Archive

Archive for the ‘political theory’ Category

This is me, this is you, this is America!

November 2, 2010 Comments off

America will be no more under Obama

October 28, 2010 Comments off

Let the debate begin! Geopolicy Forums are LIVE!

October 22, 2010 2 comments

*UPDATE*: Forum registration now fully functional! Sorry about the trouble… Now let the debate begin! :)

Forums are in effect. Bring it on, let the debate begin! There have been recent comments upon the nature of evolution within recent political debates. Perhaps we can start there?!

Either way, Click HERE and join the Geopolicy Forums! Be one of the first to start posting and debating, a most critical foundation of knowledge and science and to the long-lasting life of our republic.

Rossi vs Murray second debate

October 17, 2010 Comments off

Here is the second debate breakdown of Dino Rossi and Patty Murray for a seat in the Senate representing Washington, for October 17, 2010. The debate format was ridiculous and seemed like more news programming at times. It was laughable of the local news, channel 4 KOMO News. It was unprofessional to me and tired. Let the candidates speak I say, don’t waste my time with your slick little presentations of their ads, etc!

Dino Rossi and Patty Murray basically repeat the usual lines from the last debate. Same topics as well for the most part and rather boring. Patty Murray dodged a bit, Rossi got a few digs in during Social Security, but there was a lack of specifics overall. The winner? They both lost, because they both don’t seem to have specifics or want to elaborate on anything. Although on don’t ask don’t tell, Murray said she would vote for the repeal of that EVEN though it would have an adverse effect. Murray, a BIG mistake on that one.

Opening Remarks

Rossi: America in trouble. Course correction needed. Government overreach. Talked about family. Dino Rossi a bit more dynamic.

Murray: Says families struggling, she will be advocate. State is family and is working for investments.

If elected what will you do

Murray: Work to be peoples voice. Talks to community leaders for investments. Talked about Kent Valley damn example. Hanford mentioned again. Jobs are focus, don’t forget veterans. Responsible balancing of federal budget.

Rossi: Fiscal cliff. Hits China, I like! Stop reckless spending. He balanced biggest budget in state history with Democrat majority as example. 17.4% functional unemployment highlighted. Let small business be successful.

Murray rebut: Make sure families have investments by her presence in Senate. Work with small businesses. Tax cuts for middle income families.

Rossi rebut: Re-authorize 2001-2003 tax cuts including those that hurt small businesses. Rossi misspoke big time, Murray knew it.

How to get out of economic mess

Rossi: Looking in eyes of men that are unemployed. Create an atmosphere friendly to certainty for businesses. Re-authorize tax cuts. Give bussinesses oppurtunity to plan. Modest taxation, reliable regulation, let em chase the American dream.

Murray: Families know people unemployed and struggling. Works hard to talk to community leaders. South Park bridge, Murray bringing money to that community. Says Rossi won’t fight for you in that way. Says no credit available.

Rossi rebut: Federal government only creates temporary jobs, takes away from private sector. Stimulus jobs costs 320,000 dollars for each one. Talking about what works for a long-time, unemployment high so stimulus failed.

Murray: Goes to work sites. Rossi will fire private sector employees.

Federal deficit – where to cut and be specific

Murray: Cut 14 billion from President’s budget. Freeze her own pay, no new buildings for secretary of hud. Claims Rossi wants to follow Bush economic agenda. Can make tough cuts, can’t promise tax cuts to wealthy.

Rossi: Earmarks. Murray changed over 18 years. Murray did not cut budget and number 9 in earmarks which now contribute to her. Hitting her with examples left and right. Ban earmarks until budget balanced.

Murray rebut: Didn’t hear balanced budget, when he did say it.

Rossi rebut: Second coming of Ronald Regan, but she isn’t. Already has earmarks for next year. Does one thing in DC does another at home.

Health care

Same responses. Rossi came off a bit better.

Immigration – what to do with children born and raised

Rossi: Secure the border first, cannot entertain anything else.

Murray: Northern border highlighted.

Rossi rebut: Open to ideas for what to do with people born here.

blah, blah, blah

Democrat slavery, Republican liberty

October 14, 2010 Comments off

Political party platforms define the governing political philosophies and how they are to be applied. Platforms for the Democratic party began in 1840, while the Republican party platform began in 1856. It is important that either party was entirely focused on the Constitution more so than any current platform seems to do, although Republicans are showing promise.

The very first Democrat party platform was in 1840 and it lists 9 Resolved principles of which politics form.  There is only one mention of slavery and it is number 7. It states;

7. Resolved, That congress has no power, under the constitution, to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several states, and that such states are the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining to their own affairs, not prohibited by the constitution; that all efforts by abolitionists or others, made to induce congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences, and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people, and endanger the stability and permanency of the union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friend to our political institutions.

Line one, prior to “;” essentially says that congress should not interfere with, “domestic institutions of the several states”. Now the important part surfaces, as to what these institutions are, namely institutional slavery stating that all efforts by “abolitionists” to rid the US of slavery (one of the United States most tragic histories) was actually to reduce happiness of the people and should not be entertained by any political institution, namely congress. The federal government should not determine the outcome of slavery, inherently the Democratic party saw nothing wrong with slavery, and in fact thought it made people happy. It stays the same for the 1840, 1844 and 1848 platforms until 1852 in which several other governing principles were introduced. Number 7 specifically dealt with slavery, and had lasted since 1840, it was now not given a number and moved below that last number  of 9. Then below, there is an added portion that states;

Resolved, That the democratic party will resist all attempts at renewing, in congress or out of it, the agitation of the slavery question, under whatever shape or color the attempt may be made.

It is clear the Democrat party does not want any change in the use of slavery for America. In 1856, the Republican party is birthed and the 1856 Republican political party platform is defined! How does the Democrat party deal with such opposition to their view that slavery makes people happy? They now make a more coherent argument for slavery, as well as concluding that they are reasserting their focused energy toward that position. The whole platform becomes entrenched with defense of slavery. I will quote some of the more interesting and telling portions below, but not quoting all parts that mention the word “slavery”.

Resolved, That we reiterate with renewed energy of purpose the well considered declarations of former Conventions upon the sectional issue of Domestic slavery, and concerning the reserved rights of the States.

1. That Congress has no power under the Constitution, to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several States, and that such States are the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining to their own affairs, not prohibited by the Constitution; that all efforts of the abolitionists, or others, made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences; and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people and endanger the stability and permanency of the Union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friend of our political institutions.

2. That the foregoing proposition covers, and was intended to embrace the whole subject of slavery agitation in Congress; and therefore, the Democratic party of the Union, standing on this national platform, will abide by and adhere to a faithful execution of the acts known as the compromise measures, settled by the Congress of 1850; “the act for reclaiming fugitives from service or labor,” included; which act being designed to carry out an express provision of the Constitution, cannot, with fidelity thereto, be repealed, or so changed as to destroy or impair its efficiency.

3. That the Democratic party will resist all attempts at renewing, in Congress or out of it, the agitation of the slavery question under whatever shape or color the attempt may be made.

As you can see, point 1 mirrors point 7 from their historical platforms from 1844 to 1852. The great Compromise of 1850 had already finished, halting a four year confrontation between slave supporting states of the South and then non-slave states of the North or free states. This uneasy tension that culminated in 1850 followed the Mexican-American War (1846–1848). Thus in point 2, the Democratic platform was the support of the “compromise measures”, thus because of it being law, could not be agitated or repealed, etc. Point 3 is again a reiteration of what was stated in the 1852 Democrat party platform.

How did the Republican party deal with such law and entrenched interests by the Democrat party? Their 1856 party platform states the following;

This Convention of Delegates, assembled in pursuance of a call addressed to the people of the United States, without regard to past political differences or divisions, who are opposed to the repeal of the Missouri Compromise; to the policy of the present Administration; to the extension of Slavery into Free Territory; in favor of the admission of Kansas as a Free State; of restoring the action of the Federal Government to the principles of Washington and Jefferson; and for the purpose of presenting candidates for the offices of President and Vice-President, do

Resolved: That the maintenance of the principles promulgated in the Declaration of Independence, and embodied in the Federal Constitution are essential to the preservation of our Republican institutions, and that the Federal Constitution, the rights of the States, and the union of the States, must and shall be preserved.

Resolved: That, with our Republican fathers, we hold it to be a self-evident truth, that all men are endowed with the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that the primary object and ulterior design of our Federal Government were to secure these rights to all persons under its exclusive jurisdiction; that, as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished Slavery in all our National Territory, ordained that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, it becomes our duty to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it for the purpose of establishing Slavery in the Territories of the United States by positive legislation, prohibiting its existence or extension therein. That we deny the authority of Congress, of a Territorial Legislation, of any individual, or association of individuals, to give legal existence to Slavery in any Territory of the United States, while the present Constitution shall be maintained.

Resolved: That the Constitution confers upon Congress sovereign powers over the Territories of the United States for their government; and that in the exercise of this power, it is both the right and the imperative duty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of barbarism—Polygamy, and Slavery.

The first paragraph calls for a restoration of principles to “Washington and Jefferson”. Secondly the reliance upon the Declaration of Independence as embodied within the Constitution is honored and preserved which is essentially, if arguing against slavery, liberty for all! Thirdly after paraphrasing the pertinent parts of the Declaration of Independence, the Republican duty is presented;

… to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it for the purpose of establishing Slavery in the Territories of the United States by positive legislation, prohibiting its existence or extension therein.

Thus to Republicans, the Democrats are interpreting the Constitution in an incredibly racist way, not using an honest originalist perspective. If all are to have liberty and if the Constitution is the best government to facilitate and foster individual liberty and it being the supreme law of the land, to the Republicans;

it is both the right and the imperative duty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of barbarism—Polygamy, and Slavery.

They Think Big Thoughts?

October 11, 2010 Comments off

Big Government posted the Ricochet podcast, entitled “The Brain Sandwich”. I was surprised that Rich Lowry didn’t sound Conservative and David Brooks I could do without. Peter Robinson, want’s to be pro immigration and doesn’t see the established path for citizenship for the pass several decades. That is my major beef with this podcast, the immigration portion.

Big brains on the big show this week as Rob Long and Peter Robinson are joined by New York Times columnist David Brooks and National Review Editor-In-Chief Rich Lowry. They think big thoughts about entitlements, the Bush tax cuts, Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels, Bob Gates for president, potential democratic challengers, and whether infidelity is the root of all social evil.

I will not buy the argument that illegals do our jobs so therefore we shouldn’t press the border issue to hard because the benefit of having illegals work outweighs the cost of securing our border. Is this, or is this not America? What is this dolt talking about? He would rather not enforce laws because Latinos work at jobs? I tell you what, you start eliminating the illegal presence within jobs that actual Americans may utilize, I think the economy would show significant gain.

You pass then enforce the Arizona immigration law federally, as it mirrors federal law to its core. Then as this nation-wide application of already established law begins, especially in California as the podcast specifies, then the expiring of extended unemployment benefits may coincide. In this way, Americans are given the choice of work, or no money. I would think Americans would choose the work the illegals who were either deported because of felony, or stay due to comprehensive work programs left over by Americans who will not occupy the positions.

This is obviously a start and a rough sketch of principles necessary for enforcement through law. None of the individuals on the Ricochet podcast even glanced at any possibility. Where the result is an overwhelming of traditional values and institutions, namely LAW! I mean come on, this is basic, nobody used it as a counter-argument, there was no critical thinking or debate to challenge little ideas and make them into truly big ones.

Where is the discussion of such sensible policies that I have laid out, if not in specificity then in principle? Ummm, nowhere!

I can smell the victory from here!

October 10, 2010 1 comment

Gallup released some figures, in which are very favorable for Conservatives. It seems we now hold a solid majority. CNS News has some additional commentary definitely worth checking out.