“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.”
This amendment is undoubtedly the most referenced one of the Bill of Rights in that it firmly establishes in clear language rights of all people while limiting the power of Congress (consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate) in law-making ability. Once again, we are in awe of the wisdom and foresight of the Founding Fathers of this country well over two hundred years ago. Their concerns were obviously grounded in experiences living under royal rulers and tyrannies in Europe and it was for them truly important to spell out these concerns and safeguard against limitations when it came to certain freedoms in these early amendments to the Constitution.
You might have noticed, that we bolded above the four words ‘or of the press’ since this is the topic of this article. It was of extreme importance for the press to be free of government dictates or directives in order to write and publish accurately and truthfully about events, all issues and topics as they happened and occurred. It also meant for the press to be able to be critical of actions as taken by any entity, be they government, corporate, religious, political parties or any other private group. It has served the people of America well and the so called ‘press’ – what we in today’s world refer to as media – has for the most part lived up to its expectations by investigating and uncovering misdeeds, wrong doings, criminal acts by a vast variety of individuals as well as groups. For example, it was the diligent work and persistence of two Washington Post reporters in the 1970′s, Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, who dug up the facts and brought about the truth of the Watergate scandal, resulting in the resignation of President Richard Nixon and the criminal prosecution of several Nixon Administration members.
While we do not know the beginning of the trend, we here at Common Sense Politics do not like how the media – press, television and radio – has changed in years past to the present. This industry has evolved into something different from what originally was intended to be ‘the Freedom of the Press’. The constitutional guarantee of this ‘freedom’ was not meant to be used for opinion forming purposes but to give this industry the right to report the truth about everything.
What do we mean by this? We do not like the fact that negative news items get top billing on a consistent basis. Someone once phrased this ‘If it bleeds, it leads’. In other words disasters, natural or man-made, crimes of any kind be they murders, kidnappings, corporate fraud, people’s sufferings and so on will take priority to so called ‘good news’ any day, any week, any month or any year. The reasoning behind this is called that people in general are not as interested in good news. We wholeheartedly disagree with this! We like to read about rescues, individuals winning battles against fatal diseases, athletes achieving new heights and goals in their respective sports, stories about heroism and survival and overcoming incredible odds and so on. Why has the media determined that the local evening news for example has to begin with the traffic accident on the nearest freeway? Most newscast in metropolitan areas will spent the first ten to fifteen minutes about the murders, drive-by shootings, traffic accidents etc. that happened during the past 24 hours. Do the families sitting down for dinner after a hectic day really want to know all this and just lap up the negative news of the day? We do not think so.
Another major concern of ours is the inclusion of opinions and speculations in stories of any kind. Instead of just reporting the facts as they exist, there is the immediate addition and personal belief of potential consequences of what just has happened. Take for example the recent 5.4 Richter scale earthquake near Los Angeles in Southern California. This was the first strong earthquake in this area since the one centered in Northridge in January 1994. Instead of just reporting the facts about this latest earthquake where no lives were lost, no major damage to structures occurred, the media membership had to embellish the story by commencing to speculate whether or not this one was the forerunner of the anticipated ‘Big One’ for this region. There is absolutely no basis of fact for this sort of nonsense, no matter the intensive studies of major earthquake faults, any kind of even minor reliable earthquake prediction is fiction! To our knowledge, the only somewhat reliable earthquake predictors are our pets that have been observed in the past to act strangely before earthquakes. Why then include this type of speculation in the reports and stories about the 5.4 event on July 29? Could it be the focus on the negative, we strongly believe and think so.
But the major issue we have with this media behavior is their constant attempts to influence opinions on the part of their readers, listeners and viewers. We can safely state that there is no article or report in the political arena that is not spiked by the respective author and this holds true for both sides of the spectrum. The conservatives have to bash the liberals and the liberals have to bash the conservatives. Since the media membership is about 85 percent liberal and the rest conservative, the news stories are truly unbalanced when it comes to what people get to read, to listen to and watch.
Back to the Founding Fathers: Did they intend to give the press this kind of freedom? In other words, is it perfectly alright to use this ‘freedom’ to influence the population as to what the truth and facts are? We think not! Or was this ‘freedom’ just intended and therefore limited to be free of repercussions when writing truths and facts about others and events? We think so! Just to be clear: We have absolutely no problem with editorial pieces by journalists or any other individual; we just think that any slanting or embellishment of a factual story on an event or a person in the public eye etc is wrong and is taken the constitutionally guaranteed “Freedom of the Press” too far.
‘Freedom of the Press’ taken too far is a post from: Common Sense University
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
]]>“The Greatest Story Never Told”: Today’s Economy in Perspective
THERE IS a debate going on today over whether our economy is in recession. Polls show sagging public confidence. But some perspective is sorely needed. The fact of the matter is that we in the United States, and to a lesser degree the entire world, have just lived through-and continue to live in-the greatest period of prosperity in human history. Over the last 25 years, more wealth has been created, more people have been lifted out of poverty, standards of living have been elevated more dramatically, and the quality and length of life have improved, more than ever before in recorded history. Unfortunately, as Larry Kudlow says, this is “the greatest story never told.” We need to start telling the story, and also to think about its causes.
First, let us focus on the United States (and I say this with full knowledge that the State of Michigan is a unique exception among the 50 states to America’s extraordinary recent prosperity; but the causes of Michigan’s peculiar problems are a topic for another day): Average economic growth in the U.S. has not only been positive for almost the entire last quarter century, but for much of this period the rate of growth has accelerated. Our nation’s total economic output in 1982 was $5.1 trillion; last year it was $11.3 trillion (in real 2000 dollars). Per capita economic output in 1982 was $22,400; last year it was $37,807 (in real 2000 dollars). The average unemployment rate in the 1970s was nearly seven percent; it has been declining, on average, every decade since, and has remained below five percent since 2003. The service sector of our economy has been on fire, growing from $1 trillion in 1982 to $5.5 trillion in 2006. And do you know how far back one has to go to find the year when America’s total manufacturing output peaked? All the way back to 2007! Yes, U.S. factories produced more last year than in any previous year in our history. That’s the “hollowing out”-as its critics like to say-of America’s economy.
This expanding economy has, of course, resulted in huge gains in wealth. The Dow Jones Industrial Average began the 1980s at 825; today, despite its recent declines, it remains above 12,000, a 1,400 percent increase. And with the democratization of the capital markets that has occurred through savings programs like IRAs and 401(k)s and investment vehicles like mutual funds, the average family’s wealth has grown dramatically, too. In 1983, 19 percent of American households owned stocks; in 2005, 50 percent were investors. In 1989, the median family net worth was $69,000; in 2004, it was $93,000.
These gains in income and wealth have resulted directly in a better standard of living for virtually every segment of American society-including the poor. Among families living below the official poverty line in the early 1970s, less than 40 percent had a car, almost none had color televisions, and air conditioning was virtually unheard of; in 2004, 46 percent owned their own homes, almost 75 percent owned a car (indeed, 30 percent owned two or more cars), 97 percent had color TVs, and 67 percent had air conditioning. The poor in the U.S. have an average of 721 square feet of living space per person, as compared with 430 in Sweden and 92 in Mexico.
Similarly, technology has become accessible to all sectors of society. There were 9.8 million cable TV subscribers in 1975, and 65 million in 2006; 2.1 million personal computers in 1985, and 243 million in 2007; 340 cell phone subscribers in 1985, and 243 million in 2007.
Health indicators track similarly. Infant mortality dropped from 20 deaths per 1,000 people in 1970 to seven deaths per 1,000 people in 2002. In 1980, American life expectancy was less than 74 years. Today it is 78.
Nor is America totally unique in this regard. While we have led the world in most measures of prosperity and growth, other countries have been enjoying the broadest expansion of wealth in history as well. A recent issue of The Economist documents the tremendous worldwide improvement in both the social conditions in poor countries and the alleviation of poverty: Between 1999 and 2004, some 135 million people emerged from destitution, and there are now twice as many countries with fast-growing economies as there were in 1980.
Keys to Prosperity
This long period of sustained economic growth and the huge quality-of-life improvements it made possible didn’t happen by accident. They were a result of a major expansion in economic freedom, initially in the U.S., then increasingly around the world. This expansion took many forms, but three of the most important were a dramatic reduction in marginal tax rates, a series of major deregulations, and a broad expansion of trade.
After decades of top marginal tax rates in percentiles from the 70s into the 90s, President Reagan signed the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981. The top marginal rate was reduced from 70 to 50 percent, and by the time Reagan left office, it was down to 28 percent. During Reagan’s two terms, the top corporate tax rate was reduced from 34 to 28 percent, individual tax brackets were indexed for inflation, and-although there were some tax increases-the devastatingly high top marginal tax rates that preceded Reagan were gone. Nor have they come back-at least not yet.
In subsequent years, President Bush the elder and President Clinton raised some taxes too much, but lowered others; and it didn’t appear smart to anyone that we should return to the levels that had prevailed prior to Reagan. The current President Bush has lowered taxes dramatically-not so well in 2001, but then very effectively in 2003. The effect was to lower marginal tax rates, phase out the death tax, offer marriage penalty relief, and lower taxes on capital gains and dividends.
Major deregulation was another part of the expansion of economic freedom that has enabled 25 years of strong growth. Interestingly enough, this deregulation began when President Carter signed the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, lifting price and route controls that had forced higher prices and fewer choices on consumers. Without these controls, airlines could offer deals to fill otherwise half-empty planes and choose more efficient routes. The airline industry has obviously struggled for many reasons in subsequent years, but consumers have been the big winners in terms of increased safety, more choices, and lower prices. Deregulation is responsible for ten to 18 percent lower fares, saving travelers $5-$10 billion a year.
Following this, in 1980, Carter signed the Motor Carrier Act, deregulating an industry that had been closely controlled by the government since 1935. This put a stop to regulations dictating what products truckers could transport and what routes they could travel. The kind of inefficiency that resulted from these regulations can best be understood by the following example: A motor carrier with authority to travel from Cleveland to Buffalo that purchased another carrier’s right to go from Buffalo to Pittsburgh was required to ship goods from Cleveland to Pittsburgh via Buffalo, adding an unnecessary and wasteful 272 miles to the trip. As a result of easing these regulations, prices for truckload-size shipments fell 25 percent by 1982, and efficiency gains and cost savings helped to make possible the “just-in-time” inventory system that has transformed retailing, lowered consumer costs, and, arguably, diminished the economy’s susceptibility to recessions.
President Reagan accelerated the trend toward less regulation, easing or eliminating price controls on oil and natural gas, cable television, long-distance telephone service, interstate bus service, and ocean shipping. In addition, banks were allowed to invest in a broader set of assets, and the scope of antitrust laws was reduced.
More recently, economic freedom has expanded in the form of freer international trade. In 1993, NAFTA eliminated a majority of tariffs on products traded among the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, and phased out others. In 2004, CAFTA eliminated tariffs immediately on more than 80 percent of U.S exports of consumer and industrial goods to Central America and phased out the rest over ten years. Since 1985, we’ve had bilateral or multilateral trade agreements with 16 countries. International trade is freer today than it has been at any time in the last 100 years.
Why Turn Back?
This “greatest story never told” is indeed a tremendous story. It’s the story of the fastest-growing period of prosperity-and the most dramatic mass elevation from poverty-in the history of the world. And it’s all been possible because-bit by bit, in fits and starts, with advances and retreats-the U.S. and other countries have been moving toward greater economic freedom.
In light of this story-which, to repeat, is ongoing, so that you don’t have to go back to medieval or classical times to find the evidence-it is utterly perplexing that so much of the election year rhetoric of late is aimed at reversing our economic course. For instance, it’s hard to find a domestic policy that can be proven to be as successful as the Bush tax cuts-even by presumably Democratic standards. It’s simply a matter of fact that these tax cuts shifted the tax burden substantially to higher income earners and took millions of lower income workers off the tax rolls altogether. The economy took off and ran for at least five years after implementation, and the federal deficit shrank dramatically after the tax cuts were enacted. Yet calls to reverse these tax cuts abound.
For the Democratic Party, of course, there are other reasons for rolling back economic freedom. One is the powerful special interest groups within its coalition-organized labor in particular-which rely on government for special treatment and benefits they could never obtain in free and fair market-based negotiations. Unfortunately, the resulting higher costs and inefficiencies can devastate industries and regions-Michigan being a prime example.
But if we can expect Democrats to resist economic freedom, how do we explain the timidity on the Republican side to defend the economic ideas that have fueled recent advances in prosperity? The answer is that most politicians are ultimately motivated by their perceptions of public opinion. And despite the evidence, the public doesn’t seem to realize the period of unprecedented progress we are in.
As a side note, the increasing lack of opposition among the American people to higher income taxes should not be surprising when an increasingly progressive tax code means ever fewer Americans are paying any taxes at all: In 2005, the top one percent of earners in the U.S. paid 39 percent of all income taxes, while the bottom 50 percent of earners paid just three percent. Over time, if half of the population believes that it is entitled to have someone else pay for government, we should not be surprised if public support for economic freedom continues to erode.
As one who has done a lot of campaigning over the years, I’ll admit, it can be hard to explain to some audiences why they should have to buy their own health insurance when the other side is offering to have the government give it to them for free. But that doesn’t absolve politicians of the moral obligation to present the principled and true argument.
Happy Birthday, America! is a post from: Common Sense University
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
]]>The Executive and Legislative are constitutionally equal branches of the United States of America with build-in balances for the purpose of preventing having one branch ever dominating the other one. We know that the third person in line for the Presidency (after the President and the Vice-President) is the Speaker of the House of Representatives, we further know that all federal laws commence in Congress. No President can initiate laws, raise or lower taxes by himself, this is the job and responsibility of Congress, the President can sign those laws and budgets or veto them but he cannot write or legalize any laws in his branch of the government.
Another important responsibility rests with Congress: Declaring war, period! Accordingly, President George W. Bush asked Congress to give him the authority to deal with Iraq in such a way as to prevent the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq from posing threats to their neighbors, Europe and the rest of the world by developing Weapons of Mass Destruction among other such things. This authority included the use of military force and Congress granted the President’s request in October 2002. When numerous United Nations resolutions failed to achieve Saddam Hussein’s compliance, America and some of its allies went to war against Iraq in March 2003. The initial invasion of Iraq was very successful and was hailed by nearly everyone in Congress and that included the capture of Saddam Hussein later that year. It was the aftermath of the invasion that commenced the quagmire that followed, the internal ethnic and religious struggles in that country were totally underestimated, if even remotely understood and resulted in what followed since 2003.
But it is important to recognize that President Bush who is singularly being shouldered with the war now, could not spend one dime on the war without prior approval of budgetary funds by Congress. You would not know this when you get your news from the media. They claim its Bush’s war and the President keeps it going unnecessarily. Nobody mentions in this that if Congress would simply stop funding the war, the troops would come home in short order. But in spite of all the bickering and complaining, the Democrat led Congress has not been able to stop the war or even begin bringing the troops home. Contrarily, the President introduced a new strategy early last year called the ‘surge’ (an increase of troops to fight the enemies) and Congress funded that too.
If you will remember, the mid-term election in November 2006 was framed and won by the Democrats with the slogan ‘it is time for a change’. After their victory, the Democrats claimed that the American people had spoken and given them a mandate to end the war in Iraq, raise the minimum wage and some other social issues such as investigating the executive branch’s misdeeds during the previous six years.
Is it too early now to look at their record during the past eighteen months? We think not. Here it comes:
We could be more elaborate and specific but what is the use: The results speak for themselves; the Democrats campaign theme in 2006 “It’s time for a change” has not brought about any significant changes! We also believe that it is safe to say they will not be any significant changes until the November elections this year. So then, what good was this campaign slogan and how do the people who believed their promise, wanted to see changes and voted for them feel now?
The point we want to make with this is very elementary: For all of you out there who wanted to see changes in America in late 2006, voted on the basis of empty promises without spending a little time on your own and trying to make sense out of the promises, you got snookered and deserve to be disappointed or feel at a minimum foolish! But you have another chance this fall: Analyze before you vote, think for yourself before you pull the lever for or against someone or something.
We believe to have made our point, Congress is the number one place for the culprits in America, they promise and do not deliver, they do not have your interest in mind first and foremost but the advancement of their personal beliefs and agendas, their own re-election being number One
In conclusion, we want to make one more point about ‘changes’. Common sense should tell us that bringing about changes does not have to be for the better as they could also result in things getting worse. Case in point: the price of a gallon of gas! The price for a gallon of regular gas was about $1.50 in 2001 (when President Bush moved into the White House and Congress was controlled by Republicans) and in November 2006 the price had risen to $2.40 per gallon, a total of $0.90 for the six plus years, an average annual increase of $0.15. Since the ‘change’ advocating Democrats have been in charge of Congress, the price for a gallon of gasoline nationally has risen from $2.40 to $4.10, a total increase of $1.70 (an average of approximately $0.10 per month)! Is Congress to be blamed for this? There could be two answers to this question? 1. YES, they are an equal branch of government and therewith carry a heavy load of what happens in this country! 2. NO, Congress is not to be blamed for this, the blame rests entirely with the President (and his buddies in the oil industry).
We have to ask you: Does this make sense? We do not think so, equal branches of government share equal responsibilities and therefore should share the blame for our energy crisis! The point is: Change or changes should not be assumed to be good but can also lead to disaster as seen in this example. Our recommendation is therefore: Beware of changes! Think before you vote, treat your right to vote as a precious privilege!
Real Culprits of America, continued… is a post from: Common Sense University
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
]]>Chief Justice George stated in his written opinion that “Our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation.” The opinion against this law change as written by Justice Marvin Baxter stated “Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the majority’s startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage – an understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law – is no longer valid.”
There you have it, folks. Judicial activism at work and where else but in California! The state has already laws providing for civil unions between same-sex partners, but that was insufficient in the eyes and minds of the four justices who felt that by denying gays and lesbians the right to marry was discriminatory. Chief Justice George wrote in his opinion “Allowing same-sex marriage will not harm heterosexual couples – but blocking gays and lesbians from marriage does hurt them” and he added “tradition alone could not be used to justify denial of a fundamental constitutional right.”
When we title this article the ‘Slippery Slope to de-Valuation’ we identify this to be just the beginning for these judicial activists. The capacity to love and care for a partner and to raise children should not stop here and we in a cynical way like to present the following scenarios:
What if a man falls in love with twins (or for that matter triplets) and he has the capacity and financial ability to care for these women, why should he be denied his constitutional right to pursue his happiness and be allowed to marry those twins (or triplets)? While there is a separation of church and state in the American Constitution, that should not prevent these justices from deciding laws on the basis of Islamic law where a man can marry more than one woman. For instance, what if a man from Saudi Arabia immigrates to America and he has three wives, should he have to divorce two of them in order to live here? We think not and therefore; should any man be denied the right to be married to more than one woman? Why should there be laws against polygamy? The same would hold true for any other combination, why should a wealthy woman be denied the right to marry two, three or more men at the same time.
Now then, let’s take this one more step into the absurd: If, the basis for this law is love and caring for someone else and civil rights, how long will it be before someone loves his dog or cat so much (or we should say more than anyone else on earth) that he or she will be requesting to marry his or her dog or cat? We know this is totally without any common sense and to make it perfectly clear, we are totally against such nonsense, but are we not allowed to ask the question? When four justices in California can overturn the will of the people in such an arrogant and flagrant way, what would keep them from continuing in this direction by devaluing everything that was part of societies for thousands of years and therefore the foundation of humanity?
We here at Consider Common Sense believe this to be a slippery slope and fear that this action by the four members of the California Supreme Court will not be the last. As long as there are special interest groups in this state and lawyers trying to make names for themselves, there will be more attempts to undermine our societal laws and rules by which we have lived for such a long time and which have been the foundation of our constitution. Attempts to legitimize polygamy will most likely be next but then, what do we know? Maybe reparations to gays and lesbians for having been denied for many years the right to marry could also be next and based on this ruling by the California “Supremes”, they would probably have a strong case and might get paid for their prior ‘suffering’.
It is a slippery slope and future attempts by the voters of California to reverse this decision by way of another proposition will be most likely fruitless. The only true remedy we see would be to deal with these four justices the way California voters dealt over twenty years ago with Chief Justice Rose Bird when she and two other justices, Cruz Reynoso and Joseph Grodin, were ousted from their jobs for their categorical opposition to the death penalty! Current Chief Justice George is up for election in 2010 and it remains to be seen what other decisions he will reach against the will of the people.
Slippery Slope to de-Valuation is a post from: Common Sense University
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
]]>The part that makes us say this is the fact that even though Hillary Clinton won the two larger States of Ohio and Texas on March 4, she hardly made a dent in the delegate lead that Barack Obama is having. According to the Real Clear Politics, Obama has about 1575 delegates in total of which 1366 are pledged delegates (these are the ones that were allocated by way of the election results in states) while Clinton has a total of 1464 delegates of which 1222 are so-called pledged delegates. This amounts to a lead of 111 delegates in the total tally for Obama and 144 pledged delegates. The totals include 451 committed or declared Super delegates out of a total of 796, leaving 345 Super delegates yet to decide as to who they will support at the party’s convention in late August of this year. In terms of votes cast, Mr. Obama has a lead of 585,780 over Mrs. Clinton (12,992,669 versus 12,406,988). Based on current facts, it will take 2025 delegates to win a majority to get the nomination on the Democrat side; that said, Obama needs 450 more delegates and Clinton needs 561 additional delegates.
Now what does this mean: Since all remaining state caucuses and primaries are allocated based on the percentages of the voting results, it appears that it will be, realistically speaking, impossible for Mrs. Clinton to win the nomination outright. By winning Ohio and Texas and Rhode Island on March 4, she gained only 15 to 20 delegates more than Obama out of the 421 delegates in these three states. And while the focus is now on the primary in Pennsylvania on April 22 (six weeks from today) where188 delegates are at stake, it is very difficult to imagine that either candidate will win in such large margins that the delegate allocation would make a big difference there. The same holds true for such other states as Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon and Puerto Rico where voting will take place between May and June.
Based on the fact that winning Ohio, Rhode Island and Texas did not close the gap in delegates by more than 15 to 20, how will Mrs. Clinton gain more than 111 more delegates in the remaining states in order to beat Mr. Obama? We have to say it again: It is a statistical impossibility and very unlikely! Can we therefore declare that Barack Obama will be the nominee of the Democrat party for the general election in November? We think so if we could count on total compliance to currently established election rules by the Democrats. But there are a few issues that could change the picture. One is a change to allow the delegates of Michigan and Florida to be counted even though the Democrat National Committee eliminated them last year. These two states were told unequivocally that their delegates would not be seated at the convention if they, the state Democrat party would hold their primaries prior to February 5, 2008.
Well, they did anyway by holding their elections in January. It involves a total of 366 delegates. Being behind in the delegate count, Mrs. Clinton is now calling for a change by seating those delegates after all. She won both primaries overwhelmingly since the other candidates declared to abide by party rules and did not even place their names on the ballots (in Michigan) and while Mrs. Clinton promised the same thing, she now wants to change the rules! Negotiations and discussions are currently under way to hold another set of primaries in Florida and Michigan at a later date. It will remain to be seen what the outcome will be but we can already say that Mrs. Clinton objects to these so-called ‘do-over’ primaries. Why does that not surprise us?
Another possibility of Barack Obama not attaining the majority of delegates is the uncertainty of where the remaining Super delegates will line up at the party convention. Even current commitments are not carved in stone; a Super delegate can change his or her mind up until the day of the voting at the convention. The question is then: If Obama wins the contest in the pledged delegates’ race and the total of the popular vote; would the Super delegates be willing to go against the “will of the people” and support the “losing candidate”? We do not have the answer to this question. Another unknown at this time is the possibility that either candidate slips up in such a way that people will not vote for them in the remaining caucuses and primaries. Based on the campaigns so far, we find this very unlikely.
We here at Common Sense Authors believe that Senator Barack Obama will get the nomination on the Democrat ticket if the currently established rules are strictly complied with. But we are also aware that events could happen that might prove us wrong and we are willing to wait and see!
This article and others on Common Sense Authors are designed to provoke further thought and investigation. It is not the intent for the articles to be politically biased. Sources are referenced in each article to encourage readers to delve into the supporting material. We welcome all readers to participate with their point of view either in support or contrary with additional information sources.
And the Winners are … McCain and Obama is a post from: Common Sense University
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
]]>Congress has now been under ‘new’ leadership for about seven months and it’s not a pretty picture to say the least. But then, one should not look for pretty pictures when it comes to politics in this country. Whether it is responding to their constituents or following their true beliefs, the Democrats are focusing on ending the war in Iraq and so, it did not come as a surprise that two weeks ago, the United States Senate was once again concentrating on passing a so called Levin/Reed amendment to commence troop withdrawal from Iraq within 120 days and completing it by April 30, 2008. Levin and Reed are Democrat Senators from Michigan and Rhode Island respectively. This amendment also allowed for some as yet undetermined number of troops to remain there in Iraq, further clouding its true meaning (Political Posturing at its best).
And so, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat from Nevada, scheduled lengthy debates on this amendment and even called for an ‘all-night-long’ debate to show somebody, it was not clear who that somebody was, that they were serious about ending the war in Iraq. Mr. Reid had stated several months ago that “the war in Iraq was lost” and should therefore be officially ended by starting a troop withdrawal. What followed was a gut-wrenching two-day event where it was truly embarrassing to see Senators bring out the most ridiculous arguments in favor of this amendment. When everything was said and done, the amendment failed on a procedural (cloture) vote to end debate that requires 60 votes in the affirmative. The final tally was 52 in favor and 47 votes against ending debate. The Democrats blamed the Republican for the failure of passage of the amendment and the Republicans responded in kind by reminding the Democrats that they should wait until September for the report from the General. The amendment and other Iraq war related issues were taken off the Senate calendar.
Let us review recent events in this matter: The Democrats have criticized the conduct of the war for several years now and called for a new strategy and possible new leadership. President Bush submitted a new strategy and another General for this task. General David Petraeus had served in different assignment prior in Iraq and been successful. He has been praised across party lines for being the right man for this job. The U.S. Senate confirmed him by a vote of 86 to 0 in February of this year and he was sent to Iraq with words of encouragement like ‘God speed, General’ by both, Democrats and Republicans. The accompanying new strategy involved a troop increase of about twenty five thousand soldiers. The Senate debated this issue for several months and approved the extra costs in May of this year. The approval was tied to achieving certain milestones, both, militarily and also politically by the Iraqi government. By June 15, the full implementation of the troop build-up was accomplished. Part of the agreement was that General Petraeus would return to Washington by mid-September by report back to the President and Congress about the progress on the new strategy, this allowed for a four months interval from May until September. For a major task like this, this is a very short period of time.
Instead of waiting for this September report, the Democrat Senators could NOT abide by their own agreements and decided instead to pass amendments to accelerate the timetable. This is where common sense disappears: How can you send (as the U.S. Senate did) a General to fight a war and give him a deadline for a report and then reverse yourself and cut the time period in half? Do the actions and commitments by the members of the Senate mean anything? Apply this change of agreed terms to anything else in life and you would get laughed at. Try signing a contract with a contractor to build a new house in six months and then tell him a month later that you want it done in three months. What do you think the contractor would say to you? He would think you are crazy and either talk you out of it and hold you to your contract or he would walk away from the job. Is this not what the Democrats in the Senate are trying to do?
We really don’t quite know what to call these Senators. Is their action not guaranteeing defeat in the war in Iraq? Is this not undermining the tremendous assignment they, the Senators, unanimously gave General Petraeus? Well, of course it is and one has to really wonder what is behind this turnabout by the Democrats in the Senate. What makes them do this? Issues of this magnitude should not be decided by constituent’s and poll numbers! We can only say thanks that these Senators were NOT in charge during World War II. They would have probably told General Eisenhower to call off the battle of the bulge after two weeks when things were not going well and the number of casualties mounted. It is perfectly conceivable that they would have told the troops landing and fighting on the Normandy beaches in France in June 1944: “Turn around and swim back to England, it is just too hard what you are trying to do!”
But thankfully, the current crop of armchair generals in the Senate was not in charge back then! Who knows what the world would look like today? One really has to wonder why they are in charge now. This blatant reversal by the Senators can only be called political posturing in that they think they can do anything they want at any time, never mind previous agreements and so on! There seems to be no accountability when it comes to the actions of the members of Congress.
We here at ‘Back to Common Sense’ yearn for the days when men would talk straight and would tell it like it is, and then do as they agreed. But our current acceptance of ‘political correctness’ is unfortunately not based on using one’s common sense. Otherwise, we could envision General Petraeus coming back in September and giving the members of Congress an earful, both in the Senate and in the House. Instead of mincing words, Petraeus could tell them that when they confirmed him, he took on the task of winning the war in Iraq and that they should stop micromanaging his job and altering the terms of his assignment. He, Petraeus should remind them that he reports to the Commander-in-Chief, President George W. Bush and will not be swayed by comments or criticism by 535 elected officials in Congress. In other words: Butt out!
We know this will not happen but some of us would yearn for something like this to take place. And since it will not happen, we can only imagine what in other times General George Patton would have told these people in Congress. He could have probably even told them to go to hell! By the way, World War II was the last war the United States was involved in that resulted in the total surrender of the enemy, Germany and Japan. But times have changed and we have just have to live with this incredible ineptitude in Congress.
This article and others on Back to Common Sense are designed to provoke further thought and investigation. It is not the intent for the articles to be politically biased. Sources are referenced in each article to encourage readers to delve into the supporting material. We welcome all readers to participate with their point of view either in support or contrary with additional information sources.
Would You Let Your Kids Behave Like This? is a post from: Common Sense University
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
]]>The terrible events on April 16 on the campus of Virginia Tech University have been recorded, reported and debated ad nausea in all media outlets for the past few weeks and when everything was said and done, they started all over again by looking at different angles etc. We do not intend to contribute here. Instead we want to focus on the recommendations and suggestions of those who allegedly ‘want to prevent these acts of terrors in the future’. As it shapes up, there are two clear fronts of attack: The liberals want more gun control laws and the conservatives suggest cutting back on political correctness.
It was amazing to see the reactions to the massacre at Virginia Tech within days if not even hours after it had occurred. The European press (liberal) blamed the massacre on the proliferation of guns in America, on the NRA and Charlton Heston while our American liberals decried the fact that there were just not enough laws controlling guns. In fact, MSNBC’s Keith Olberman in his blind hate for the President found a way to blame the VT massacre on President Bush and Republicans for not renewing a gun law a few years back. On the opposite side of the spectrum, conservatives argued that ‘Political Correctness’ had gone too far and was to be blamed for the massacre.
We here at Back to Common Sense believe that both sides have it, if not wrong at least partially incorrect. Common sense should tell us that we will never in this country do away with guns, we will never abolish the Second Amendment in our Constitution. On the other hand, Political Correctness is a reality in America that can also never be abolished or totally rescinded. Where does that leave us? Let’s not talk in terms of extremes but concentrate on the middle by asking the following questions:
Is it acceptable that political correctness prevents parents who pay for their children’s education to obtain any scholastic information including grades about their kids from a University or College without the written permission of the children? Had this crazy gunman’s parents known more about their son and his demeanor/behavior on V.T.’s campus, would they not have been able to do something about it by possibly taking him out of V.T. or attempted to provide him with proper mental health care and treatments?
Should we continue to have a “wall” preventing information sharing between the medical/mental health doctors or institutions and law enforcement agencies? From what is known in this case, complaints from other students and faculty members about this gunman went to a judge in a Virginia court but did not get shared with law enforcement agencies that could have possibly posted such incident on his record prior to obtaining the guns he bought?
Is the overwhelming concern about not ‘impairing a person’s record’ so strong that the complaints about this fellow’s behavior and demeanor where simply considered not serious enough to put this in his criminal record or to at least keep an eye on him? Possible to even have procedures for follow-up interviews or counseling etc?
From what we have heard and read, this guy did not act even remotely normal when he was on campus and even before that time when he attended high school. He shared a room in his dorm with other students but reportedly never spoke to them, never made eye contact, never participated in any group activities, even refused at times to speak up in classes he attended. The question is: Was it more important “not to crowd him and invade his space of privacy” than to maybe question him about it? If his behavior was not weird enough, what would constitute weird behavior in the eyes of school officials, be they faculty, administration or student organizations? This guy’s statements on video and in writing cite his objections to the behavior of ‘rich kids and their debaucheries’ among other things. From what we understand, this fellow was NOT bullied by other students; nor was he excluded from group activities in high school or at V.T.; he wanted it that way! He acted weird and the others left him alone. He was a loner and political correctness allowed him to become so isolated and to become so extreme that it would result in him going totally off the deep end.
Which brings us to gun control:
Does the Constitution guarantee everybody the right to buy any and as many handguns that are commercially available in a gun shop or elsewhere? Is it perfectly proper to sell handguns with clips that hold 30 bullets and buy as many of these clips as desirable? Reportedly, this murderer fired off over 200 shots in a very short time frame, this means that he bought many of those clips that can be easily ejected once emptied and replaced with loaded clips.
Why is it that law makers at the federal and state levels pass gun laws and then put a time limit on them, in other words, why feel strong enough about this type of legislation but then allow it to lapse after five or ten years? If these lawmakers think that any type of gun control law is necessary, do not put a time limit on it! If in the future, other lawmakers write other legislation that either strengthens or weakens that particular law, they can include a clause that the existing law is “herewith superceded”. But why pass a law for a limited time only? It is absolutely absurd!
Why can databases for background checks by gun shop owners not include anything pertaining to existing medical/mental health issues involving an individual? Poor eyesight (a medical condition), for instance, does not get you a driver’s license without wearing glasses. Should it be easier to buy a gun or as many guns as one wants to possess than to obtain a driver’s license? Why can these databases for gun purchases not be expanded to include any previous gun purchases by an applicant as well as data pertaining to mental health? We do this with driving violations and we record speeding tickets and other such incidents so that insurance companies know who is applying for insurance before providing insurance.
The constitutionally guaranteed “right to bear arms” (in order to defend oneselves or pursue the hobby of hunting since nobody has to hunt for food anymore) does not put a limit on gun purchases, but does anybody need multiple guns with 30-clip ammunition for these purposes?
These are questions that reasonable people should be able to discuss and debate in a search for recommendations for change together with other actions that can be taken without severely infringing on individual freedoms. To be realistic, we will never be able to prevent these kinds of atrocities or massacres in the future but let us also not fall into the trap of making major revisions in our society as a reaction to such events. Let us definitely not change our Constitution. We can make amends in our lives without changing the foundation of our country!
This article and others on Back to Common Sense are designed to provoke further thought and investigation. It is not the intent for the articles to be politically biased. Sources are referenced in each article to encourage readers to delve into the supporting material. We welcome all readers to participate with their point of view either in support or contrary with additional information sources.
Political Correctness versus Gun Control is a post from: Common Sense University
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
]]>The 110th Congress opened for business January 4, 2007. This year’s event was different from previous ones in that for the first time since January 1995, there was a change in management…the Democrats are in control of both houses of Congress. It was unusual for another reason. For the first time in American history, a woman has been voted to be Speaker of the House. Yes, Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat congresswoman from San Francisco was voted to take this high office this past Thursday. For that reason alone, it will not be business as usual but it should be interesting to witness congressional activities and proceedings.
When the Republicans won a majority in the House of Representatives in 1994, they had campaigned on a so-called “Contract with America” whereby they proposed to bring ten policy issues to a vote on the floor of the House in the first 100 days of the 104th Congress in 1995. They did so and most of the legislation became law some time later. The Democrats campaigned before the last election in November in a similar fashion in that they outlined six policy issues they would bring to a vote in the House within the first 100 hours. They also promised to end partisanship in Congress and an end to the corruption, scandals and influence-peddling lobbyists that so permeated the previous years under Republican leadership. This is to be the most ethical Congress in a long time. This all sounds good and positive and the results show that a majority of voters wanted that and voted the Democrats to be back in charge in the House and Senate.
The members of the 110th Congress were all sworn in on January 4 and Congress is now open for business. So far, new ethics standards for congressional members and some lobbying reform have been voted on and approved. The six policy changes among them raising the minimum wage, cutting student loan interest rates, an increase in federally funded stem-cell research and rolling back tax breaks for oil companies, will all be tackled henceforth, beginning next week.
One might wonder why the Democrats emphasized so strongly the 100 hours promise for passing these new laws. They apparently wanted to demonstrate that they meant business and they were doing this rather rapidly. But here comes the first surprise: While for most of us, 100 hours means a time period of four days and four hours, in this case, the 100 hours are measured in hours when Congress is in session. In other words, if they work four days a week and only about six hours per day, we are looking at about four weeks before the six new bills will have been voted on by the members in the House. Beginning on January 9, that means this particular promise will be achieved at the earliest during the first days in February. Not until then will these bills be sent to the Senate for deliberating and voting.
The second interesting change from earlier promises is the fact that when it comes to bi-partisanship, the Republicans in the House will Not be allowed to submit amendments on these six proposals by the Democrats nor will there be any reviews, hearings, debates or approvals by committees. In other words, bi-partisanship will start at the earliest some time in February. While this does not sit well with the 202 Republicans in the House, there is nothing they can do about it. They lost the majority in the House and have to accept the new rules. But this will not go unnoticed in the Senate where there are 49 Republicans and since it takes 60 votes for cloture (a procedure to end debate of laws before it is voted on), it should not be ruled out that the Senate Republicans will introduce some amendments to these six new laws before a vote in the Senate takes place. Given that, if there are differences between the House bills and the Senate versions of the same bills, they have to be reconciled in conference between the two chambers and voted on again before the bills go to the President for his signature. In other words, it might be a while before these six election promises become law.
As we stated above, it will be interesting to observe the activities in Congress this year and follow how events will unfold. There are of course much larger issues looming this year, the biggest one being the War in Iraq and the War on Terror in general. We can only hope that members of both parties can keep the interest of the country first and foremost in mind in their activities and decision-making. This should not be a time for getting even for things done to them in the past nor should Congress at any time forget their sworn obligations to America.
In fact, the Democrats have a great opportunity to show the country that they mean what they say and can therefore be trusted. Since they so greatly emphasized bi-partisanship for the next two years, it will be of great interest to see them deliver on their promise and keep their pledge. We wish that they will show us that there can be cooperation in Congress and with the President by putting personal agendas, objectives and partisanship aside and do what is best for this country! Let Common Sense guide you whenever possible, it would be so refreshing to witness and so beneficial for America.
This article and others on Back to Common Sense are designed to provoke further thought and investigation. It is not the intent for the articles to be politically biased. Sources are referenced in each article to encourage readers to delve into the supporting material. We welcome all readers to participate with their point of view either in support or contrary with additional information sources.
Change in congressional Management is a post from: Common Sense University
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
]]>