Friday, November 23, 2012

2012: America's folly

Well, America has spoken. They have chosen to re-elect the incumbent president Barack Obama. As a Ron Paul fan, I was not impressed by either of the 2012 candidates. I wanted to vote for Gary Johnson, but I ended up voting for Mitt Romney. I voted for him because Barack Obama is a Marxist who wants to "spread the wealth around," and I figured that Romney would at least be a slower death. Those were Obama's own words by the way (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoqI5PSRcXM). Such naive notions obliterate a country's economy as the "evil rich" are taxed to empower the "disenfranchised poor" and "righteous middle class" (Levin, 2009). Regardless, I can't help but wonder why people still rushed to Obama in droves? I mean, Romney was certainly no "knight in shining armor," but what has Obama actually done? I believe that Obama's success can be attributed to highly effective fear mongering. He actually advertised blatant lies like, "Romney does not believe in equal pay for men and women" (Abdullah, Brennan, 2012). And we can't forget the "Paul Ryan wheeling seniors off the cliff" one either (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGnE83A1Z4U). Of course, most people watch nonsensical ads like this and buy them without any critical thought. Couple that with Obama's hip appeal, and you have a successful campaign. Besides his scare antics, Obama also played the "I'm for the little guy" card in every debate. He always said that he thinks that the rich need to pay a little bit more. This undying rhetoric never fails to amaze me. Whenever one of my peers regurgitates this nonsense, I respond with, "Oh I see. How many poor people are hiring right now?" Such flawed reasoning results in an even worse economy for all socioeconomic brackets. Lastly, So to sum it up, Obama won because of a few reasons: 1. being "hip" 2. fear mongering 3. catering to special interest groups ( a given for all politicians). Maybe I should stop teaching history because it is a lot of work. After all, cell phones are free for low-income families now (Rickards, 2011). Sources: Rickards, Jordan. Obama’s Welfare Recipients Entitled To Free Cell Phones, 250 Free Minutes Per Month, and Free Wireless Internet. Retrieved from: http://rickardsreview.com/2011/02/15/obamas-welfare-recipients-entitled-to-free-cell-phones-250-free-minutes-per-month-and-free-wireless-internet/. 02/15/2011 Levin, Mark. Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto. 2011 Abdullah, Halimah and Brennan, Allison. Obama, Romney equal on gender pay inequality, Retrieved from: http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/19/politics/romney-obama-women-hiring/index.html. 10/20/2012

Friday, May 11, 2012

Re-establishing the establishment clause

I am amazed by the blatantly fallacious claims that the Supreme Court perpetuates concerning the "establishment clause" in the first amendment. I have recently been analyzing concepts that are relevant to my profession of teaching. The Supreme Court steadfastly affirms the premise that government cannot have anything to do with religion. I posed the following question to my professor: Does the first amendment really ban public schools or other state-sponsored institutions from promoting religion? The professor said that she is not sure. I decided to research this critical matter. First, what are the arguments used to affirm the current view? The first amendment, of course, is the logical starting point: 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. (U.S. Const. amend. I) The first independent clause is called the "establishment clause." The Supreme Court interprets this to mean that no Government -whether State or Federal- can promote or demote religion. As is evident, this restriction is imposed on "congress;" it is not imposed on state legislatures. It was never meant to be used to incriminate a state's public schools for allowing a valedictorian to mention the name of Jesus from the stage. The other commonly used argument is taken from one of Jefferson's letters. In 1802, he wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, a religious group in Connecticut. They were pleading for Federal help because they felt that the state did not consider religion a right; the state considered it a privilege. The following excerpt is used to defend the status quo view: Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Jefferson's letter actually means the exact opposite of what is typically derived from the letter: the Federal Government can't help a religious minority via intervening in a state's business. This short phrase is often misconstrued to mean that the State government cannot allow religion to exist in any institution. Such an interpretation grossly embellish Jefferson's words. The letter clearly defended the State's right to set its own rules regarding religion. In 1947, one Arch Everson flied suit because he did not believe that his state of New Jersey should be allowed to use his money (from taxes) to sponsor Catholic schools. This famous case, Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), determined that the "establishment clause" should be used to prevent state governments from promoting any religion. According to justice Hugo Black: "The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another... How did he derive such a botched interpretation? One has to either be ignorant or deceptive to say something so bogus. In the end it was a 5-4 vote. I contend that this should have never passed. It is foolish and naive to believe that all Supreme Court justices are honest, unbiased, and nonpartisan; they are fallible and corrupt men who can serve their own interests. Thus, decisions like this need to sometimes be re-evaluated. The Supreme court should repeal this decision immediately. Now it is important to note that each state has its own Constitution. This whole article is moot if a state's constitution endorses the view that its own governmental institutions. However, there have been many cases (e.g. lemon v. kurtzman in 1971) where he Federal government has wrongly intervened. This article is specifically dedicated to the cases that end up in the Federal district, appellate, or supreme courts. Such cases should never have left the State. Hopefully, this article has shed some new light on this pivotal issue. Although the fierce debates will surely continue, knowledge is power. Hopefully this knowledge can stunt the growth of the all-consuming Federal government that is growing at a detrimentally exponential rate. God help us.

Monday, July 25, 2011

Why did Senate not pass the the cut, cap, and balance bill?

Something amazing happened. Well....almost. According to Eyder Perlata, the cut, cap, and balance bill proposes a fews things: the debt ceiling is not allowed to be raised unless Congress first sends a balanced budget amendment to the states for ratification, calls for for a 1.5 trillion cut in this years deficit, and caps federal spending to 24% GDP (Peralta, "House Passes 'Cut, Cap, and Balance' Bill." NPR). The House passed the bill with a 234-190 vote. The Democrat-controlled Senate, however, refused to pass the bill. Why did they refuse to pass it? The Democrats believe that such a bill would force cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security while Republicans believe that such cuts will inevitably happen even if the bill is not passed (Peralta, "House passes 'Cut, Cap, and balance' Act").

This is tragic. Our country's prudent and frugal foundation has been obliterated by statism. If one compares the presidents of the past few decades to Washington through Coolidge, he will be surprised by the drastically different economic perspectives. This tragedy cannot simply be blamed on one party; it is the fault of both major parties. Currently, however, the Democratic party is refusing to budge on lowering the debt ceiling or reducing spending in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

Although I could list several Federal departments that need to be reduced or eliminated altogether, our focus needs to be on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. These are Statist concepts that should have never been implemented in a laissez faire, capitalist country. Did you know that these three entitties account for half of our budget? Liberals tend to blame the military for eating up our taxes, but the military only accounts for 18.74% of our budget while Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, account for 56% (Anonymous, File:Fy2010 spending by category.jpg).

Thus, while the Democrats complain that the cut, cap, and balance bill will reduce Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, I argue that these three entities need to be eliminated altogether. Allow the states to vote on their own aid programs. The Federal Government has never been enumerated the power to enforce such a system.

The influx of GOP Tea Partiers is a breath of fresh air. This group has been instrumental in finally proposing substantial changes in our ridiculous spending habits (Recall that Reagon once said that "government spending is like a baby's alimentary canal, a happy appetite on one end and no responsibility at the other"). Our bloated deficits can only inflate so much. If we cannot develop the same prudence that our founders had, we may soon have to default on our loans and face the aftermath.

Sources:

Anonymous, File:Fy2010 spending by category.jpg. 07/25/2011

Eyder Peralta. "House Passes "Cut, Cap, and Balance' Bill." NPR. 07/25/2011

Monday, June 13, 2011

Michael Moore defies physics and sinks to a new low

I just finished watching "Bowling for Columbine" which was an anti-gun film by Michael Moore. Although I try to avoid giving Michael Moore any undue attention, his unparalleled lunacy, stupidity, and rudeness requires some comments. The central theme of his movie utilizes the same stupidity of most leftist thinking: guns kill people.

Well, if Moore would start thinking with his brain instead of his emotions, he would realize that PEOPLE kill people. Guns, like knives, cars, and chemicals, are simply tools used to accomplish crimes.

Moore's arguments rest on nothing more than run-of-the-mill appeal to emotion (his only strategy). The film is nothing more than the same repeating situation: he approaches people, shows them pictures of dead children, and convinces them that guns are the villain (not the gun-wielder of course).

The worst part of the film is when Michael Moore ambushes the late Charlton Heston who was the head of the NRA (National Rifle Association) at the time. He speaks with Heston through the intercom and schedules an interview for the next morning. Moore says, "I am a member of the NRA, and I want to visit with you." Moore implies that he wantes to simply visit with Heston and discuss a common interest, this is not even close to his true intentions.

The next day, Moore enters Heston's house and bombards him with statistics and arguments. Heston grows increasingly uncomfortable through the interview and eventually leaves the room. Moore follows him and continues to spew his hollow leftist rhetoric. Moore finishes by leaving a picture of a gun-violence victim on his doorstep.

One would assume that such nonsensical propaganda like this would be rejected by America, right? Wrong, it won an academy award. Of course, if a conservative sabatoged someone like Michael Moore, he would be lambasted by the liberal media.

My point is this: it is so easy to manipulate emotions in a democracy. Conservatives and Liberals do it on an every day basis. Michael Moore is a pig though. He is a fat, manipulatuve, ignorant pundit who succeeds in persuading people to follow his propaganda. I leave you with a quote from the 2008 Libertarian Vice-Presidntial candidate Wayne Allyn Root:

"Michael Moore is a perfect example of how great America is. In Cuba, one can support his government and be rewarded with a lifetime of misery and poverty. In the United States, one can denigrate Capitalism and everything this great country stands for and be rewarded with a Beverly Hills mansion, millions of dollars, and the bonus undying admiration of limousine-liberal Hollywood hypocrites. America is a great place to live!"

(Source: Wayne's book "The Conscience of a Libertariam: Enpowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gold, and tax Cuts")

Thursday, December 9, 2010

Book Review: "End the Fed" by Ron Paul

I just finished "End the Fed" by Ron Paul. I believe that this book needs to be on every American's reading list. Libertarians, Democrats, Republicans, and every other freedom-loving party should endorse this book. Let's find out why:

Dr. paul discusses the problems with the Federal Reserve system and why it is destroying our country. I plan on writing an entire post dedicated to the inherent flaws of the Fed later, but for now, we will focus on what Dr. Paul wrote and how well he wrote it.

"End the Fed" has a beautiful balance of writing styles; it is both academic and passionate. I have ready many political books that are very substantial, but entirely boring. I have also read not a few political books that are passionate, but "fluffy." By "fluffy" I mean non-substantial; they only rant, they do not present facts or solutions. Both the meticulous scholar and the passionate activist could enjoy this book.

"End the Fed" is a perfect length, and it is very affordable. It is not unnecessarily long, and its arguments are well-grounded and adequate. That should be the ultimate goal of any political book- succinctness. I bought the book for $15.00. That hopefully will not break anybody.

As for the content, it is beyong worthwhile, it is essential. "End the Fed" has fully convinced me that "we the people" are ignorant on what the Fed is, how it works, the power it has, the secrecy it has, and the potential dangers of bad financial planning. Admittedly, I was far more ignorant than I realized when I started reading "End the Fed." Not only has it enlightened me on the purpose and history of the Fed, it has stimulated my interest (or rather lack of) in Economics. Most importantly- it proved to me that a proper economic system is essential for true liberty.

I encourage all of the readers of my blog (which I could probably count on one hand lol) to pick this book up. If you decide not to, at least research the Federal Reserve on the internet. Learn more about its origins, purposes, secrecy, and power. Our country's future depends on it!

My rating- 10/10

Saturday, October 30, 2010

Who I will vote for in the Nov. 2 Nevada Election

My Nevada Votes

United States Senate


My vote- Sharron Angle

Sharron Angle- When I first heard that she was the Republican candidate, I was not happy. She is not a very dynamic speaker, and she has limited experience. However, after watching her debate Reid, I can see that she has a fighting spirit. After reviewing her position on the above mentioned issues, I believe that she would be a great- and much needed- Nevada senator. She is also backed by the Nevada Concerned Citizens.

Scott Ashjian- His character is sketchy. He has been regarded as a “tea party imposter” from the beginning. I do not think that I would go as far as to affirm that, but I do believe that he is no better equipped than Sharron Angle. He should drop out and not rob Sharron Angel of votes. He knows that he will not win. He should support Angle because she is also backed by the Tea Party.

Tim Fasano- I believe that he has a good heart, but he does not stand a chance. He affirms small government and complete adherence to the constitution. He seems well educated, but he just does not have the support for this election.

Michael Haines- I could not find any information about his stances. His website only contained his biography. He has no backing.

Jeffrey Reeves- He is a radical conspiracy theorist who believes that Zionist bankers are running our country. His website contains nothing more than his disdainful words (in all caps) about how evil the Zionist mafia is. Who knows, maybe he is right. Him and his 5 voters can have coffee and discuss it.

Harry Reid- The archenemy of any constitution-following American. He surprisingly does support the right to bear arms, but he also supports Obama care, Global Warming laws, and practically every other liberal stance. Get Reid Out!

Wil Stand- I could not even find his website!

Representative in Congress, District 3

My vote- Joe Heck

Joe Heck- He is a solid candidate. He served as Senator for a term, and his voting record shows that he sticks to his guns. He voted against the state covering prostrate cancer screenings and HPV vaccines, and he voted against illegal aliens receiving financial aid. His record proves that he is THE candidate. He is also backed by the Nevada Concerned Citizens.

Barry Michaels- On his website he claims to be “socially liberal and fiscally conservative”. I do not believe that universal healthcare is fiscally conservative. He does not cover any other issues on his website. As one who believes that healthcare issues are paramount, I cannot vote for any candidate who supports universal health care.

Scott Narter- I could not even find a website about him.

Joseph Silvestri- I found a few independent websites about him. I learned that his favorite band is “Kings X” (an awesome rock band from the 80’s) but I could not find anything about what he believes in. Even though he is a Libertarian, I cannot vote for someone unless I know what he believes in.

Dina Titus- Typical liberal. Her website contains nothing about her stances on relevant issues. She once proposed that the state of Nevada should allot $10 million a year for illegal immigrants. Great! Let’s reward criminals!

Governor
My vote- Arthur Lampitt Jr.

David Curtis- He is the only Green Party member on the ballot. His party is a radical, far-left group that considers environmental issues to be of the utmost importance. He only listed a few of his stances. He supports universal health care. He supports government censorship because he believes that it is necessary to enforce political correctness. He is for big government, and big government means big problems.

Eugene DeSimone- He is an intriguing candidate. He has a three step plan to revitalize Nevada’s economy. One of his plans is to allow Nevada citizens to purchase the right to go above the speed limit- up to 90 MPH. As intriguing as it sounds, however, I am unsure as to how such a plan could be executed. His website does not give any plans; it only has dreams. I can not vote for one with ideas that lack a sound foundation.

Floyd Fitzgibbons- He is right on! I agree with him on almost every issue. I doubt that he has enough followers to secure a victory, but this man is right on with what he says. His commentaries on issues are very intelligent.

Aaron Honig- His site lacks any real substance. He believes in Global Warming and that we should implement methods to obtain energy from alternative sources. He is not entirely for amnesty, but he dances around the issue. I do not know enough about him.

Arthur Lampitt Jr.- He is a classic libertarian. I agree with him on almost all of the issues presented. He is opposed to capital punishment, but that is not a major issue. He lives by the 10th amendment, and that is a very important amendment to live by in this day since the Federal government is out of control.

Rory Reid- When did the devil have a son? OK no more jokes about his family; he can’t help it. Anyways, he is very liberal, but he is not as excited about Obama care as his father is. That is his one good point. He only addresses a few issues on his website. He is too concealed.

Brian Sandoval- He has a good stance on most issues. He is, however, pro-choice, and I consider this a major issue. I did some research on him and I found out that he is bit of a “flip-flopper” like John Kerry was in the 2004 election. He has changed his stance on tax-increase and gay marriage issues several times. I can not vote for one who wavers that much. Source- http://nevadanewsandviews.com/2010/05/09/brian-sandoval-confuses-himself-on-marriage-pledge/

Lieutenant Governor
My Vote- Brian Krolicki
Ryan Fitzgibbons- I could not find anything about him.

Brian Krolicki- His website did not say anything about his stance on the mentioned issues. However, he is tea-party backed which I consider a huge plus.

Jessica Sferrazza- Her website only said that her focus is on green energy projects, which is a huge negative. She is also endorsed by the unions which is yet another huge negative.

From this point on I will give a short summary about each candidate since the positions they are running for do not require the rubric I designed.

Secretary of State
My vote- John Wagner

Rob Lauer, REP- His website does not contain much. I did see an ad on the side that was asking voters to end the business tax which I like.

Ross Miller, DEM- I was actually very surprised when I read biographical information about this candidate. He successfully led an investigation against the leftist organization ACORN. Still, he supports the business tax. Bummer…

John Wagner, IAP- A great constitution-following candidate. He probably won’t win, but he has my vote. He is backed by the Nevada Concerned Citizens.

State Treasurer
My vote- Steven Martin

Mike Hawkins, IAP- I could not find any information on him.

Kate Marshall, DEM- She is endorsed by a billion and a half unions. She supports big government. To her credit though, there is nothing that bad about her. She formed a bipartisan commission to audit the treasurer’s office. If she wins the election, I will not be disappointed.

Steven Martin, REP- He was the State controller for a term, he is a CPA, he is a small businessman, he supports risk-based assessment, he believes that transparency is essential. He has my vote since he is a small businessman. We need politicians who have such experience. He is also backed by the Nevada Concerned Citizens.

State Controller

My vote- Warren Markowitz

Barry Herr, REP- His site has biographical information, but it lacks much more. He has some education and some experience in the private sector, but he does not have much experience in politics.

Warren Markowitz, IAP- He is endorsed by the Constitution party…need I say more? Well, there is one thing that I don’t like- he is a lawyer, and he does not seem to have any political experience. However, his Constitutional foundation has won me over.

Kim Wallin, DEM- She is our current state controller. She has an impressive discography. She has won a plethora of awards from CPA magazines and organizations. Regardless, she supports big government- and that means that she supports big problems.

Attorney General
My vote- Travis Barrick

Travis Barrick, REP- He seem like a good candidate. He wants to get rid of Obamacare ASAP. He supports gun rights and opposes amnesty. I like him.

Catherine Cortez Masto, DEM- We need to get out of office immediately. She refused to sue the Federal Government for their intrusion of rights with Obamacare when the Governor asked her to do so. She is endorsed by the Unions. She is definitely NOT constitutional since she believes in the Obamacare

Joel Hansen, IAP- He seems like a good candidate. He is one of the founders of the IAP in Nevada. He believes that we have strayed from the Founding Fathers’ foundation. He also is endorsed by the Nevada Concerned Citizens site. He is my 2nd choice.

State Senate District 5
My vote- Michael Roberson

Michael Roberson, REP- He wants to incentivize out-of-state small businesses to re-locate in Nevada by cutting business taxes. He wants to declare Nevada a “Free enterprise zone.” I like this guy; he has my vote!

Joyce Woodhouse, DEM- She wants to “create jobs” with alternative energy. I do not see much promise there. She wants to increase funds to schools in this economy. Sorry but we can’t afford to!

State Assembly District 22
My vote- Lynn Stewart

Kevinn Donovan, DEM- He is a typical Democrat. His site contains Union endorsements

Salli Durban, IAP- She was interviewed by the Las Vegas Review Journal, but she does not have an official website. She wants all public schools to have a vocational program to ensure that every student can master a trade. She identifies herself as a social conservative. The interview did not contain much else. She seems alright…but not what I am looking for.

Nathan Santucci, LIB- He does not have an official site, but I found his biography. It did not contain much. Even though he is a Libertarian, I cannot vote for a candidate that I know little about.

Lynn Stewart, REP- His site does not contain much, but he is endorsed by the Nevada Concerned Citizens. He seems to hold basic Republican values so I will vote for him.

District Attorney
My vote- David Roger
Don Chairez, DEM- His site does not contain too much. I have to assume that he stands by his party in all major issues.

David Roger, REP- His site does not list his positions on major issues, but it does display his record (he is campaigning for re-election). He has done a good job so far. He has my vote.

Conclusion
Well this took me a good 15-20 hours! I am glad to finally be finished. There are more candidates, but I covered the major ones. I encourage you to look up the candidates running for all of the other offices. Just go to Google and type in the candidate’s name. If you do not find any information, just ignore the candidate because if he does not have his information online, he is showing a lack of motivation. Lastly- Go Vote! Don’t be a bum!

Saturday, September 25, 2010

The irony of Foxnews haters

In 2006, I took Philosophy 102: Critical Thinking at Community College. Anyone who has ever attended a secular liberal arts college knows that it is a liberal's play ground. Ever leftist professor has his or her own platform to spew nonsensical propaganda that includes, but is definitely not limited to: America is evil, God does not exist, absolutes do not exist, white people are evil, women and men are the same, Darwinian evolution is an absolute fact, Republicans are idiots, and so on.
Well my Philosophy 102 Professor was yet another proud, pompous Liberal who felt that his calling in life was to proclaim the greatness of the Green Party, to point out the stupidity of the right wing, and to deny the existence of the Christian God. He also bragged about how he and his wife reused rags instead of toilet paper...but that is for another time. He missed class one day due to sickness. Because of his absence, his wife played a documentary for the class called "Outfoxed" (how thoughtful, right?) It was a scathing critique of Foxnews that attempted to prove that Foxnews was not, as their motto claims, "fair and balanced."
The documentary was high-quality and well-researched. I have to say that the team that created this documentary did an amazing job. They interviewed disgruntled former employees of Foxnews, they found and documented old notes that forced anchors to use terminology that supported right wing causes, and they indicated linguistical oratorical devices used on an everyday basis on Fox.
After watching this though, I could not help but laugh. I thought to myself, "Did they REALLY just spend all that time and money proving such an obvious point?" Fox news is RIGHTWING? What? No Joke? Seriously?
Well in case you were not aware, they are. Of course, I do not see a critique of MSNBC or the New York Times. They are certainly fair and balanced, right?
The point is that all news is biased. I get annoyed with all these whiners and their ridiculous statements: "Oh it's all corrupt!" "The news is all just...nonsense." "Fox news is watched by sheeple!"
The truth is that the news is indeed biased. This article that I am writing is biased. Even the most "nonpartisan" person is incapable of producing an article with at least a hint of bias. The point is...that's ok. We are all human and we all have opinions. I glad that everyone is capable being autonomous.
The responsibility is actually on the viewer. When you watch or read ANY newssource, you need to put your critical thinking glasses on. You need to take everything you hear with a grain of sand. Their is always a core of truth to every major new story, but the way that it is portrayed is when the skewing happens. Example regarding abortion:
Non-biased: Abortion the process of removing an organism from a pregnant mother.
Liberal: Abortion is the process of a free woman exercising her right to neutralize a fetus and remove IT because it is HER body and nobody else's.
Conservative: Abortion is the process of murdering a child. The mother claims to have rights, but what about the child?
Regardless of your worldview, you should be able to know one thing from this example: Abortion is when a growing organism is removed from its mother. Fox would probably be more Conservative in their portrayal while MSNBC would probably be more liberal.
The point is that all news is biased, not just Fox.
I personally watch Foxnews. I have their website set as my homepage. Do I trust everything they say? Heck no. However, I identify with their message and I prefer to receive my news from people who I see eye to eye with. Besides, Keith Olbermann is a tool and I get sick of Rachel Maddow always talking about her girlfriend. (Seriously, does she have to say that EVERYTIME she is on air?)
Comments?