to take it out of the economy in order to put it back into the economy. If government borrows the money for the stimulus, then it will either have to print money later or raise taxes to pay it back. If it raises taxes to pay for the stimulus, it will, in effect, be robbing Peter to pay Paul – probably with interest. If it prints the money, inflation decreases the value of the dollar for every American – robbing Paul to pay Paul.

10. Economists do NOT Agree this is a Good Idea
No matter how many times supporters of the bill say it, economists do not all agree this bill is a good idea. In fact, hundreds of economists have come out against it, including Noble Laureates, who signed a letter the Cato Institute ran as a full page ad in several major newspapers opposing the stimulus. Still more economists submitted statements to the US House of Representatives opposing the stimulus proposal.

Friday, October 24, 2008

Obama, the Moral Choice?

This will most likely be the last time I post anything on the U.S. presidential race. I've already sent in my absentee ballot...

I read where a fellow follower of Jesus Christ claimed that Obama was her moral choice for president. She based her decision on the candidate's stance on the Iraq war, fighting poverty, and several other positions. She also wrote: 'although not happy about his stance on abortion, still found him as the moral choice.'

I was surprised about this. It echoes of the classic abortion mitigating strategy: 'I'm personally oposed to abortion but...'

So, here's the reason why Obama is NOT my moral choice for president:

1. His stance on abortion is immoral. He voted against the Illinois Senate Bill 1095-Born Alive Infant Protection Act whic only illustrates one aspect of his anti-life stance. Now if you don't see murdering a human being, no matter the location, as not a moral issue, then it's a non-issue for you. However, this is not a biblical Christian view.

2. His pro-socialist/marxist stance. I still can't figure out why modern day liberals have this love affair with communists (they were in love with Uncle Joe--Joe Stalin and still defend him as if he was Mother Teresa). It is a suprise to most voters that Obama has ties to members of the radical left (read, socialists and communists). The Communist Party USA recently endorsed him for president and he has ties to socialist-marxist radicals such as Bill Ayers.

"Our time has come...I can see a role for the Communist Party USA in the next period." Those words from Libero Della Piana, an operative speaking at the headquarters of the Communist Party USA and eagerly anticipating an Obama presidency.


I do not want to commit the logical fallacy of 'guilt by association;' however, one writer noted, relevant associations do matter and context is everything. Moreover, my mother and father told me on numerous occasions during my youth, 'you are judged by the company you keep.' Who can argue with your parents?

Additionally, his 'spread the wealth' comment is very telling of his socialist-marxist proclivity. Karl would be proud...


The power elites which include liberal democratic party members, keep all of their money and take the working classes money and 'share' it with the non-working class which only creates more poverty and gives no incentive to work harder or even work at all. Good policy.

Why is it that former Soviet-Bloc countries are turning towards democracy and capitalism?


Communism has never worked in any country in which it has been tried. In practice, Communism — the ultimate goal of liberalism — affords everything to and for the power elite and little to nothing for everyone else. It also does away with the concept of meritocracy — unless of course one is a member of the aforementioned power elite. However, more and more this is what Democrat presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama seems to be proposing.


Comrade Commisar Obama is not my moral choice for president.

Obama-Marxist rhetoric: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/13/obama-plumber-plan-spread-wealth/

Communist Manifesto: http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html

Das Kapital complete version: http://www.bibliomania.com/2/1/261/1294/frameset.html




Friday, August 29, 2008

Alaska Gov. Palin to be Named as McCain Running Mate


This is some of the best news I've heard in along time reference the Republican Party.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is surprise choice to be McCain's running mate; mother of 5 is considered rising star in GOP, known for pro-life stand, fiscal conservatism. She is also a lifetime NRA member and enjoys hunting, fishing, and snowmobiling. Gov. Palin was the first female governor of Alaska and is the first woman on a national GOP ticket.

The Republican Party's presumptive presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain, has pulled a fast one on his Democratic opponents, who spent much of the last 19 months arguing over whether they'd be the party to have a female on their 2008 presidential ticket.

For good analysis on the choice, check out Pastor T's comments here.

Wednesday, June 4, 2008

Obama Clinches Democratic Nomination

WASHINGTON -- Barack Obama effectively clinched the Democratic presidential nomination Tuesday, based on an Associated Press tally of convention delegates, becoming the first black candidate ever to lead his party into a fall campaign for the White House.

I like what William Bennett says about Obama and the Democratic Party:

[T]he Democratic party is about to nominate [has nominated] a far left candidate in the tradition of George McGovern, albeit without McGovern’s military and political record. The Democratic party is about to nominate a far-left candidate in the tradition of Michael Dukakis, albeit without Dukakis’s executive experience as governor. The Democratic party is about to nominate a far left candidate in the tradition of John Kerry, albeit without Kerry’s record of years of service in the Senate. The Democratic party is about to nominate an unvetted candidate in the tradition of Jimmy Carter, albeit without Jimmy Carter’s religious integrity. . .


Wednesday, March 19, 2008

War Never Solved Anything


"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -- John Stuart Mill

I'm not pro-war. War IS an ugly thing, but as long as nations and leaders exist that detest freedom, sometimes it is the only way to secure a lasting peace. Most leftist anti-war protesters and pundits don't understand this. They state that this use of force is always unnecessary -- that war, ANY war, is never good. Some of them, born into the luxury of American freedom, believe that liberty can exist passively, that somehow the world's natural state will always settle into utopian harmony.

Here's excerpts from President Bush's speech on the 5th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq:

"No one would argue that this war has not come at a high cost in lives and treasure – but those costs are necessary when we consider the cost of a strategic victory for our enemies in Iraq. If we were to allow our enemies to prevail in
Iraq, the violence that is now declining would accelerate – and Iraq could descend into chaos. Al Qaida would regain its lost sanctuaries and establish new ones – fomenting violence and terror that could spread beyond Iraq’s borders, with serious consequences to the world economy.”

I have no ill will towards those who do not support the war. I've suffered from "war" weariness and questioned policies, tactics, etc. But the "leftists" who usually carry the loudest megaphones; left unchallenged, voices heard disproportionately, demoralizing the troops, and emboldening dictators around the world need to be confronted with the truth of history and reality.

And stop harassing the men and women in our armed forces who are just doing their job.

Thursday, February 21, 2008

It's all about Change...

Looks like Obama just might be the Democratic nominee (he's currently beating Hillary like a drum). He's certainly made change a central theme in his candidacy.

Our former President and First-Lady (er, I mean First-Gigolo), Bill, is making it clear that Hillary is in crunch time.

Alas, I'm getting ready to send off my absentee ballot request to the state of Kansas but admittedly don't know who I will cast my vote for. In the mean time I continue to follow the news and read candidate assessments courtesy my fellow bloggers, particularly Reepicheep.

Wednesday, February 6, 2008

Reagan Quotes from '75-'76 Diagnose Our Current Situation


"I don't know about you," said Reagan in 1975, "but I'm impatient with those Republicans who, after the last election, rushed into print saying we must broaden the base of our party, when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents."

John McCain comes to mind: I don't trust him because he has supported a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants (remember him teaming up with Teddy Kennedy on this one?!?!), worked to limit money in politics in what can be considered a violation of free speech (McCain-Feingold) and opposed a constitutional ban on gay marriage. And he voted against President Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003.

Second Reagan quote, 1976: "Don't give up your ideals, don't compromise, don't turn to expediency -- and don't, for heaven's sake, having seen the inner workings of the watch -- don't get cynical."

Republicans want to fuzz up and blur the differences between ourselves and the liberal democrats. This is the kind of thing that leads to those crazy super-dunderhead team ups like McCain-Kennedy and, leaves the Republican resembling a wimpy RINO (Republican in Name Only).

Sunday, January 20, 2008

Some Great Speeches

Patrick Henry's "Treason" speech before the House of Burgesses in an 1851 painting by Peter F. Rothermel



In honor of the 2008 Presidential Primaries I thought I'd post what I consider to be great speeches from American history. I got this idea from Washington Post.com and American Thinker. The Washignton Post left out what I thought were some extremely important speeches, but I think their list was more geared to MLK day. There are a couple of things that all great speeches have in common:
1.) The moment. The exact time in history where the speakers words will resonate.
2.) The backdrop. The place the speech is delivered amplifies its meaning.
3.) The words. All great speeches are as inspiring when read as they are when delivered orally.

Here's my list (in no particular order):

1. Lincoln’s Second Inaugural

On March 4, 1865 the Civil War was finally winding down. Abraham Lincoln stood on the Capitol steps underneath the recently completed dome – a symbol of the country’s commitment to the Union.

Lincoln delivered one of the shortest but one of the most memorable inaugural addresses of all time. The peroration haunts us to this day:

Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said ‘the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether’.

With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan—to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.

Standing 15 feet away from Lincoln was John Wilkes Booth. The two would meet a month later in Ford’s Theater.

2. Patrick Henry “Give me liberty or give me death.”

On March 23, 1775, the British were occupying Boston and had declared martial law throughout the colony. A rabble rousing firebrand member of the House of Burgess named Patrick Henry stood up and, some believe, helped start a war. Others say he gave America a national consciousness that day. What he did was convince some very influential people – George Washington among them – that if the British could take away the rights of New Englanders they could do it to Virginians.

Henry’s bombastic, sneering, inspiring speech was a catalyst for Virgina to support Massachusetts and thus start the country down the road to independence. The peroration from Henry’s speech is what we most remember:

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, “Peace! Peace!”—but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!

3. Washington’s Speech before Congress Resigning his Commission

It was an act that stunned the Europeans and caused them to elevate Washington to hero status. A winning general simply resigning and going home? Such a thing had never been done – going all the way back to the Romans.

Washington, ever cognizant of his place in history and knowing full well what his self-abnegation would mean to the history books, nevertheless was quite sincere about going home. On December 23, 1783, he stood before Congress and with trembling hands, delivered a short, graceful speech that assured the strength of civilian rule and democracy in America:

Having now finished the work assigned me, I retire from the great theatre of Action; and bidding an Affectionate farewell to this August body under whose orders I have so long acted, I here offer my Commission, and take my leave of all the employments of public life.

4. Franklin Roosevelt’s First Inaugural Address

March 4, 1933 saw the American experiment in ruins. More than 13 million unemployed. Industrial capacity at 50% of what it was pre-stock market crash. Banks closing, soup lines, suicides up – people had lost faith.

Franklin Roosevelt didn’t change things immediately. Indeed, unemployment was still at 10% more than 8 years later on December 7, 1941. But what Roosevelt offered was hope that things were going to get better. And for a people as optimistic as Americans historically are, that’s all that was needed.

Contrasted with the do-nothing Hoover administration, Roosevelt’s activism was a tonic that got America out of the doldrums and blunted much of the impetus for a communist revolution that in 1932 seemed a possibility. Here’s the passage everyone remembers:

So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and of vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. And I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.

But it is his peroration that inspires:

We do not distrust the future of essential democracy. The people of the United States have not failed. In their need they have registered a mandate that they want direct, vigorous action. They have asked for discipline and direction under leadership. They have made me the present instrument of their wishes. In the spirit of the gift I take it.

In this dedication of a Nation we humbly ask the blessing of God. May He protect each and every one of us. May He guide me in the days to come.

5. Ronald Reagan at Point du Hoc

This speech is consistently ranked in the top 10 of the greatest of the 20th Century. And for good reason. It has all the elements I mentioned above that makes a great speech plus the drama of having the survivors of D-Day present to listen to it.

The Rangers looked up and saw the enemy soldiers—the edge of the cliffs shooting down at them with machineguns and throwing grenades. And the American Rangers began to climb. They shot rope ladders over the face of these cliffs and began to pull themselves up. When one Ranger fell, another would take his place. When one rope was cut, a Ranger would grab another and begin his climb again. They climbed, shot back, and held their footing. Soon, one by one, the Rangers pulled themselves over the top, and in seizing the firm land at the top of these cliffs, they began to seize back the continent of Europe. Two hundred and twenty-five came here. After 2 days of fighting, only 90 could still bear arms.

Behind me is a memorial that symbolizes the Ranger daggers that were thrust into the top of these cliffs. And before me are the men who put them there.

These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc. These are the men who took the cliffs. These are the champions who helped free a continent. These are the heroes who helped end a war.

Gentlemen, I look at you and I think of the words of Stephen Spender’s poem. You are men who in your ``lives fought for life . . . and left the vivid air signed with your honor.’‘

Video here. MP3 here.

6. Roosevelt Declaration of War Against Japan

In a voice shaking with emotion and indignation, Roosevelt threw down the gauntlet to the Japanese empire:

Yesterday, December 7th, 1941—a date which will live in infamy—the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

The United States was at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific.

Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in the American island of Oahu, the Japanese ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to our Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. And while this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack.

Given before a joint session of Congress while men were still trapped below decks in many of the ships bombed at Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt’s peroration drew the loudest and most prolonged standing ovation of his career:

Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in grave danger.

With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph—so help us God.

I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7th, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese empire.

Roosevelt’s words awoke the “Sleeping Giant” by putting the war in terms of a crusade against the Japanese.

MP3 here.

7. Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address

He was invited as an after thought. The great orator of the time Edward Everett was slated to give the dedication with Lincoln invited to make a “few appropriate remarks.” Originally scheduled for September 23, 1863, Horton said he could hardly do justice to the event with such short notice. The organizers rescheduled for November 19th.

Everett’s two hour oration held the audience spellbound. It was a classic 19th century eulogy with allusions to the Greeks and the Romans, biblical quotes, and flowery language – all given in a booming voice so that all could hear.

Then the President of the United States rose and in his high pitched, tinny, nasally voice, spoke the words that redefined America for all time by greatly expanding the very definition of freedom:

The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

No other speech in American history has accomplished so much by saying so little.

8. Kennedy Inaugural

Many historians believe that the January 20, 1961 Kennedy Inaugural address was the best of all time. I agree. The speech is a masterpiece of writing and Kennedy delivered it magnificently.

Beyond that, it was the time the speech was given that gave it such resonance. World War II vets were moving into positions of authority in business, in labor, in politics. The torch was indeed being passed to a new generation. And most Americans believed that the coming years would see a confrontation with the Soviet Union.

But little noticed by many is that the “young people” who flocked to Kennedy’s banner were not baby boomers. That group was too young. Rather it was the “tweeners” who were born between 1935 and 1945 who were too young for World War II and mostly too young for Korea (the Korean war ended in 1953) who supported him. The baby boomers adopted him after his death for the most part.

But Kennedy’s apparent youthfulness – something he cultivated religiously despite his poor health – inspired the entire population. His enthusiasm or “vigor” also was contagious. After the Eisenhower years, it was like the country woke up from a long nap.

The speech was a challenge to the country and to the Soviets. Reading it, one is struck by how bellicose it was – a cold warrior’s dream come true. And its stirring call to sacrifice for the common good – so often misused by Democrats when they call upon the people to help the poor or pay more in taxes – was actually an echo of the kind of sacrifice the country made during WWII.

In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility—I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it. And the glow from that fire can truly light the world.

And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world, ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

Kennedy is referring to the coming confrontation with the Soviets – that he makes quite clear he wishes to avoid but has no illusions about the enemy. Echoes of this speech are still heard today making it a truly historic speech.

Video here.

Wednesday, January 9, 2008

Politically Incorrect Jefferson

The modern-day image of Jefferson as a social and political liberal would be shattered after a single reading of his Bill for Proportioning Crimes and Punishments. Capital punishment is maintained for murder and treason while rescinded for all other crimes. Even so, other crimes receive some rather harsh and politically incorrect penalties.

Consider these examples:

"If any person commit petty treason, or a husband murder his wife, a parent his child, or a child his parent, he shall suffer death, by hanging, and his body be delivered to Anatomists to be dissected" (Sec. IV).

"Whosoever committith murder by poisoning, shall suffer death by poison" (Sec. V).

"Whosoever shall be guilty of rape, polygamy, or sodomy with man or woman, shall be punished; if a man, by castration, a woman, by boring through the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch in diameter at the least" (Sec. XIV).

"Whosoever committith a robbery, shall be condemned to hard labour four years in the public works, and shall make double reparation to the persons injured" (Sec. XX).

"All attempts to delude the people, or to abuse their understanding by exercise of the pretended arts of witchcraft, conjuration, enchantment, or sorcery, or by pretended prophecies, shall be punished by ducking and whipping, at the discretion of a jury, not exceeding fifteen stripes" (Sec. XXIX).

There's no way that Thomas Jefferson could ever run for political office today holding these views.

Thursday, December 27, 2007

Would you, could you, vote McCain?


John McCain's campaign has recently come back from the dead. His poll numbers in New Hampshire were up but I still have major issues with his soft on immigration (similar to the Huckabee and Giuliani 'immigration drag queens') or the 'I'm with Ted' stance, and the McCain-Feingold bill. Also, he looks pretty rough these days. Let's face it, a presidential candidate has to look good.

I’m certainly not looking forward to nine months of “well, he beats the alternative," but then again, it seems like we’re pretty much guaranteed that, no matter who wins the Republican nomination.

I agree with Thomas Sowell :

None of the candidates looks truly inspiring at this point. I wouldn’t buy a used car from most of them, nor a brand new car from some of them…

… John McCain seems to be having a little resurgence but it is hard to believe that Republicans are so desperate as to support a man who joined with far left Democrat Russ Feingold to restrict free speech in the name of “campaign finance reform” and with Ted Kennedy to sponsor a bill giving amnesty to illegal immigrants.

…This nation has come back from unpromising times before. Let’s hope that we have not already used up all our luck.

Where's Nixon when you need him?