This is higher education at its finest:
This is higher education at its finest:
Judge Jeanine makes a strong statement here. I can’t find fault with any of it.
Wherever you stand on the issue of abortion, this guy Kermit Gosnell was a wicked, wicked man. And the main stream media chose to ignore his crimes and his trial. Instead they plastered the airwaves with the Jody Arias story.
Check out the video, and if you see eye to eye with it, click here to contribute to the crowdfunding effort.
Update: All of the funding was obtained. They needed to raise $2.1 million. They secured $2.2 million. The movie will be made.
We welcome John Chambers here with this guest post.
To use a medical metaphor, they address the symptom rather than the disease. To drive the metaphor home, term limits are a band-aid on a severed limb. We could say term limits are better than nothing, but they are worse. They are a drug to make you feel good while your insides rot out. You get my drift?
The malady is a too-powerful government, which, because power corrupts, encourages corruption.
Originally, the US Constitution had no term limits. They were not unknown to the Founders who chose instead to construct a system of “checks and balances” so that men of ambition would squabble amongst themselves rather than maul the People.
A Case Study of Term Limits
It took 160 years before term limits made it into the Constitution. The 22nd Amendment (1951) limited the term of the President. It was passed in answer to Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR), whose unprecedented four terms were power-grab after power-grab. At the time, a majority of Americans continued to re-elect FDR as he handed out goodies and blamed “greedy business” but he also disgusted enough hard-working Americans that his power was reined in … after he was dead. Few had the courage to face him during his life but those few were surrounded by timid Republicans.
After FDR was dead, the Republicans got very brave and decided to rein in the power of the Presidency. Term limits, that’s the ticket!
Yet, the current Administration has amassed more power more quickly than FDR dreamed possible. And if you are a fan of the current resident of the White House, consider the power wielded by his predecessor. Depending on your preference, eight years under either regime feels like 20 under FDR.
It certainly does feel good to know that the current President, or his predecessor, can serve no more than eight years, but has that term limit really reined in power and reduced corruption?
Another Case Study
California Prop 140 (1990) limited Sacramento legislators to a term of no more than 14 years. In 2004, the Public Policy Institute of California issued a report on its effect.
There were some internal and procedural adjustments but the report concludes that the hoped-for “citizen-legislators” never materialized. Worse, it had no effect on the corruption of special interests. The amount of money increased but morphed into new forms preying on the inexperience of newly-elected wide-eyed legislators fresh from city and county posts, ready to hit the jackpot in Sacramento.
That’s the corruption of those going into office, but the corruption going out could even be worse. Some will be ethical, of course, and no longer fearing the next election, begin to truly do what they think is best for the People. Others about to term out are going to spend their lame-duck time feathering their own futures.
A lobbyist in Sacramento (who used to work for a legislator who was termed out) believes even the virtuous new legislator is victimized by the system. “[T]erm limits,” he told me, “have effectively given too much power to the lobbyists and staff members. Because so many legislators are inexperienced, they wind up relying on others for policy data.”
The problem, he says, is not limits on terms but that the system is so complicated, it makes it difficult for “citizen-legislators” to even start a campaign. The legislature is no longer “a bunch old white men;” he said, “there is diversity, more women and minorities, but they are still mostly from the top of the pyramid. I’d like to see some truck drivers [in the legislature].”
The problem is that Government has become too complex, micro-managing our daily lives. “It doesn’t need to be this complicated,” the lobbyist said. “But as long as it is this complicated, we need experienced people.”
Term limits, it can be argued, has encouraged irresponsibility in California. The Golden State once was prosperous, but since 1990 has descended into poverty at an accelerated rate. Many people reading this writing escaped from that once-glorious state. How many would like to return?
Since 2004, there have been numerous attempts to change the term limits law. Folks know there is something wrong with it. Finally, in 2012 the people passed Proposition 28 to reduce the time a person may serve in the state legislature from 14 to 12 years. Same-old same-old. Folks really need to learn from their mistakes.
Fixing the Real Problem
If term limits do not reduce corruption or the power that encourages it, the answer is to make the posts less powerful and less profitable.
The US Constitution envisioned exactly that; the power of each post limited by other “departments” of government doing their jobs too. Not only would each branch of the National government (legislative, executive, judiciary) jealously guard against encroachment from the other branches, but also each level of government (national, state, county) would protect its sovereignty as well.
Congress, the House and Senate, are scorned by most Americans and for good reason. They have not been doing their job. If those elected actually owed their election to those they are supposed to represent, Congress would start working again.
Originally, US Senators represented each State but the 17th Amendment forces them to curry favor with the media, moneyed interests and Senate Leadership, to get the favorable press and money needed for a huge campaign. The States are no longer represented, and that whole level of government is no more. It is little wonder that the states go hat in hand to a hugely powerful national government in DC. Repeal the 17th Amendment.
Currently, too many members of the US House of Representatives owe their elections to the House leadership, “leadership PACs” and again the moneyed interests. Their election depends on favor from people in DC rather than people from their own district.
For the House of Representatives, amend the Constitution such that a one member cannot represent more than, say, 60,000 citizens. Instead of 435 members, the House will have 5000 or more members. Yes, we will have to buy more chairs and desks, but that’s cheap for Josephine County and Coos and Klamath Counties to each have their own representative. Jackson County would have almost two, sharing one with Josephine. Multnomah County, home to Portland, would have a dozen. No representative will need tons of money from Party Leadership or unions or fat corporations to campaign. His campaign will cost $40 to $80 thousand to buy ads on local radio and knock on a lot of doors. The people in his district will be his “special interest.”.
(Since writing this, I have become aware of a movement in California to expand their Assembly similarly.)
Term limits are needed when our representatives no longer represent us. When “term limits” are needed, we have a more serious problem. A feel-good band-aid will not fix it.
© 2013 John Chambers – All Rights Reserved
# # # # #
About John Chambers:
John Chambers has a standard response to anyone who questions his credentials for writing a study guide for the Constitution. “Zero,” he says. “I am a citizen who took an interest. I have no more intelligence or education than anyone else.”
His father might tell you that Mr. Chambers’ interest began when he was twelve. That summer, he sat young Johnny down and had him copy the Constitution into one of those composition books with the squiggly black-and-white covers. On the left-hand page, Johnny would copy the document in its original language. On the right-hand side, he translated it into modern English.
Years later, John Chambers was asked by a friend who runs the California Ranch School, a private high school, if John would do some writing for the school. While at the school, a few of the students asked Mr. Chambers if he could teach them something about the Constitution. He could.
The first class was to be strictly a reading of the document but it soon became apparent that was not enough. John remembered his own 12-year-old struggles. He may have read the Constitution, but his life experience was not enough to grasp the concepts. “I knew the words,” he says, “but couldn’t sing the tune.” As that first class read through the document, Mr. Chambers got them to give examples from their own lives.
The next class of students had a study guide with many of the difficult words defined and some examples for teenage lives. But the study guide had weak points still. It improved in that class and the next.
Mr. Chambers was soon teaching courses to neighbors and as an extension course at the local community college. With each class given, Mr. Chambers would see the weaknesses of his study guide, and its strengths. After five years of revisions, the study-guide became as stable as any textbook and became more broadly available.
Today, he runs the Josephine County Constitution Study Group in southern Oregon.
John’s book: “The Constitution of the United States: A Study Guide” – Second Edition, can be ordered here.
I have never reposted another article in full here or really on any of my blogs, but I am blown away by what is in this Townhall.com article, written by Austin Hill.
Here it is:
Vice President Joe Biden announced two days ago that the American people agree with the Democrat party “on every major issue.” Whether or not this is true remains to be seen, but this we can know with certainty: on issues of economics, enterprise, and environmental policy, the other industrialized nations of the world have been moving in the exact opposite direction of President Barack Obama and the U.S. federal government for at least the past two years.
As the President pushes for a $1 billion “climate resilience fund” to save America from global warming – and as he presides over more than $17 trillion in government debt with no plan to either boost economic output nor cut government spending – free people on at least three different continents have elected governments that are behaving more like Reagan and Bush than either Obama or Biden. One of the most obvious examples of this is just a bit further northward, but right here in North America.
Consider Stephen Harper, the Prime Minster of Canada. First elected in 2006 on a campaign pledge to, among other things, foster close ties to President George W Bush and America’s efforts to fight terrorism, Harper has over the past eight years championed free trade, federal government spending reductions, and a significant boost in oil production. Today the Canadian government is on track to be debt-free in 2015, as Harper tirelessly lobbies the U.S. to become more cooperative with oil pipeline projects and energy exploration.
Then there’s Alison Redford, the Premier of the Province of Alberta (a provincial premier is a counterpart to the Governor of a U.S. state). Redford agreed to serve on a panel with former Vice President Al Gore to discuss oil energy production and “climate change” at last month’s World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and the panel discussion quickly turned in to a debate between the two.
After the event both Al Gore and the Huffington Post were convinced that Al Gore’s presentation had been brilliant. Yet European media marveled at Redford’s willingness to call-out Gore’s “erroneous” assertions about petroleum-based energy and her “new way of looking at things” pertaining to economic growth.
Then consider the country of Australia and it’s new Prime Minister Tony Abbott. It wasn’t sufficient that in 2013 Australia was already a global leader in iron ore and timber production and that’s its’ government was set to close out the calendar year debt-free – no, the citizenry of the land “down under” wanted an even more business-friendly and fiscally sound government for themselves, so they elected a candidate for Prime Mister who repeated from the campaign trail that the global climate change agenda is “absolute crap.”
Shortly before his election win Abbott was asked in a nationwide television interview “with our government debt so low, why do you want to cut government spending even further?”
“Because there’s still waste in our government, that’s why” Abbott replied. Shortly after his September 7, 2013 landslide victory he set a date of July 1, 2014 by which he intends to eliminate his nation’s “carbon tax.”
And – gasp! – could it be that the European nations are abandoning their “green” status? It would appear that way. Last month the European commission, the legislative body of the union that sets policies shared among the member nations, voted to officially abandon specific sets of “climate change protocols.” Even more stunning, the commission appears to be preparing to allow fracking among the member nations, with the hope of making Europe a leader in the global natural gas and oil shale markets.
America may very well still be with Obama, Biden and the Democrat party on “every major issue.” But the rest of the industrialized world is moving in the exact opposite direction of our President and Vice President, away from the Obama traditions of dangerous government debt and economy-killing environmental zealotry.
I must have been so immersed in the American scene and America’s problems with its current leadership, that it never occurred to me that our neighbor to the north will soon be debt-free! And Australia is on track to be debt-free in 2015. My first thought is that it’s simply mind-boggling that these two countries are so close to being OUT OF DEBT, and we are shackled with 17 trillion and rising.
But then it’s not really mind-boggling, is it?
It’s just common sense economics and not getting sucked in by the dead-end promises of the left.
By John Eberhard
I am a political conservative. I favor smaller government, lower taxes, am against welfare and against government intrusion into our lives.
I have spent a fair amount of time in my life trying to understand what make liberals tick. It’s been tough and I can’t say I’ve been very successful in understanding liberal thought.
But recently I came across a video that someone posted on Facebook. It received very little fanfare but I think it contained a key to understanding liberal thought. The video was of a guy named Evan Sayet. He is a comedian and comedy writer. So why was I listening to a comedian about politics? Because he had something really profound to say.
The first video I saw was only a couple minutes long, which then interested me enough to watch another video that was over an hour long. The first video was called “The Unified Field Theory of Modern Liberalism.” Here’s an excerpt:
“The modern liberal: there is something about his ideology that leads him to invariably and inevitably side with evil over good, wrong over right, the lesser over the better, the ugly over the beautiful, the profane over the profound, and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success.”
“The first two laws of unified field theory of liberalism – there are four, and two corollaries… The first law is the modern liberal was raised to believe that indiscriminateness is a moral imperative. Because its opposite is discrimination. In the 1980s, by no coincidence, when the first post-World War II generation, the children of the 60s, when they became the professors of the 80s, when they became the entertainers of the 80s, when they became the journalists of the 80s, and when they became the Democratic Party of the 80s, in the 1980s, thinking was outlawed. It was deemed a hate crime.”
“Anything that you believe is going to be so tainted by your personal prejudices, prejudices we all have – part of being human, based on such things as the color of your skin, the nation of your ancestors, your height, your weight, your sex and so on. Anything that you believe is going to be so tainted by your prejudices, that the only way not to be a bigot, is to never think at all. That is why their answer to everything is ‘You’re a racist,’ ‘You’re a homophobe,’ ‘You’re a xenophobe.’ Because then there’s nothing to worry about, because there is no good or bad. So the only reason you could be against something, is you’re a racist or homophobic.”
“They were raised to believe that indiscriminateness is a moral imperative because its opposite is discrimination.”
“And the second law of the unified field theory of liberalism… is indiscriminateness of thought does not lead to indiscriminateness of belief. Indiscriminateness of thought leads invariably, inevitably – there is no place else it can lead but to siding with evil over good, wrong over right, ugly over beautiful, and so on. Why?”
“Because if no religion, if no culture, if no person, if no behavior, if no form of governance, if nothing is better than anything else, then success is unjust.”
“Why should a person, a nation, a government, a religion succeed if it’s not better than any other?”
“So this liberalism says ‘Everything is equally good, bad, coexist, doesn’t make everything meet in the middle. It makes the better, bad.”
So, let me translate or explain. Sayet’s idea is that modern liberals were raised on the idea that you must not judge anyone or anything. To do so would be to discriminate, it would lead to prejudice and discrimination. So the only way to not be a bigot is to not judge anything to be good or bad. All things are equal.
All religions are equal. All forms of government are equal. All forms of behavior are equal. All cultures are equal. No religion or government or culture or behavior can be judged to be better than any other. This is also called “multiculturalism.”
So if you see a type of culture or behavior or government or religion that appears to lead to a bad outcome or some negative result, you are not allowed to judge it.
And if you see some form of culture or religion or government or behavior that has been more successful than another or others, as a liberal you are not allowed to judge that to be better. It is ingrained in you not to judge it to be better. It is EQUAL to the less successful cultures or religions or governments or behaviors. It is NOT better.
So if that culture or government or behavior or religion was more successful than others, how could that be? It’s equal to the others, not better. So how did it get to be more successful?
That’s right, it cheated. It was a form of injustice. It couldn’t be better (we can’t judge anything), so it must have cheated to get ahead. It must have bent the rules to favor itself, it must have taken advantage of the less fortunate, less successful ones, or it was just plain old dumb luck.
So Sayet is saying that this leads the modern liberal to invariably favor evil over good, wrong over right, and behaviors that lead to failure over behaviors that lead to success. Why? Because the successful, good and right people cheated. Success is inherently unjust.
Successful people are invariably victimizers, and unsuccessful people are inherently victims.
If you follow politics and follow what types of things liberals promote, you’ll see example after example of this:
You can probably think of other examples of liberals favoring bad over good, evil over good, and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success.
If you are a liberal you might ask what is wrong with the idea that you must not judge anything, ever. The above may seem perfectly logical to you.
But I am going to go out on a limb here and declare that the above idea that you must not ever judge anyone or anything is a completely false idea. It’s not true.
First, let’s examine the idea that to judge things is wrong. Judging behavior is deeply ingrained in our culture, in order to achieve success and avoid failure. It’s how you survive in life. Throughout history mankind has tried to figure out which behaviors lead to success, and which ones lead to failure.
Moral codes and laws are based on which behaviors have led to success and failure, and those that have led to failure have been judged bad and things to avoid.
Let’s take an example. It used to be, before the last 50 years, that sexual promiscuity was considered bad. It led to venereal disease, unwanted pregnancies, broken marriages, and single mothers raising kids. And before you jump on me and say there is nothing wrong with single mothers raising kids, statistics have shown that kids raised by single mothers have much higher incidence of crime, failure in school, and becoming unwed mothers themselves. And those things are what we typically call “failures.”
I think most people over the age of 30 would recognize that sexual promiscuity is a bad thing. But liberals have been promoting sexual promiscuity for 50 years, in schools, in entertainment, on and on. And abortion is the quintessential act of avoiding all responsibility for the sexual act. After all, you wouldn’t want to be “punished with a baby” as President Obama has said. Abortion is one of the most important issues to liberals.
To the liberal, judging any type of sexual behavior is not allowed. So they champion the types of sexual behavior that society has traditionally judged to be deviant.
Perhaps one of the first things liberals need to realize is that some behaviors lead to success and some to failure. Some behaviors are actually better than others. You can take this to the ultimate absurdity and say that working hard at a job and supporting a family leads to better survival for someone than going around killing people. The person going around killing people is eventually going to be caught and put in jail, or killed himself. That’s not very good survival.
Perhaps the second thing that liberals need to learn is that people can control their own behavior. There is such a thing as free will. A person is not an animal as psychiatrists would have you believe.
We’re going to be hearing a lot more about this concept.
Here is a very simple way our Republican leaders can respond to the onslaught of untruths, deception and corruption associated with liberal policies and liberal policy-makers:
“Mr. President, you are lying again.”
“Senator Reid, there you go again. You’re lying.”
“Ms. Pelosi, as you have so many times before, you are simply lying.”
Get it out into the open. Quit parsing your words. Tell left wing fanatics what millions of Americans are finding out:
“Mr./Ms. (fill in the blank), you are lying.”
This is just local news you’re going to see here. It’s only four minutes and change. But it captures what is going on around the country and will be going on in ever-increasing numbers as 2014 unfolds.
When the folks who pushed the bill through Congress turned to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to “score” the Obamacare bill, the CBO came back with a statement that the bill would not cause the deficit to increase over 10 years. The folks ramming the bill through were overjoyed and repeated this incredible news all over the land. Far and wide, folks heard that the bill was not only going to make wonderful changes to our health care system, it was economically sound.
Hooray. Hooray. Hooray.
When the very same CBO got hold of Obamacare AFTER it was passed, their prognosis was dramatically different. It foresaw massive new indebtedness.
They had more to tell us.
After the bill was passed, the CBO stated 30 million people would still be UNinsured at the end of 10 years.
THE REASON given for Obamacare:
Insure the uninsured.
How wonderful it was that the CBO had blessed the bill (BEFORE its passage) as also being economically sound.
When the ACTUAL passed legislation was scored by the CBO and they found it would be economically a disaster AND that it would still leave 30,000,000 people uninsured, did those who rammed the bill through proclaim this new information to all throughout the land?
We know the answer to that.
Sarcasm aside, the depth of dishonesty, deception and corruption that created this bill is causing serious problems:
– for people losing their health care
– for people losing their doctor
– for people no longer being able to go to the hospital they prefer
– for employers who are reducing the hours of employees to create part-timers (who they do not have to insure)
– for employers who are now hiring fewer people than they intended to hire to offset the much higher premiums they now must pay OR to not hit the 50 full time employee plateau where they are forced to pay for health care
– for people who now have health care that is MUCH more than they can afford
– for doctors who are now choosing to get out of the networks that Obamacare included
– for doctors who are now choosing to retire early
– for students who are now changing their majors from medicine to ________ (fill in the blank as you like)
The above is just the tip of the iceberg. We are just finding out how Obamacare is adversely affecting how we chose to live our lives for many generations.
Next year at this time, there won’t be a mere 5-10 million people experiencing these problems. It will be in the tens of millions, possibly over a 100 million.
For those of you who believe the above is false reasoning and based only on anecdotal evidence, I hear you. And I understand you. Come and let’s talk next year at this time…
When Obamacare was being “debated” in Congress all the way through to now, there never was a majority of Americans who wanted it. That’s okay, the folks who created this overhaul of our health care system know better than us.
Now that Obamacare is here and making its way through our society, the percentage of those opposed to it is going higher and higher.
But there’s one segment of society that has THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGE of dissatisfaction with the bill.
Can you guess who that might be?
Now that the rollout of Obamacare is a massive debacle, main stream media (or at least parts of it) are starting to wear their hat and are digging around. Obama’s very political ambitions seemed to have sabotaged the rollout of the web site!
This video shows what many Americans already knew about our Prez…he’s the President of some of us, but definitely not interested in all of us.
This is an email I received from US Rep Tom McClintock:
The debt limit exists for a simple reason: to assure that public debt isn’t recklessly piled up without Congress periodically acknowledging it and addressing the spending patterns that are causing it. If a debt limit increase is supposed to be automatic, as the President suggests, there really is no purpose to it.
A new dimension has now appeared in this discussion. Unlike every one of his predecessors, this President has vowed that unless Congress unconditionally raises the debt limit, the United States will default on its sovereign debt.
The President has been ruthless and vindictive in the way he has handled the shutdown, refusing House leadership’s offers along the way. I now believe that this President would willfully act to destroy the full faith and credit of the United States unless the Congress acquiesces to all of his demands. His every statement and action is consistent with this conclusion.
If the Republicans acquiesce, the immediate crisis will quickly vanish, credit markets will calm and public life will return to other matters. But a fundamental element of our Constitution will have been destroyed and a perilous era will have begun.
The power of the purse will have shifted from the representatives of the people to the executive, in which the President sets spending levels and vetoes any bill falling short of his demands. Whenever a deadline approaches, one house can simply refuse to negotiate with the other until Congress is faced with the Hobson’s choice of a shut-down or a default.
The nation’s spending will again dangerously accelerate, the deficit will again rapidly widen, and the economic prosperity of the nation will continue to slowly bleed away.
This impasse may have started as a dispute over a collapsing health program but it has now taken on the dimensions of a constitutional crisis.
This past weekend in Washington, a group of America’s veterans rose up to take a stand against these constitutional usurpations. I believe the salvation of our nation now depends on the American people joining them.