Thursday, January 29, 2009
Thank you, GOP.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
This would create a large number of problems for an industry that is already nearly bankrupt. Not only would the car industry have to sell cars that are specifically made for the California market, it would likely end up selling the same cars to other markets as well. As a result, California's burdensome rules will have the effect of regulating the sale of cars outside the state, which the negative commerce clause states should not occur. Thus, those of you who live in Nevada: you are likely to drive the same over-regulated clunker cars that Californians will be forced to buy, even though you don't live in California.
Further, fuel effeciency standards have killed about 2,000 Americans a year on the highways. Why? Well, smaller and lighter cars are less crashworthy, and thus, your chances of survival are lower in these cars. Further, if consumers truly wanted a car with more mileage, there are plenty of cars available to purchase. However, the government realizes that there isn't a demand for those types of cars, because they cost more, are less safe, and are less fun to drive. Thus, Obama wants to force you to drive a car that you otherwise would not drive. This is an issue of freedom, and it is slowly drifting away.
Welcome to Obama's over regulated America.
Monday, January 26, 2009
We have all heard our share of stories in the media about how there is a surge in interest in stopping "global warming." Well, apparently all of those stories have been gross misrepresentations of the truth. (For those of you who voted for Obama, "misrepresentation" is a fancy way of saying it's a lie). In a poll of Americans on the 20 issues that they felt was important, global warming came last!
After hearing for a number of years how global warming is imminent and that the world will soon be at 200 F, we're facing record low temperatures. Americans have realized that this entire global warming ideology is merely a hoax fostered upon the public in an attempt to centralize power in the hands of Washington bureaucrats, who will decide how to run American industry.
Obama's plan is very simple to describe: it is an attempt to increase government spending dramatically (around $1 trillion worth of spending increases), tax and borrow from the private sector in order to pay for it, all the while claiming that this is actually improving things. The stock market begs to differ: it has been stagnant ever since Obama was elected.
Americans are already not very amused by Obama's spending scheme. 59% of Americans are worried that Obama will increase government spending too much over the next two years. Americans intuitively know that the government is not responsible for our economic success. If government spending was the method to achieve prosperity, North Korea and Cuba would be the wealthiest nations in the world.
According to the poll, 64% of Americans would prefer that Obama focus on tax cuts as opposed to his spending scheme. After all, didn't President Obama run on a platform in which he would cut taxes, and that all new spending would result in cuts in other forms of spending? Is this the first Big Lie from Obama?
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Transferring the terrorist detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to America would also result in having to provide all of the same rights that criminal defendants in the US have at trial. There is a unique difference between criminals and terrorists. Criminals have a limited intent with regard to their crimes. A bank robber wants to steal money, but does not necessarily have plans to take down the entire US political and economic system. A terrorist does. Further, the evidence and procedure process in criminal court would likely result in very little admissible evidence being offered in court, which would likely result in acquittals. Then what do you do with the terrorists? Release them on US soil?
Families who lost loved ones in the September 11 terrorist attacks are outraged by President Obama's compassion for the terrorists.
Further, what is the message that the terrorists are receiving worldwide today? They feel that they are no longer dealing with an aggressive US President Bush who was determined to protect the nation using whatever methods were available to him. Instead, President Obama is far too willing to accommodate them and "world opinion" (whatever that is) in order to placate his radical left-wing fringe Internet base that believe in the wildest conspiracy theories imaginable.
President Obama, we need to continue to remain on the offensive in this war against Islamic terror. If we start showing weakness to our enemies around the world, it will invite further aggression. Further, since we know that you are a politician first and foremost, may we at least point to the fact that if the country is attacked, you will get the blame? Therefore, it would be wise to continue the policies of the Bush administration, keep Guantanamo Bay open, and to continue using harsh interrogation methods in order to ensure that these Islamic terrorists are revealing all relevant and necessary information to keep our war on the offensive instead of the defensive.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
We stand for free-enterprise, free-trade, the right to pursue one's own self-interest, capitalism, a government focused on protecting these individual rights, low taxation, and a judiciary that is restrained and focused on interpreting, not making, the law. These are the values that we wish to pursue--not the Obama collectivist/altruism/socialist enterprise system.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Liberals believe in global warming on a much more fervent and fanatical level than many Christians do on many significant theological issues. Yet, who is considered a fanatic? The liberals get upset when a Christian student prays in a government-run school, yet they have no qualms about imposing their religious belief, global warming, upon the population.
Thankfully, as more time goes on, global warming laws will become quite unpopular as people are asked to make payments as repentance for their "sin" in earning a living, investing, and raising their families. Thus, perhaps the Democrats are serving to harm their own party in the long-run. Republicans will be able to point to the fact that the Democrat agenda is literally to bankrupt American industry, then bail it out when it is not capable of earning a profit (how many of those have we had lately?), with the aim of controlling as many Americans as possible. Once the government is capable of controlling a large part of American industry, it will literally control the people.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
So what is killing California? California has a lot of uncompetitive tax policies, including a high state income tax (9.3 or 10.3%), a high corporate income tax rate (8.84%), a high sales tax rate of 7.75% (in most localities in California, it is even higher). Since California has to compete with other states like Nevada that do not have a state income or state corporate tax (in fact, it is actually written into the Nevada state Constitution that such taxes are not permitted--ever!), it is not a surprise that the unemployment rate is rising in California as the most productive citizens have chosen to live in places that enable them to be richly rewarded for their productive enterprises. Further, there is no evidence that California's political culture seems amenable to the changes that are taking place. It is almost as though California is more interested in joining the European Union where it can be among other nation states that have catastrophic taxes that impede economic development. California has a state legislature that is overwhelmingly liberal, with seats held by almost two-thirds by Democrats who have no interest in promoting any policies that will result in lower unemployment here. California is in a state of decline, and no one is taking up the call to reverse it. Sad.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Do you ever wonder why postal workers and postal "customers" tend to go postal in the post office? I suspect that a major reason for the reason has to do with the fact that there is no outlet upon which to vent one's perennial frustration with a system that provides icon-clad job protection for employees (who are not accountable to anyone) and customers who are not able to leave and go elsewhere. Observe this "customer" (I use the term in quotes because I wonder if one can define a customer as one who is forced to use the producer's service): here, the "customer" is frustrated with the service of the post office. He continues to say: "The customer is always right." Wrong--not when the service is from the government: then the only people who are right are the bureaucrats who cannot be fired. The system is completely indifferent to his requests, tells him to go to hell, and acts as though he is not even a person. He says, somewhat absurdly, that when the post office employee's job is up for renewal that he will "have her job." The truth is that her job is never up for renewal and she will always hold her job, regardless how bad her service is.
If we are not careful, Obama's plan to nationalize health care will result in more experiences like that of this customer, but this time in something that is far more significant--the life and death decisions that come with health care. Can you imagine going to a place, seeking health care, and being treated in this indifferent, rude fashion? Why would your health care provider care to help you when they are guaranteed payment from the government, whether the service is good or bad, whether you are happy or unhappy, and whether you would prefer to go elsewhere (you won't be able to go elsewhere because there will only be "one provider"--the government.). This is a serious video that should serve as the proof that government-run services result in madly unhappy customers.
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
I have always found it ironic how some of the most anti-American commentators reside in America. A UCLA doctor has stated that "American values" are a major reason why there are problems in our health care system. Interestingly, the doctor accurately describes what American values are: "Americans prize individual choice and resist limiting care," says Nuwer, a professor of clinical neurology at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. [emphasis added] Apparently, the good doctor believes that individual choice and opposition to rationing is something that is problematic to our health care system. It is clear that statists like this doctor believe that you should not have any choice whatsoever with regard to life and death decisions like health, and that the government ought to ration one's care, too.
Apparently the doctor did not realize that his statements were public, because he made quite a dramatic admission. ""We [in other words, the American people, as a whole] believe that if doctors can treat very ill patients aggressively and keep every moment of people in the last stages of life under medical care, then they should. We choose to hold these values. Consequently, we choose to have a more expensive system than Europe or Canada."
In other words, if the ill were just left to die instead of treated by a doctor, it would enable for far less costly expenditures. Of course, this doctor is even referring to patients who pay out of their own pocket or have their own private insurance to pay for their care while they are "very ill." Of course, under a socialist healthcare system, rationing would be made by the government, and if it applied the values of this good doctor, it probably would believe that the "very ill" are too expensive to treat. After all, "we choose" to value life by paying for health care. Don't you know it is so much cheaper to give people inferior care and just let them die if they are very ill?