This weekend was the semi-annual General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. How blessed are we to have prophets on the earth today to help us to know the will of God, and to encourage us to seek His will and use our agency to follow it. This conference strengthened my testimony of Jesus Christ and renewed my strength to live it. I hope you will all take a look at the messages of truth and hope spoken by the Lord’s servants. Click the link below.
Recently, some health insurers requested permission to raise rates to cover the cost of Obamacare’s mandatory benefits, and now McDonald’s says it might drop its mini-med plans unless it can get a waiver from the government that would allow them to pay for the higher administrative costs of keeping them for a high-turnover workforce.
This reminds me, yet again, of Atlas Shrugged. In that book, the government deemed transportation a right and a human necessity, so railroads had to get permission to raise ticket prices to cover costs and make a profit (I know, profits are evil). When the government denied one such request, the railroad executive wondered who would pay for the operation of the railroad. The government told her that that was her problem. Well yes, yes it is. A big problem.
The same thing is happening in our federal government today. Obama tells insurers and employers to provide certain benefits to consumers, and then ties their hands when it comes to paying for them. Who is going to pay for this? Could it be that Obamacare doing the opposite of what it was intended to do? Or could it be that this was part of the plan all along in order to “fundamentally transform America”? Either way, it’s a disaster.
It doesn’t take a law degree from Harvard to know that if you tell companies that they have to provide additional benefits to customers, they will have to raise rates to provide them.
Critical Side Note: What kind of country do we live in where a company has to request government permission to raise prices in the face of increasing costs, and another has to get permission from the government to cover its costs the way it sees fit? Certainly not a capitalist one.
Congressional Democrats barely scraped up enough votes to adjourn today without voting on extending the Bush tax cuts past their December 31 sunset date. My focus is not on whether this was a cowardly move by shady politicians trying to buoy up their ever-fading election chances, but rather on the notion that 1. Congress is voting on tax cuts, and 2. tax cuts cost the government money.
From the article: “Democrats say the nation can't afford the $700 billion, 10-year cost of extending the lower rates for upper income groups, while Republicans say raising taxes on those individuals now could stifle the recovery.”
That sentence pretty much sums up the views of each party.
Also, I listened on Sunday to David Axelrod tell a slobbering Christiane Amanpour that Republicans want to cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires and that “we just can’t afford” the $700 billion dollars it would cost to give these tax cuts. Here is the problem with that statement:
First, the Republican view—that not extending the Bush tax cuts is a tax increase—is exactly right. If Congress fails to extend the current tax rates as they now stand, everyone’s taxes will go up on January 1, 2011. This is literally a tax increase, or, if you prefer, and increase in the rate at which income is taxed. The debate right now is whether we should keep the current tax rates, or do nothing and let them revert to pre-Bush-tax-cut rates, resulting in an increase in the rates for all tax brackets. Democrats are trying (and failing) to fool the American people into thinking that they want to give the middle class a tax cut, when in fact all they want to do is keep the current tax rates for the middle class, and let the higher tax brackets revert to their pre-Bush levels. Thus, Democrats are not at all calling for any type of tax cuts. In fact, what they are trying to tell you is that “not raising your taxes” equals “cutting your taxes.”
Second, you can’t spend money you don’t have, and you’re not spending when you let people keep their money instead of giving it grudgingly to the federal government. Thus, keeping tax rates where they are would not cost the federal government one dime, let alone $700 billion. On the other hand, spending $700 billion in taxpayer money on failed and logic-challenged federal programs does cost the federal government money. Interestingly, the Bush tax cuts produced record government tax revenues, yet the government spent all this money and more on failed economic policies and grew the federal government. Tax cuts don’t cause budget deficits, big-government politicians spending money they don’t have causes budget deficits.
Finally, here’s the problem with both sides of the aisle on this argument. Democrats have and want to raise taxes and have spent and want to spend more, and Republicans have cut and want to cut taxes and have spent more. We’ve seen that raising taxes doesn’t actually bring in more money. We’ve seen that cutting taxes actually brings in more tax revenue. Unfortunately, we’ve also seen that Democrats and Republicans can’t stop growing government and spending more than they have.
How about we try cutting taxes (not just extending the Bush tax cuts, but actually cutting taxes from their current rates) and shrinking government and spending less—much less.
I have been in law school for almost six semesters now. I have come to realize—and the realization is maddening—that the most common argument I have heard is some variation on the following:
“Well, it’s just so hard for Congress to pass a law like this, so we should just let the president do it on his own.”
I have two incredibly huge problems with this. First, these arguments are coming from individuals in LAW SCHOOL, who we should like to think are a little more educated on the structures of the Federal Government—which leads to the second problem I have with this argument and those who make it: Have you read the Constitution of the United States? Do you know why, how, when and for what purposes it was drafted?
The Constitution provides for procedural hurdles before a bill becomes a law. Not the least of the reasons why these procedures were put in place is that it SHOULD BE DIFFICULT for the Federal Government to pass any law that affects the people of the United States. The Constitution provides checks and balances, both structural and procedural, on the ability of the federal government to act upon the people.
So, my response to this argument has been and will always be, “You’re dang right it’s too hard to pass a law like this. That’s by design, and you should know that.”
Please read the Constitution. Please read Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Just do it. We’ll all be better off if you do.
This week, the House of Representatives voted to raise the federal government’s debt limit by $1.9 trillion—yes, TRILLION. So I humbly ask, what is the point of having a debt ceiling if you can just vote it higher every time you make horrendous spending decisions?
This post (the first one in months, as it turns out!) is going to be more personal than previous posts. That’s because, now that I’m an adult about ready to enter the real-jobs sector, I personally feel the effects of a president’s actions.
You know that the unemployment rate, as reported by the Department of Labor, recently passed 10%, but you may also know that the REAL unemployment rate is at least 17.5%. That’s because a lot of people have just plain given up on finding a job for now, and the Department of Labor does not count someone as unemployed if they have not looked for work in the last four weeks. Now, on to why this has become so personal for me.
I’ll be graduating from law school in about 5 months. “Great!” you say? “You must already have a job lined up with a degree like that, right?” Well, the answer to that is a big fat NO, and I’ll tell you part of the reason why.
Mr. Obama promised us that if the “stimulus” bill passed, we wouldn’t go above 8% unemployment. He also stated that the main goal of the “stimulus” was to create jobs. Now that he’s calling for new action to create jobs, we know that the stimulus wasn’t about jobs any more than Little Women was about female midgets. I, for one, have grown weary of the lies. Obama has one thing on his mind: “fundamentally transform[ing] America.” If anyone still thinks that means anything other than increasing government control over individuals’ lives and surrounding himself with Marxist, Maoist, Fidel-Castro-Lovin’ Socialists, wake up!
Back to why this is personal. NO ONE IS HIRING (“Sorry. While your credentials are admirable we are not able to hire any new associates at this time.”), because Obama’s actions, by design, are killing the private sector. When the government sucks up the supply of the money it prints to pay for its entitlements, welfare, and union-provided prostitution ring advice, not to mention sucking money out of people and business who make this country go round with confiscatory taxes to “spread the wealth around,” there’s a diminished supply for the job-creating private sector. No, Obama is not about creating jobs. Obama is about Obama. And blatantly-anti-capitalist Obama is about creating a new Socialist America. And the way to do that is to create mass dependence on the federal government. You know, I used to think that maybe that view was a little extreme. But now that I’ve seen what Obama has done in these first 10 months, I am convinced that this is exactly what he has in mind—along with all the other admitted Marxists radicals in his administration.
Capitalism is the fairest system. Capitalism allows the greatest benefits to the greatest number of people without having one group of people decide who gets what. Socialism is tyranny—a tyranny that allows a small group to dictate the behavior and income of the rest of us. As Milton Friedman said, “Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.” If we cannot be free as individuals to engage in commerce without the constraints of a tyrannical federal government, we cannot truly be free.
We need to stand up and fight! The answer will never be a bloated, tyrannical federal government with more control over our lives, our bodies, our money! The answer is FREEDOM! Freedom has produced the greatest advances in the history of the world. Freedom allows each man to act according to the dictates of his own conscience, and not be subject to the evil that is suppression of free will. Stand up and FIGHT! Oppose oppressive taxes. Oppose increased government control. Oppose socialized medicine. Fight for Freedom!
This one has me fuming. But at the same time, I have hope because the Progressives, Statists, whatever you want to call them, are showing who they really are and the American people are smart enough to see it. What has me fuming—and, I must admit, laughing a little at their ignorance of history—is the intellectual dishonesty and double standard displayed by those who seek to grow government and its influence on individuals. So, on to the story ...
As you know, while Congress is in recess this month, Democrats are conducting town-hall-style meetings to discuss Obamacare with their constituents. And despite what you may have heard, the constituents expressing their anger over Obamacare at these meetings are not planted by Republicans or insurance companies. They’re just like you and me: angry at the path down which this administration is leading us, kicking and screaming.
A blog from Michelle Malkin tonight is what got me going tonight. She explains how Nancy Pelosi (along with others) has equated these concerned Americans with Nazis, spouting off an outrageous and unfounded claim that they are “bringing swastikas and symbols like that” to the meetings. One Congressman likened them to Brown Shirts, and another Democrat calledthem fascists. For one, this doesn’t even make sense if you know your history. But what happens when Rush Limbaugh points out how it is actually Obama and the Democrats who are more closely aligned with Nazis (NATIONAL SOCIALISTS!")? The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee starts up a petition for Republicans to “immediately condemn Limbaugh’s hateful rhetoric.”
Excuse me, but where were you when Democrats were comparing Bush to Hitler? Where WERE you? For starters, any similarities between Bush and Hitler came not from his War on Terror, as seemed to be the sentiment among Bush bashers, but from his big government, progressive, statist domestic policies. And secondly, if anyone reads his history on Nazis, he would most definitely see the glaring and startling similarities between Nazis and today’s liberals and progressives. Just read Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg, and you’ll get the idea.
For clarity, here is what Rush said:
Now what are the similarities between the Democrat Party of today and the Nazi party in Germany? Well, the Nazis were against big business (Rush later corrected this by saying that they were against private sector capitalism. Similar to what Obama is doing with GE and other large companies, Naziism involved a certain degree of corporatism as well.). They hated big business and, of course, we all know that they were opposed to Jewish capitalism. They were insanely, irrationally against pollution. They were for two years mandatory voluntary service to Germany. They had a whole bunch of make-work projects to keep people working one of which was the Autobahn.
They were against cruelty and vivisection of animals but in the radical sense of devaluing human life, they banned smoking. They were totally against that. They were for abortion and euthanasia of the undesirables as we all know and they were for cradle-to-grave nationalized health care. I have always bristled when I hear people claim that conservatism gets close to Naziism. It is liberalism that's the closest you can get to Naziism and socialism. It's all bundled up under the socialist banner. There are far more similarities between Nancy Pelosi and Adolf Hitler than between these people showing up at town halls to protest a Hitler-like policy that's being heralded by a Hitler-like logo.
Learn history. Get to know your forms of government. Follow up on that feeling in your gut that tells you something just isn’t right about what Obama and Congress are doing. If you’re represented by a progressive—Democrat OR Republican—who wants to shove Obamacare down our throats, go tell them how you feel about it. Our Founding Fathers fought against tyranny in the name of Individual Liberty. This new tyranny is designed to erase that victory, and remake America, and we must fight it. Not with guns and violence, but we must fight it and defeat it. They say we have no solutions, but we know the solution. It is capitalism, individual liberty, and a limited government whose only function is to protect our individual liberties.
I'm sure you've heard by now that Glenn Beck called President Obama racist. And I'm sure you've heard some of the media going nuts over it (that link there even ties Beck to the people who think Obama isn't a US citizen--a movement Beck has explicitly disavowed) and thinks that it's just about the Henry Louis Gates thing. And I'm sure you've heard a lot of talk about how Glenn Beck is the racist, not to mention stupid, evil, et cetera, et cetera.
And yet, as I write this, a white police officer is getting ready to meet the black president (elected by a lot of white people's votes) and the black Harvard scholar in the White House tomorrow, so they can lecture him, a racial profiling expert and instructor who was just responding to a call of a possible break-in, on racism in the United States.
The following is the full text of an op-ed written during the 2008 campaign by a young, black conservative, Jerome Hudson. Hudson displays some good-old-fashioned common sense. Speaking of common sense, everyone must read Glenn Beck’s book, Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government.
Jerome Hudson’s op-ed, as it appeared in Glenn Beck’s Daily Newsletter on July 8, 2009:
While attending a black fraternity party, I recently learned it’s a bad idea to profess one’s affinity for Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity.
Worse, according to current polls, it appears I may be the only black 22 year old in America who will be voting for Sen. John McCain.
It’s not that I was unaware that being a black conservative Republican puts me in the ultimate “minority.” After all, Shelby Steele’s classic article “ The Loneliness of the Black Conservative” has become an article of faith that I’ve all but committed to memory.
But I guess I had made the mistake of buying into all that liberal yammering about being “open minded” and supporting “diversity” that I’d deluded myself into believing that a civil, discussion about the herd-like ideological mentality of so many of my contemporaries suffer from was possible.
Boy, was I wrong. Big time!
My official “Negro” card got stripped away. I instantly lost my “blackness.” And now, consequently, I now am greeted with this: “Hey, y’all, here comes The Black Republican.”
And that’s when I think to myself, Hmmm…so this is how it feels to be an "Uncle Tom."
Still, being labeled “The Black Republican” is undoubtedly a promotion from: "Hey, why are you dressed so nice? You got a job interview or something?" Or, worse, “Man, why are you talking like that? You sound white? Who do you think you are? A conservative Kanye West?”
But my path to ideological emancipation began where all the most important things always begin—with my father and mother. Growing up, my Army drill sergeant father was a firm believer in tough love. My parents instilled in us Christian values. But I believe that first part—having an involved mother and father—was critical. With 70% of all black babies being born out-of-wedlock, it’s no wonder black poverty remains entrenched, welfare has become a way of life, and that many of my fellow young black male counterparts choose gangsta life over college.
But it wasn’t until college that I realized I had been ensnared in what John McWhorter calls the “Cult of Victimology.” One of my professor’s pointed me toward a world of literature I’d never been introduced to: Thomas Sowell, John McWhorter, Shelby Steele, Star Parker, Angela McGlowan, Larry Elder, Walter Williams—they obliterated the Leftist foolishness that floods my community.
It was then that my eyes were opened to the truth, a truth that my father was willing to give his life for, a truth that hundreds of thousands of American soldiers have paid the ultimate price to pass on to future generations. And that truth is this: America remains the greatest country that God gave to man.
So imagine me, a member of various organizations that largely consist of young black Americans, most of whom are womb to the tomb Democrats and liberals, speaking openly about the many opportunities and blessings we enjoy in our great nation and refuting Michelle Obama’s supposition that America is a “downright mean place..”
Can you say…..social suicide?
"So Jerome,” the partygoers asked, “you’re REALLY a Republican?!"
Duh!
Of course I’m a Republican! And your great grandparents were too!
Yes, I’m a member of the Anti-Slavery Party, the party responsible for: the 13th (abolished slavery), 14th (gave former slaves full citizenship rights), the 15th Amendment (gave slaves voting rights), the Civil Rights Act of 1871(protecting southern blacks from the Ku Klux Klan), the Reconstruction Acts, and the 1866, 1875, 1957, 1960, and 1964 Civil Rights Acts.
And no, my brothers and sisters, yesterday’s southern Democrats are NOT today’s Republicans! If so, former Klansman, Sen. Robert Byrd—the highest ranking senate Democrat and President Pro-Tempore of the Senate—apparently didn’t get the memo and forgot to switch parties.
But it’s more than just the history. I’m proud to stand for self-empowerment, personal responsibility, strong family values, small government, low taxes, free markets, a strong military, and individual achievement etc.
And don’t even get me started on which side stands up for the precious 1.4 million unborn children (32% of whom are black), who will be casualties in the war inside the womb. When I see these so-called “black leaders” bashing conservatives for “racist policies,” I wonder how they justify cheering on the political team who proudly defends the annihilation of 13 million black children since 1973.
And conservatives don’t care about black people? I don’t think so!
No, I think I’ll ride with the team who says enough with the welfare cancer that has destroyed people’s innate desire to achieve. Yes, I’ll ride with the folks who respect me enough to consider me their equal and not insult me with Affirmative Action racism. Yeah, I’ll ride with the gang who would rather create effective policies than emotional “feel good” symbolism that robs individuals of their desire to aspire.
So while it may take a little getting used to walking into college parties where I’m known as “The Black Republican,” I now realize I am a newly inducted member of a rich tradition of ideologically emancipated black conservatives. And guess what? I’m more than cool with that. I’m proud, actually.
“The conservative Kanye West”?
Hmmm….
Has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it?
Jerome Hudson is a sophomore at Tallahassee Community College with plans to transfer to Florida A&M University in the fall.
