What is “Fairness”?

This President is obsessed with the term “fairness.” He is especially fond of using the term when it comes to “paying the fair share of the tax burden.” If you listen to the rhetoric you would think that someone is not paying their fair share of taxes to support the bloated federal bureaucracy and programs. But numbers don’t lie. The top 1% of wage earners pay 38% of the federal income taxes. Forty percent (40%) of wage earners pay no federal income tax. But that 40% receive the largest transfer of wealth through federal programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, food stamps, subsidized student loans, federal mortgage tax breaks, the EIC earned income credit, and the list goes on.

So what is the definition of fair? “Free from bias or injustice; evenhandedness; impartial; consistent with rules, logic, or ethics; just and honest…”

If we look at how the federal government develops every program they administer they are dripping in bias toward a group, whether it’s the poor, the rich, ethnic, or age bias. The tax system is anything but evenhanded or impartial if you look at the thousands of loopholes, and to associate the words, ethics, just or honest with a federal bureaucrat or politician is laughable.

If this president or any politician was interested in fairness they would be discussing how to make all of our taxes flat and a % of income. So if I earn $10,000 I pay $1000 income taxes, 100,000 I pay $10,000 income taxes, and if I make $1,000,000 I pay $100,000 in income taxes. That would be fair. It is consistent, non-bias, impartial, ethical, just, honest, and logical. What is hard to understand about a system like this?

Implied in the President’s rhetoric is that somehow making more money or being more successful than others is unfair. He consistently targets “the richest and most successful” amongst us to do more because he believes they have received more from others. How so? This is a concept that sounds good but when you boil it down it makes no sense whatsoever.

People that make more money and are more successful have usually worked harder, used knowledge in a more effective way, and the market has rewarded their work or ideas by freely purchasing them in volume. To suggest that because they live in America and have the opportunity to become rich because they live here is a stretch to associate that with getting “help from the government” as this President often states. He declares if “it wasn’t for the government the most successful amongst us would not be successful. The rules and regulations, roads and bridges, internet and telephone lines would not be available without government help.” With logic like this the sun would not come up if it were not for the science books stating it as a fact. The logic is stretched, tortured and in reality a lie. Even if you believe this, everyone that is American still has had that same “help” but have not succeeded because of it. So again is it fair?

This is class warfare in a nutshell. Play to people’s envy and jealousy to win favor. That is the strategy of this administration to win another four years. In the interest of “fairness” I think this president has had four years at the helm, we need to spread the wealth of the presidency to someone else in the next four years. After all it’s only fair, right?

The Racial Divide

It saddens me to see how little racial progress we seem to have made since my days in a public High School in the Bronx. I went to John F Kennedy HS in the Bronx (70’s) and learned first-hand that success didn’t depend on the color of your skin but the determination of the individual. That determination comes in the form of first and foremost getting an education. Education is the foundation of a fruitful life.

If you look at the reasons why the Black community is over represented in poverty it can be traced to three basic reasons:

·         The Family

·         Education

·         Self-Reliance

The Black Family has been decimated by the government programs that demand that a mother and father be separated in order to obtain benefits like housing vouchers and food stamps. The welfare system has destroyed the family in general but it has disproportionately destroyed the Black family. The only way to fix the family is to reject government subsidies and embrace the family unit again. Welfare needs to be transformed into a skills building agency with a limited time frame of services. It needs to be phased out for the upcoming generations. The system needs to return to its intended transitional status as a way to help in true times of need. It can no longer be an accepted way of life.

The inner city public school system should be eliminated immediately. The money should be block granted to private groups with a set standard for success. How many generations must be destroyed in the wake of a union jobs program? The only way to break the cycle of poverty is to have an education system that actually educates. We need dedicated people willing to become education entrepreneurs. What do we have to lose by trying? A cushy union gig with out of balance retirement programs is all we have to lose. We have already lost too many children.

People like me who care about the plight of Black America pose a risk when we write about it. In order to fix the problem we must first admit we have a problem. Recently there has been an escalation of hatred toward the “Whities” and capitalist system as the reason for Black poverty. This is dangerous and destined to perpetuate the cycle. If these people were truly concerned about their brethren they would promote capitalism as the way out of poverty. Capitalism has been the only successful economic program in history. Communism and socialism which are being touted by the New Black Panther Party have failed and will fail every time they are tried. The NBP leadership is revving up the masses and playing the class warfare blame game. And the numbers and evidence are not in their favor. I suggest that Black Americans reject this group and join the Tea Party group. At least they will find an ally for success there.

There is too much crime, poverty, single motherhood, and too little hope on the horizon for Black America. We are all Americans in the end and in order to break the cycles of dependency and poverty we have to try something new and it isn’t revolution as is being suggested by NBP leaders. Well it’s a kind of revolution but it is not the violent one they are calling for, it is about placing your hope in people that truly want to help than those that only want to offer handouts for votes…

The Supreme Court Could Deem the Constitution Insignificant

I don’t believe this President is a “Constitutional Lawyer” based on his recent public criticism of the Supreme Court’s potential decision in the healthcare case. He has either forgotten his lessons or he thinks the country is that stupid. There is also the theory from the “conspiracy” types that he has been tipped off by one of his two recent Supreme Court appointees, Sotomayor, and Kagan that the court is leaning toward the unconstitutionality of the law. I do not wish to believe that but anything is possible with this administration.

President Obama has stated that an unconstitutional ruling is equal to “judicial activism.” This is not the truth. Judicial activism is when the court creates legislation from the bench. If the court determines that there is no authority in the constitution for the Congress to mandate the purchase of healthcare and strikes it down, the Congress can simply re-structure and pass a new law without the mandate. That is simply the role the Supreme Court plays in the process.

President Obama has also said this law was passed with “overwhelming” support of the Congress. If I recall correctly, not a single Republican in the House voted for it, and maybe 1 Republican in the Senate. Seventy percent of the country wants the law repealed. The President seems to be setting the stage that no matter which way this goes it will be the deciding issue of the November election.

If the healthcare law is determined to be unconstitutional, the left with help from the President will make the argument those conservatives, Republicans, and the Supreme Court need to be replaced with people that support helping the “least capable” among us. They will invoke class warfare about how republicans want to help Wall Street not Main Street blah blah blah… If the law is deemed constitutional it is the end of the Republic as we know it and it is time to invoke the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

Healthcare will become the intrusive power to which the federal government will have no bounds into the control of our lives. I have little confidence that even a change of political parties in November, Republicans will have the guts to repeal the law. The Tea Party will have to organize to reset the government to its original intent.

This President has forgotten that the three branches of government are independent and separate for a reason. Just because this President thinks something is a good idea doesn’t make it so or make it constitutional. As a constitutional student he has failed. Or he has a mission to destroy our founding principles. If he is threatening the Supreme Court my reply would be: The Supreme Court should show this president they can’t be intimidated because they are on equal footing according the constitution. A constitution in peril of being deemed insignificant by the justices of that same Supreme Court…

The Supreme Court is Invalidating the Founder’s Intent

No matter what decision the Supreme Court reaches regarding Obamacare, the SCOTUS is and has been acting unconstitutionally for decades since FDR. The US Constitution is clear on the role of the court as are the Federal Papers and the many correspondences between the founders about its role simply as arbiter not legislator. Legislation and law were intended to be introduced and voted on in the House first and foremost. The Constitution is clear about who holds the law making responsibility. There is no alternative including interpretations of laws by the SCOTUS. They were only meant to validate or invalidate a laws legitimacy based on the founder’s intent.

Let’s start with the intent. The intended purpose of the Constitution was to limit Federal Power. The clearest and easiest evidence to understand and to support that is the Tenth Amendment. Why else would the founders/states have insisted on this addition if the intent was not to limit central power? The US Constitution would not have been ratified without the guarantee of the Bill of Rights which includes the 10^th Amendment. The Bill of Rights in total underlines the distrust the states and the people had for this newly formed central government. Today it is painfully apparent how little the power of the Tenth Amendment has been utilized in the fight to curb centralized programs, but it has seen a renewed commitment to make it relevant again.

The SCOTUS was intended by the founders to simply be the referee to ensure the legislature was only passing laws that met the limits and protections within the constitution. Madison believed the role would be utilized on a very limited basis and in the federal papers he insists the concern about precedence was unwarranted. He suggested that every case that came before the SCOTUS would be looked at from the perspective of the original intent and not subsequent cases. How wrong he was. The precedence of the SCOTUS has been used to rewrite original intent to mean whatever the court wanted it to mean. This has been seen with the Commerce Clause. Its intent was to make trade regular between the states so there was a “uniform” set of laws guiding how the states traded. The coastal states could have easily introduced additional tariffs and taxes to the other states due to their proximity and importance in the delivery of foreign goods. It was not intended to be used as a way for the federal government to force the states to comply with its wishes simply because they participated in commerce. It was more efficient to have one representative dealing with foreign governments and trade agreements so the states would not have 13 different sets of rules that could be used to divide and create mischief by foreign governments especially France and England.

There have been a number of torturous interpretations based on precedent and ideology that have slowly but surely undermined our freedoms and decisions as a people. The suggestion that if we buy something or make something that is considered “commerce” that that becomes a reasonable opportunity for the federal government to regulate it and tax it to pay for the regulation is a warped view of the constitution. There is no requirement of the SCOTUS to consider any previous cases. That is what they need to do in the Obamacare case. They need to read and look at the original intent of our constitution.

That is where the crux of my argument lies. We now have a completely politicized process that does not fundamentally begin with a review of the constitution; it begins from the ideological views of the justices. As a conservative I pray the more conservative judges begin with the constitution in this healthcare case. But no one person can argue that every decision of late that the SCOTUS has ruled on is based in politics. Yes they occasionally reference the constitution but too often reference precedence. Completely opposite of what Madison argued would be the case.

The growth and intrusiveness of the Federal Government is being refereed by a party (SCOTUS) that has a self interest in the growth of that same government. If President Obama gets to choose two or more justices for the Supreme Court does anyone believe it will be a legitimate institution to protect our founding document? We will have reached the point of a nine person dictatorship if the SCOTUS becomes all powerful in the making and determining our future laws and original intent of the Constitution.

The states and the Governors of those states along with the legislatures need to take up the cause of liberty and limited federal power. They can do that by nullifying the laws they disagree with and believe are unconstitutional. Nullification is a legitimate course of action found within the constitution. We can’t rely on the Supreme Court for much longer because it is already politicized but if this president gets a few more picks it will no longer be on the side of the people and the states.

It is time for the states and the people to read, understand, and protect the US Constitution. It is the greatest weapon in the fight for liberty. Much more reliable than any SCOTUS.   

Where Do We Agree?

Is there anywhere in the political arena the American people agree? Or has it all become “knee jerk” politics so whenever a Democrat says something a Republican disagrees and visa versa?  Here are some areas I think we can all agree:

·         Gas prices are too high

·         Too much debt is dangerous to our future

·         The political process is broken

·         Government workers making much more than the people paying the bills is not right

·         College tuition is close to being unaffordable

These are a few areas I think most Americans could agree and have little dispute. The problem comes when you ask the question: How do we fix it?

Defining problems is the easy part of politics. Implementing solutions is the impossible task. Let’s take these in order.

How do we bring the price of gas down? The left will say we have to get away from oil for environmental reasons. Meanwhile they stop the expansion of nuclear power plants that could reduce the dependency of cities and towns across the nation on fossil fuels. But they don’t like nuclear either. They want us to use solar and wind but you can’t power an economy on such unreliable sources of energy.

We have more oil than Saudi Arabia in our country but the left doesn’t want us drilling to get it. We could increase the supply 200 fold but they want us off oil. We will never get off of oil in my lifetime.

The way the right wants to reduce gas prices is to increase supply. That is the way to go about it and the right supports alternatives but they know the reality of alternatives is years away. In the meantime we are not “destroying” the environment. We are destroying the economy.

The debt has a simple solution; reduce spending to equal revenue. The Left wants to raise taxes on the “rich.” This sounds great but will make no difference to reducing the debt. The only spending they will cut is “corporate loopholes.” Everything else is sacred.

For the right they want to eliminate federal programs that are not defined in the Constitution. It is a moral and Constitutional argument. Individual liberty with some safety nets for the truly needy and an end to the generational dependency.

Corruption has taken over our politicians and the process. Morality is gone and we have only self- interested people running for office with a political agenda that fuels the divisive environment. The solution is to get rid of the party system.

Government workers pay and benefits should be tied to their private sector counter parts. I think everyone agrees except for the government workers and union bosses.

College tuition will go down when the government stops subsidizing it. The easy access to college along with easy access to student loans is driving the price through the roof. Get the government out and prices will plummet. We also need to re-define the industries which need a college degree. Too many degrees do not prepare students for work. Which may be OK but students and parents need to know that going in. An English degree will make you a better writer but it may not land you a high paying job.

There are many things we agree upon but trying to fix them remains the biggest political problem we face…

GOP Endorsements

I normally could care less what another politician thinks in the election process. Their endorsements never make a difference in my choice of candidates that includes talk radio personalities like Rush, Mark, Sean, Hugh, Michael, Glenn, etc… I respect the fact that they have opinions and arguments that may persuade me on revisiting the issues with candidates but I like most conservatives make up my own mind.

The Jeb Bush endorsement is different in one way, it ensures we don’t have to deal with him as a candidate at a brokered convention. His support says to the voters that all of this talk about nominating him as a candidate is debunked. That is good news.

This endorsement is going to fuel the fire of Mitt being the “establishment” candidate because Jeb is definitely part of the establishment GOP. The problem is I don’t think Mitt is an “establishment” guy. I could be wrong and someday in the near future I hope Mitt has the opportunity to prove all of the conservatives who doubt him wrong. I think Mitt’s experience with troubled company balance sheets is going to take one look at the federal budget and start making the changes necessary for a balanced budget. He could go down in history as the president that saved this country from financial disaster. The risks are too big to ignore or put to the “out years” of the budget.

So as far as endorsements go I suggest that politicians keep them to themselves because thinking voters really don’t care. But for Jeb to come out now sends a message that it may be time for all of the Newt, Santorum, and supporters of a brokered convention to start to gel this process so we can start focusing this campaign on the Obama record. The longer we have to focus on the past three years the greater chance we have of taking back the next four…