Recently I pointed out the danger looming ahead for the United States as the White House and congress are controlled by Democrats that will result from reconsideration of previously rejected treaties. It is startling how little attention is paid by the public to what will happen to our freedom if these treaties are signed by President Obama and ratified by the Senate. Even the few responsible media ignore this danger and fail to inform Americans.
For decades Republican presidents or Republican-controlled congress were steadfast in refusing to take up these treaties even those signed by a sitting Democrat president. Perhaps the most important of these were the Kyoto Treaty signed by President Clinton and the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) refused to be considered by President Reagan. Had the Kyoto Treaty been ratified our total society and economy would be subject to draconian United Nations regulations that would be devastating. Unfortunately it is a great likelihood that the newest version will probably be accepted now. LOST is also likely to become the law of our land and American independence on the high seas will be also “lost” as will our independent ability to explore and benefit from under sea deposits. The United Nations will be in control and American sovereignty will be diminished.
Although each of the international treaties avoided until now are important, few will have the far reaching affect on Americans as the “U.N. Treaty on Children’s Rights.” Behind this fine-sounding treaty lurks the most intrusive penetration of American ideals and lives and recasting the relationships between parents and their children. This is no exaggeration.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) is an international convention committing signatories to civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of children. All countries that ratify this international convention are bound by it by international law. Compliance is monitored by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child which is composed of members from countries around the world. Once a year, the Committee submits a report to the Third Committee of the United Nations General Assembly, which also hears a statement from the CRC Chair, and the Assembly adopts a Resolution on the Rights of the Child. Governments of countries that have ratified the Convention are required to report to, and appear before, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child periodically to be examined on their progress with regards to the advancement of the implementation of the Convention and the status of child rights in their country.
The treaty obliges states to allow parents to exercise their parental responsibilities but acknowledges that children have the right to express their opinions and to have those opinions heard and acted upon when appropriate and to have their privacy protected and requires that their lives not be subject to excessive interference.
Under the treaty the United States would be obligated to provide separate legal representation for a child in any judicial dispute concerning their care and requires that the child's viewpoint be heard in such cases. The treaty also forbids capital punishment for children.
Article 29 of the treaty limits the fundamental right of parents and others to educate children in private schools by requiring that all such schools support the principles contained in the United Nations Charter, including a list of specific values and ideals. This is in conflict with U.S Supreme Court decisions that a combination of parental rights and religious liberties provide a broader right of parents and private schools to control the values and curriculum of private education free from state or federal government interference.
Article 37 prohibits sentencing of juveniles to life imprisonment with no opportunity for parole. Laws in approximately 20 states conflict with this article. The 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision Roper v. Simmons found juvenile execution unconstitutional as cruel and unusual punishment, but does not cover the question of life without possibility of parole.
Ratification of the UNCRC by the United States would require the U.S. government to appear before the U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child, a panel of child rights experts from around the world, every 5 years to explain their implementation of such issues as universal health insurance for all American children.
Among other provisions contrary to U.S. law are the participatory rights granted to children.
Article 12 states:
"Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child ... the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child."
The treaty, adopted by the United Nations on Nov. 20, 1989, has been ratified by 193 countries. The United States and Somalia are the two countries that have not ratified it. Critics have declared national self-determination (national sovereignty) is at the heart of why the treaty should not be ratified.
As CNSNews.com reported, “This would be one of the most invasive things we could do as far as the sovereignty of our nation,” - Michael Smith, president of the Home School Legal Defense Association.
Smith said that if Congress ratifies the treaty, it would give the United Nations authority to object to federal and state laws that it thinks violate the treaty and mandates Congress have the power to pass laws to make the country comply with its provisions – a fact even advocates of the treaty do not deny. Smith said further: "This would be one of the most invasive things we could do as far as the sovereignty of our nation".
Howard Davidson, Director of the American Bar Association Center for Children and the Law said “Every national government in the world, except the United States, has developed in response to the Convention of the Rights of the Child official detailed national reports on how children are fairing in their country.” This is supposed to make the country feel guilty if it does not do the same.
Austin Ruse is president of the conservative United Nations watchdog group Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute. He has said that the treaty reflects a worldview that rejects the idea of sovereign nations. Ruse said “They no longer want independent nations deciding what to do, but good citizens in a new international order.”
The treaty contemplates that children have rights apart from their parents. It separates parents from their children because the rights of children are created that encroach upon the rights and responsibilities of the parents.
The United States has the best laws protecting children in the world. We do not need the radical members of the United Nations to decide for us how to protect children. By any account this is a power grab by globalists who want to exert global rule over national sovereignty. The most dangerous thing about the Treaty is that rather than building stronger families, it will damage relationships by giving children “rights” to question their parents’ decisions on a range of issues, including discipline, religious training and education.
President-elect Barack Obama expressed a willingness to consider sending the treaty to Congress for ratification during his campaign. “It is embarrassing to find ourselves in the company of Somalia, a lawless land,” Obama said. “I will review this.”
True to their plans for United Nations domination, Meg Gardinier, acting chairwoman of the Campaign for the U.S. Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child said:
“We are very excited to think we are finally in a moment in time when the U.S. might very well join that ratification process and we can join the other 193 countries who are currently using this important rights treaty as a pivotal guide to improve the child’s survival, protection and development.”
Is this what you want for our country? If not, Americans need to be fully aware of the possibility the treaty will be ratified by the United States and mount a substantial effort to see that our country does not lose still more sovereignty by accepting United Nations’ dictate of the parent-child relationship.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Please, look at the facts before it’s too late – we are not causing the planet to warm
In my local newspaper there was an article recently entitled “Reduce warming while kick-starting the U. S. economy.” One author was an unimpressive councilman and now shows he is an unimpressive critic of the laws of physics. The coauthor is a Greenpeace field organizer, what more need be said; Greenpeace would have the world shut down for the good of humanity and for the planet.
Alarmist articles of this type are long on “concern” about planet warming and inevitably short on reason why we should believe global destruction is just round the corner unless we all accept draconian changes to our life style and put our faith and future in government’s hands. Does anyone other than these illogical alarmists believe that replacing our incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescent lamps will actually affect global temperature?
For many years after Al Gore came on the seen with his movie and he and government-supported “researchers” made the Olympian proclamation that the world is warming due to the life style of Americans and others similarly situated, the issue was driven by the faithful “big-government is best” media to assure the world there was no doubt and any deniers were either religious heretics or loony. Despite everything stacked against them, thousands of scientists around the world came forward with real scientific evidence and studies to prove the Olympian proclamation was not only wrong but issued by self-serving academicians feeding from the public trough.
There are good reasons why the global warming advocates scream the verdict of man’s indifference to the environment. After the defeat of communism on the world stage (except for a few tyrants still using the Marxist ideology to maintain power), those who were left found a home in environmental politics and under cover of this new ideology they continued their efforts toward globalism and near total governmental control over the lives of everyone, especially those in the world producing wealth.
The scientific reality is that throughout its history planet earth has undergone numerous climatic changes and upheavals of enormous proportions. On each occasion the planet survived and emerged with a new and generally different totality and life forms. Even tracing planet history to comparatively recent time, it can and has been shown that variation in world temperature has been a regular phenomenon. We have had relatively recent ice ages followed periods of warming and then additional cooling periods. There is evidence that we are actually in a cooling trend related to a considerable reduction in sun spots. The sun is really the dictator of what happens to temperature on earth, not whether we drive SUVs or keep our homes cool in summer and warm in winter. If anyone doubts this, a simple Google search will reveal a plethora of scientific studies to this effect. I have collected literally hundreds of reports about climate change; all proving beyond a doubt that human activity is not responsible for climate change on earth.
The fiction that greenhouse gases are the driving force behind global warming fits in nicely with the plans of big government dreamers in America and around the world. What better way is there to assure people follow the script than alleging the sky is falling and we can only stop it by doing things that will increase everyone’s cost of living and fill government coffers with endless streams of money to use to develop still more schemes to control the poor hapless masses.
I have a presentation that shows every bit of what I say is true. All the data shown is from credible sources and scientists and some even from the global warmer’s handbook. I even have results of studies that show that carbon dioxide, the global warming demon, is not to blame for change in climate temperature. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does vary as does the temperature but changes in carbon dioxide levels actually lag changes in temperature, up and down, by hundreds of years.
Congress is being hoodwinked and we are and will be the losers. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is leading the charge for global warming destructive “remedial” efforts. I would like to know on what basis he comes to believe we are in an emergency of inaction. Governor, tell the people what scientific evidence, specifically, are you relying on? For that matter, Councilman and Greenpeace coordinator - what scientific evidence have you that contradicts the hard evidence produced by the brave men and women who have come forward to discredit global warming alarmists at the risk of their jobs and standing in the elite academic community?
Alarmist articles of this type are long on “concern” about planet warming and inevitably short on reason why we should believe global destruction is just round the corner unless we all accept draconian changes to our life style and put our faith and future in government’s hands. Does anyone other than these illogical alarmists believe that replacing our incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescent lamps will actually affect global temperature?
For many years after Al Gore came on the seen with his movie and he and government-supported “researchers” made the Olympian proclamation that the world is warming due to the life style of Americans and others similarly situated, the issue was driven by the faithful “big-government is best” media to assure the world there was no doubt and any deniers were either religious heretics or loony. Despite everything stacked against them, thousands of scientists around the world came forward with real scientific evidence and studies to prove the Olympian proclamation was not only wrong but issued by self-serving academicians feeding from the public trough.
There are good reasons why the global warming advocates scream the verdict of man’s indifference to the environment. After the defeat of communism on the world stage (except for a few tyrants still using the Marxist ideology to maintain power), those who were left found a home in environmental politics and under cover of this new ideology they continued their efforts toward globalism and near total governmental control over the lives of everyone, especially those in the world producing wealth.
The scientific reality is that throughout its history planet earth has undergone numerous climatic changes and upheavals of enormous proportions. On each occasion the planet survived and emerged with a new and generally different totality and life forms. Even tracing planet history to comparatively recent time, it can and has been shown that variation in world temperature has been a regular phenomenon. We have had relatively recent ice ages followed periods of warming and then additional cooling periods. There is evidence that we are actually in a cooling trend related to a considerable reduction in sun spots. The sun is really the dictator of what happens to temperature on earth, not whether we drive SUVs or keep our homes cool in summer and warm in winter. If anyone doubts this, a simple Google search will reveal a plethora of scientific studies to this effect. I have collected literally hundreds of reports about climate change; all proving beyond a doubt that human activity is not responsible for climate change on earth.
The fiction that greenhouse gases are the driving force behind global warming fits in nicely with the plans of big government dreamers in America and around the world. What better way is there to assure people follow the script than alleging the sky is falling and we can only stop it by doing things that will increase everyone’s cost of living and fill government coffers with endless streams of money to use to develop still more schemes to control the poor hapless masses.
I have a presentation that shows every bit of what I say is true. All the data shown is from credible sources and scientists and some even from the global warmer’s handbook. I even have results of studies that show that carbon dioxide, the global warming demon, is not to blame for change in climate temperature. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does vary as does the temperature but changes in carbon dioxide levels actually lag changes in temperature, up and down, by hundreds of years.
Congress is being hoodwinked and we are and will be the losers. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is leading the charge for global warming destructive “remedial” efforts. I would like to know on what basis he comes to believe we are in an emergency of inaction. Governor, tell the people what scientific evidence, specifically, are you relying on? For that matter, Councilman and Greenpeace coordinator - what scientific evidence have you that contradicts the hard evidence produced by the brave men and women who have come forward to discredit global warming alarmists at the risk of their jobs and standing in the elite academic community?
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Tearing down crosses and making threats does not change minds
Every generation or so complains about how the next generation is changing our lives, the country, etc. but sometimes the changes are not just in how long we let our hair grow or what the music fad is, sometimes the changes are tragic to the fabric of society and our liberty and freedom – bought and paid for by blood and heartache of our founders. We are experiencing such an era of change now.
I’m not referring to the political changes we may expect under President Obama and the elected Democrat majorities in Congress, I believe we need to also focus on the changes in personal behavior and hate as we witnessed in Palm Springs when a mob of homosexuals and their supporters overcame an old woman carrying a cross because in their view religion, especially Christianity, cannot be tolerated if it interferes with their agenda. The homosexual agenda is to force their way into every aspect of human life to the end that homosexualism is synonymous with mankind. This goal requires providing homosexuals the status of “married people” not only with respect to legal rights, but in how non homosexuals perceive them regardless of their personal beliefs or religion.
Militant homosexuals have planned their next steps to achieve their goal. They are going back to the California Supreme Court that gave homosexual marriage its imprimatur to once again reverse the majority in the state. The practice of this court in the past as overruling the voting majority in the state is ample to justify the expense and effort in support of the homosexual theology. Who must the public rely on to support the Proposition 8 constitutional amendment in the court – Attorney General Gerry Brown – (do you feel comfortable with this advocate for you?)
Also on the homosexual agenda is the “boycott.” Their representatives say if we can’t beat them in the ballot box (yet), we will make the pay in other ways for failing to kneel at the homosexual altar.
Yes militancy, but not violence, has successfully transformed our society to a fairer one. Our founders were only “mostly” perfect but they accepted some prejudices in their way of life we have found to be wrong over the years. Thus was born voting rights for women and those other than whites, denial of slavery or servitude and overcoming racial disparity.
Euphemisms are used to convey what some regard as a more acceptable description of the thing; this has gone on for decades. For example, to make those practicing homosexuality seem to be less different from others the word “gay” has been descriptive of homosexuals and their life styles (curiously, the word does not seem to apply to female homosexuals or lesbians). As a result, a perfectly good word – gay – cannot be used as it had for centuries to describe a happy condition, not limited one particular group.
Objecting to the will of the majority is a fundamental freedom under our constitution and laws. The constitution is silent with respect to homosexuals so it is a subject (one of the few these days) that has been left to states to deal with. States frequently enact laws than many disagree with and those unsatisfied seek reversal generally by persuading others of their view. Such efforts cost a lot of money but are nevertheless permissible within our legal structure. What differentiates some groups with strongly held views from others is the way they go about seeking to achieve the result they desire. PETA seems to want us all to forego using animals in any form so they disrupt meetings, cause vandalism and worse. Does PETA really believe people will be drawn to their philosophy by such acts?
Militant homosexuals attack little old ladies with crosses and march and march; protest and protest that voters who approved Proposition 8 or the like (for the second time) are homophobes who wish to deny them their constitutional right to marry; but the U.S. Constitution does not address homosexuals at all. It was only the California Supreme Court stretching the state constitution language to suit their social preferences did they manage to overturn all previous efforts to define marriage as between one man and one woman – as it has for thousands of years.
Like many of us, I have changed my mind about things many times; but never under any kind of threat. I suggest homosexuals put away their hardware and mobs, stop threatening those who disagree with you and join the dialog. You may not persuade many who disagree with you for what they regard as responsible reasons; but if you don’t and continue as you are, it is only you will look foolish in the end.
I’m not referring to the political changes we may expect under President Obama and the elected Democrat majorities in Congress, I believe we need to also focus on the changes in personal behavior and hate as we witnessed in Palm Springs when a mob of homosexuals and their supporters overcame an old woman carrying a cross because in their view religion, especially Christianity, cannot be tolerated if it interferes with their agenda. The homosexual agenda is to force their way into every aspect of human life to the end that homosexualism is synonymous with mankind. This goal requires providing homosexuals the status of “married people” not only with respect to legal rights, but in how non homosexuals perceive them regardless of their personal beliefs or religion.
Militant homosexuals have planned their next steps to achieve their goal. They are going back to the California Supreme Court that gave homosexual marriage its imprimatur to once again reverse the majority in the state. The practice of this court in the past as overruling the voting majority in the state is ample to justify the expense and effort in support of the homosexual theology. Who must the public rely on to support the Proposition 8 constitutional amendment in the court – Attorney General Gerry Brown – (do you feel comfortable with this advocate for you?)
Also on the homosexual agenda is the “boycott.” Their representatives say if we can’t beat them in the ballot box (yet), we will make the pay in other ways for failing to kneel at the homosexual altar.
Yes militancy, but not violence, has successfully transformed our society to a fairer one. Our founders were only “mostly” perfect but they accepted some prejudices in their way of life we have found to be wrong over the years. Thus was born voting rights for women and those other than whites, denial of slavery or servitude and overcoming racial disparity.
Euphemisms are used to convey what some regard as a more acceptable description of the thing; this has gone on for decades. For example, to make those practicing homosexuality seem to be less different from others the word “gay” has been descriptive of homosexuals and their life styles (curiously, the word does not seem to apply to female homosexuals or lesbians). As a result, a perfectly good word – gay – cannot be used as it had for centuries to describe a happy condition, not limited one particular group.
Objecting to the will of the majority is a fundamental freedom under our constitution and laws. The constitution is silent with respect to homosexuals so it is a subject (one of the few these days) that has been left to states to deal with. States frequently enact laws than many disagree with and those unsatisfied seek reversal generally by persuading others of their view. Such efforts cost a lot of money but are nevertheless permissible within our legal structure. What differentiates some groups with strongly held views from others is the way they go about seeking to achieve the result they desire. PETA seems to want us all to forego using animals in any form so they disrupt meetings, cause vandalism and worse. Does PETA really believe people will be drawn to their philosophy by such acts?
Militant homosexuals attack little old ladies with crosses and march and march; protest and protest that voters who approved Proposition 8 or the like (for the second time) are homophobes who wish to deny them their constitutional right to marry; but the U.S. Constitution does not address homosexuals at all. It was only the California Supreme Court stretching the state constitution language to suit their social preferences did they manage to overturn all previous efforts to define marriage as between one man and one woman – as it has for thousands of years.
Like many of us, I have changed my mind about things many times; but never under any kind of threat. I suggest homosexuals put away their hardware and mobs, stop threatening those who disagree with you and join the dialog. You may not persuade many who disagree with you for what they regard as responsible reasons; but if you don’t and continue as you are, it is only you will look foolish in the end.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Will we continue to be able to say “being born an American is to win first prize in the lottery of life?”
At the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, when “the sun never set on the British Empire”, Rudyard Kipling noted that "to be born an Englishman is to win first prize in the lottery of life." Americans could say the same thing for centuries but will that continue to be true in the future?
Everyone can decide for themselves what will be the cause of Americans inability to consider having won the first prize in the lottery of life but for me it will be the growing demand for social justice.
Gary Demar wrote that the concept “social justice” means different things to different people. Justice is often equated with social equality, a mistaken notion if there ever was one”. The reason the idea of social justice is fallacious is that it does not fit in with the human condition and merely provides a false sense of fairness. Demar cites sporting contests as examples.
“Rarely are teams equal in ability. This is especially true with the younger age groups. What if umpires had the jurisdictional authority to level inequities at the request of a manager who believes that the opposing team has better players? Both teams know the rules going into the game. Umpires are present to ensure that the rule book is followed to the letter. As long as the players and coaches follow the rules and umpires enforce the rules, justice prevails even if there are inequities. It is not the job of an umpire to eliminate disparities. Who would ever want to play the game if the rules always change at the discretion of an umpire?”
In our country the demand for “social justice” is really a plea for the government to do something to fix perceived inequities be they economic or relational without any regard to the principle of justice. If justice is described in social rather than legal terms we are persuaded that national problems can only be fixed by a government with enough power to enforce its policies. The result is that advocates of “social justice” believe that the government plays the major role in rectifying so-called social problems because they are national in scope. Author Antonio Martino has pointed out however, that “the expression social justice . . . owes its immense popularity precisely to its ambiguity and meaninglessness. It can be used by different people, holding quite different views, to designate a wide variety of different things. Its obvious appeal stems from its persuasive strength, from its positive connotations, which allows the user to praise his own ideas and simultaneously express contempt for the ideas of those who don’t agree with him.”
“Anyone who criticizes policies that carry the label ‘social justice’ is immediately considered to be callous, insensitive, uncaring, and lacking in compassion.”
However those who oppose this definition of “social justice” policies are not against treating people in a just way; they just believe that most if not all social justice policies that involve the government are wrong and do more harm than good in the long run. Attaching the “social justice” label to a program does not make it a just program any more than attaching a label of a higher priced product to an inferior one makes it better.
As Demar also notes “Confiscating trillions of dollars in taxes from one segment of society and redistributing the collected revenue to another segment of society and calling it “social justice” does not mean that it is in fact the just thing to do. “Social justice” is not in operation when the State takes upon itself the right to confiscate so-called excess capital from the rich to care for the poor … confiscatory taxation and such policies do not work.”
In the 1960’s President Lyndon Johnson declared “war on poverty.” In the end poverty grew in numbers and trillions of dollars spent did nothing more than enlarge government. As has been reported: “Overall, civilian social welfare costs increased by twenty times from 1950 to 1980, in constant dollars and during the same period, the United States population increased by half.”
In 1965 the Food Stamp Program began with 424,000 people (statistically less than 9,000 people per state, a manageable number which private welfare agencies could have handled). At the end of Lyndon Johnson’s presidency in 1968, participation increased to 2.2 million. The number doubled during the first two years of Richard Nixon’s presidency (1969-70). By the end of Nixon’s first term in 1972, the number of food stamp recipients had increased five-fold. “By 1980, more than twenty-one million people were receiving food stamps, fifty times more people than were covered during the Johnson presidency.”
Using the government to satisfy a concept of “social justice” does more harm than good because it entices people into programs which make them dependent upon government. Of course there are people who are poor and need help but creating a government program in attempt to satisfy the need merely expands government and does not solve the problem anyway. We should keep this in mind as President Barack Obama institutes his policies to “spread the wealth.”
It is clear that America’s fight against poverty involved enormous overhead costs in the past and similar programs advertised to help the middle class will do the same. Most of the tax dollars collected in these efforts end up, as Thomas Sowell notes, “in the pockets of highly paid administrators, consultants, and staff as well as higher-income recipients of benefits from programs advertised as anti-poverty efforts.” I believe the real beneficiaries of liberal social programs are not the poor and disadvantaged but the members of the governmental bureaucracy who administer the program.
Those who administer these programs have a vested interest in their survival and expansion. Winning the war on poverty is not the goal, perpetuating the programs is. “Less than 25 percent of all the tax dollars allocated to fight poverty at every level of government reaches the poor. The other 75 percent goes to pay overhead.”
Here are some statistics that prove the point.
“In 1982, the total U.S. welfare bill at all levels of government (federal, state, and local) came to 403 billion dollars. If we take figures from the Bureau of the Census (August 1984) which state that the number of people living in poverty in the U.S. was 15.2 percent of the population or 35.3 million people, an amazing fact emerges. Had we simply divided the 403 billion dollars this nation spent on poverty at every level of government among the estimated number of poor people, each poor person could have received $11,133. For a family of four, this would have totaled $44,532.” Since the official poverty level per family for that year was $9,287.”
As I said it is clear that America’s fight against poverty involves enormous overhead costs. If that same money and the revenue lost in overhead expenditures that never reach the poor were saved, invested, and spent in our free market economy instead of taxed, many more people would benefit, and we would have fewer dependent on the government. But that’s not what Democrats and liberals want; they achieve and maintain power by increasing the number of social-welfare slaves who then become the dominant voting block.
Everyone can decide for themselves what will be the cause of Americans inability to consider having won the first prize in the lottery of life but for me it will be the growing demand for social justice.
Gary Demar wrote that the concept “social justice” means different things to different people. Justice is often equated with social equality, a mistaken notion if there ever was one”. The reason the idea of social justice is fallacious is that it does not fit in with the human condition and merely provides a false sense of fairness. Demar cites sporting contests as examples.
“Rarely are teams equal in ability. This is especially true with the younger age groups. What if umpires had the jurisdictional authority to level inequities at the request of a manager who believes that the opposing team has better players? Both teams know the rules going into the game. Umpires are present to ensure that the rule book is followed to the letter. As long as the players and coaches follow the rules and umpires enforce the rules, justice prevails even if there are inequities. It is not the job of an umpire to eliminate disparities. Who would ever want to play the game if the rules always change at the discretion of an umpire?”
In our country the demand for “social justice” is really a plea for the government to do something to fix perceived inequities be they economic or relational without any regard to the principle of justice. If justice is described in social rather than legal terms we are persuaded that national problems can only be fixed by a government with enough power to enforce its policies. The result is that advocates of “social justice” believe that the government plays the major role in rectifying so-called social problems because they are national in scope. Author Antonio Martino has pointed out however, that “the expression social justice . . . owes its immense popularity precisely to its ambiguity and meaninglessness. It can be used by different people, holding quite different views, to designate a wide variety of different things. Its obvious appeal stems from its persuasive strength, from its positive connotations, which allows the user to praise his own ideas and simultaneously express contempt for the ideas of those who don’t agree with him.”
“Anyone who criticizes policies that carry the label ‘social justice’ is immediately considered to be callous, insensitive, uncaring, and lacking in compassion.”
However those who oppose this definition of “social justice” policies are not against treating people in a just way; they just believe that most if not all social justice policies that involve the government are wrong and do more harm than good in the long run. Attaching the “social justice” label to a program does not make it a just program any more than attaching a label of a higher priced product to an inferior one makes it better.
As Demar also notes “Confiscating trillions of dollars in taxes from one segment of society and redistributing the collected revenue to another segment of society and calling it “social justice” does not mean that it is in fact the just thing to do. “Social justice” is not in operation when the State takes upon itself the right to confiscate so-called excess capital from the rich to care for the poor … confiscatory taxation and such policies do not work.”
In the 1960’s President Lyndon Johnson declared “war on poverty.” In the end poverty grew in numbers and trillions of dollars spent did nothing more than enlarge government. As has been reported: “Overall, civilian social welfare costs increased by twenty times from 1950 to 1980, in constant dollars and during the same period, the United States population increased by half.”
In 1965 the Food Stamp Program began with 424,000 people (statistically less than 9,000 people per state, a manageable number which private welfare agencies could have handled). At the end of Lyndon Johnson’s presidency in 1968, participation increased to 2.2 million. The number doubled during the first two years of Richard Nixon’s presidency (1969-70). By the end of Nixon’s first term in 1972, the number of food stamp recipients had increased five-fold. “By 1980, more than twenty-one million people were receiving food stamps, fifty times more people than were covered during the Johnson presidency.”
Using the government to satisfy a concept of “social justice” does more harm than good because it entices people into programs which make them dependent upon government. Of course there are people who are poor and need help but creating a government program in attempt to satisfy the need merely expands government and does not solve the problem anyway. We should keep this in mind as President Barack Obama institutes his policies to “spread the wealth.”
It is clear that America’s fight against poverty involved enormous overhead costs in the past and similar programs advertised to help the middle class will do the same. Most of the tax dollars collected in these efforts end up, as Thomas Sowell notes, “in the pockets of highly paid administrators, consultants, and staff as well as higher-income recipients of benefits from programs advertised as anti-poverty efforts.” I believe the real beneficiaries of liberal social programs are not the poor and disadvantaged but the members of the governmental bureaucracy who administer the program.
Those who administer these programs have a vested interest in their survival and expansion. Winning the war on poverty is not the goal, perpetuating the programs is. “Less than 25 percent of all the tax dollars allocated to fight poverty at every level of government reaches the poor. The other 75 percent goes to pay overhead.”
Here are some statistics that prove the point.
“In 1982, the total U.S. welfare bill at all levels of government (federal, state, and local) came to 403 billion dollars. If we take figures from the Bureau of the Census (August 1984) which state that the number of people living in poverty in the U.S. was 15.2 percent of the population or 35.3 million people, an amazing fact emerges. Had we simply divided the 403 billion dollars this nation spent on poverty at every level of government among the estimated number of poor people, each poor person could have received $11,133. For a family of four, this would have totaled $44,532.” Since the official poverty level per family for that year was $9,287.”
As I said it is clear that America’s fight against poverty involves enormous overhead costs. If that same money and the revenue lost in overhead expenditures that never reach the poor were saved, invested, and spent in our free market economy instead of taxed, many more people would benefit, and we would have fewer dependent on the government. But that’s not what Democrats and liberals want; they achieve and maintain power by increasing the number of social-welfare slaves who then become the dominant voting block.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
The worse is yet to come under President Barack Obama
Until now most attention to a Barack Obama presidency has focused, rightfully, on the likely socialist policies to be enacted during the next four years. Opponents have unsuccessfully tried to inform Americans about changes in the tax law to “spread the wealth” from the so-called “wealthy” to lower income voters. Though under the current progressive” tax system this already occurs; President Obama will enshrine and expand the tax policy toward the Marxist ideal.
Other government policy and laws that will diminish our rights and increase government control have also been discussed by many but have fallen on deaf ears as the public focused more on rhetoric and style rather than substance. A loss of the sacred secret ballot for workers to the benefit of unions seems not to impress workers enough to affect their vote. The potential loss of private health care and the likelihood that government bureaucrats will make health care decisions did not diminish voter support for Obama. Even the appointment of liberal judges willing to ignore the constitution like Ginsberg, Breyer, Souter and Stevens did not bother voters captivated by Obama.
All of the above is sufficient to accept a non conservative of questionable judgment in place of the radical community organizer.
However not as well known are some very serious matters that will change our country forever. Under our constitution treaties take precedence over all federal and state laws and some treaties previously barred by Republican presidents will likely find smooth sailing under a Democrat-dominated congress led by President Barack Obama.
For many years we have resisted the insistence of the United Nations and socialist-led countries to sign onto the International Court where constitutional rights of Americans will be superseded by a court hostile to our institutions and individual rights and immune from US voter and congressional oversight. Our soldiers and citizens can be arrested and charged under leftist laws without protection of our constitution.
Of course a Kyoto-like treaty ignored even by President Bush will easily get ratified in the next congress and eagerly signed by President Obama. It will not be enough that our economy and individual rights will be saddled by new environmental laws but the country will be subject to international oversight to assure compliance with extreme regulations.
Rights under the Second Amendment will be jeopardized as gun control advocates will be able to accomplish what has been denied by congress and the U.S. Supreme Court as the United States signs a treaty to ban small arms and light weapons among United Nation member countries.
The Law of the Sea Treaty which has faced opposition in congress can become law as we surrender unilateral rights to foreign controlled agencies of the United Nations.
Who knows what affect on the country will be ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Woman (CEDAW).
Will a requirement to participate in world taxes be far behind? One of the United Nations goals is to collect a United Nations royalty on all fossil fuels extracted in international waters.
We must also remember that Senator Barack Obama introduced legislation, (S. 2433) called the Global Poverty Act “to promote the reduction of global poverty … and the achievement of the Millennium development goal …” by allocating $800 billion for this purpose. The laws reference to Millennium Development is short-hand for a United Nations declaration calling for the treaties and convent ions described above. Legislation like S. 2433 has already passed the House. After the 2008 election we can expect S. 2433 to move forward with lightening speed.
Those of us fearful of a Barack Obama presidency based on what is already known of his goals can only shudder at falling of the second shoe.
Other government policy and laws that will diminish our rights and increase government control have also been discussed by many but have fallen on deaf ears as the public focused more on rhetoric and style rather than substance. A loss of the sacred secret ballot for workers to the benefit of unions seems not to impress workers enough to affect their vote. The potential loss of private health care and the likelihood that government bureaucrats will make health care decisions did not diminish voter support for Obama. Even the appointment of liberal judges willing to ignore the constitution like Ginsberg, Breyer, Souter and Stevens did not bother voters captivated by Obama.
All of the above is sufficient to accept a non conservative of questionable judgment in place of the radical community organizer.
However not as well known are some very serious matters that will change our country forever. Under our constitution treaties take precedence over all federal and state laws and some treaties previously barred by Republican presidents will likely find smooth sailing under a Democrat-dominated congress led by President Barack Obama.
For many years we have resisted the insistence of the United Nations and socialist-led countries to sign onto the International Court where constitutional rights of Americans will be superseded by a court hostile to our institutions and individual rights and immune from US voter and congressional oversight. Our soldiers and citizens can be arrested and charged under leftist laws without protection of our constitution.
Of course a Kyoto-like treaty ignored even by President Bush will easily get ratified in the next congress and eagerly signed by President Obama. It will not be enough that our economy and individual rights will be saddled by new environmental laws but the country will be subject to international oversight to assure compliance with extreme regulations.
Rights under the Second Amendment will be jeopardized as gun control advocates will be able to accomplish what has been denied by congress and the U.S. Supreme Court as the United States signs a treaty to ban small arms and light weapons among United Nation member countries.
The Law of the Sea Treaty which has faced opposition in congress can become law as we surrender unilateral rights to foreign controlled agencies of the United Nations.
Who knows what affect on the country will be ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Woman (CEDAW).
Will a requirement to participate in world taxes be far behind? One of the United Nations goals is to collect a United Nations royalty on all fossil fuels extracted in international waters.
We must also remember that Senator Barack Obama introduced legislation, (S. 2433) called the Global Poverty Act “to promote the reduction of global poverty … and the achievement of the Millennium development goal …” by allocating $800 billion for this purpose. The laws reference to Millennium Development is short-hand for a United Nations declaration calling for the treaties and convent ions described above. Legislation like S. 2433 has already passed the House. After the 2008 election we can expect S. 2433 to move forward with lightening speed.
Those of us fearful of a Barack Obama presidency based on what is already known of his goals can only shudder at falling of the second shoe.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
I am proud to be a conservative
When Barak Obama and his people take over the White House all the “B”, “H” and “O” s will still remain on the key boards; this is both a strength and weakness of conservatives. Unlike the Clinton team, those in the Bush Administration will not trash the White house before leaving nor will they take everything not nailed down.
With few exceptions conservatives are people who play by the rules, respect property and rights of others and do not resort to tricks and fraud to succeed. This is because conservatives believe that their views will prevail if people can be properly informed and because they believe that Americans will do the right thing for the country even if other policies will enable them to unfairly receive more than they deserve.
There is no equivalent of ACORN on the right, nor is there any counterpart of the black caucus, the NAACP, the ACLU, or the multitude of other groups designed to exert inordinate influence on government. Conservatives believe the Constitution means what it says and respect the founders and their incredible achievement in producing a document for the ages; not a “living document” to be changed and rewritten according to the wishes of judges or other branches of government, but one that can and should be the law of the land regardless of the vagaries of public opinion.
For two hundred years the constitution was a bulwark against other philosophies that would destroy our free enterprise capitalist system which encourages individual responsibilities and individual achievement based on one’s willingness to exceed expectations through hard work and personal effort.
It is a fragility of the human condition that many would just assume that those with more should share their success with those unwilling to make the effort to achieve equivalent success on their own. Politics favor those in the latter category because their numbers far exceed the former. In a democratic society where each citizen has the same one vote it is axiomatic that politicians favoring wealth distribution will prevail. For this reason communist and socialist societies come to power when people put self interest ahead of their country. It is also axiomatic that all such systems ultimately fail, something recognized by our county’s founders but ignored by politicians seeking power for power’s sake.
When Pilgrims first arrived on our shores, their leader implemented a communal system whereby all produce was put in a common pot and distributed to each according to their needs. It didn’t take long for them to realize this system did not work because there was no incentive for anyone to work harder than others. The Pilgrim society flourished only when they allowed for free enterprise so that each would prosper according to their own effort.
When Senator Joe Biden was asked if the proposals by Barack Obama were not similar to the Marxist premise of “from each according to their means to each according to their needs.”, Biden scoffed at the question but the reality is that the United States has crept along this path for a long time and is now arriving at the logical conclusion. The fact is that the country’s founders did not even want the government to be able to tax the earnings of individuals; it took a constitutional amendment to reverse this important constitutional prohibition. As is usually the case, once a there is an opening in the dike the wall of resistance weakens and if allowed to expand ultimately leads to its destruction.
The constitutional amendment permitting individual income tax eventually gave way to the concept of “progressive taxation” which allows those with more to be taxed at a higher rate that others with less. This may sound fair to some but is not too dissimilar to the failed program initiated by the Pilgrims on their arrival. Perhaps this can be called “communism light.”
So today we have seen a further weakening of the wall of resistance with election of someone who has made no secret of his desire to “spread the wealth.” Where this will lead is really not a mystery. Take a look at the president elect’s agenda. First all of the executive orders implemented by George Bush will be rescinded and replaced with new policies demanded by Obama’s liberal supporters. Secret ballots for workers will be replace with an arrangement intended to increase union membership and power at the expense of worker freedom and our basic democratic system. Of course, this is just one example of many we will see in the at least the next four years.
We can also expect to see a reduction in personal freedom and choice as our government ignores the plethora of evidence that man does not cause climate change and imposes upon us huge changes on our way of life to conform to the liberal orthodoxy that our successful society must be curtailed to “save the planet.”
It may be that people get the government they want, but unfortunately the mistakes they make affect us all.
On a personal note; those who have been regular readers of this blog have noted that fewer articles have been posted recently. This is because I am going through a bit of a difficult patch right now; hopefully I will be able to resume regular postings sometime but it will not be for a while. I hope you will bear with me and come back from time-to-time.
Vincent
With few exceptions conservatives are people who play by the rules, respect property and rights of others and do not resort to tricks and fraud to succeed. This is because conservatives believe that their views will prevail if people can be properly informed and because they believe that Americans will do the right thing for the country even if other policies will enable them to unfairly receive more than they deserve.
There is no equivalent of ACORN on the right, nor is there any counterpart of the black caucus, the NAACP, the ACLU, or the multitude of other groups designed to exert inordinate influence on government. Conservatives believe the Constitution means what it says and respect the founders and their incredible achievement in producing a document for the ages; not a “living document” to be changed and rewritten according to the wishes of judges or other branches of government, but one that can and should be the law of the land regardless of the vagaries of public opinion.
For two hundred years the constitution was a bulwark against other philosophies that would destroy our free enterprise capitalist system which encourages individual responsibilities and individual achievement based on one’s willingness to exceed expectations through hard work and personal effort.
It is a fragility of the human condition that many would just assume that those with more should share their success with those unwilling to make the effort to achieve equivalent success on their own. Politics favor those in the latter category because their numbers far exceed the former. In a democratic society where each citizen has the same one vote it is axiomatic that politicians favoring wealth distribution will prevail. For this reason communist and socialist societies come to power when people put self interest ahead of their country. It is also axiomatic that all such systems ultimately fail, something recognized by our county’s founders but ignored by politicians seeking power for power’s sake.
When Pilgrims first arrived on our shores, their leader implemented a communal system whereby all produce was put in a common pot and distributed to each according to their needs. It didn’t take long for them to realize this system did not work because there was no incentive for anyone to work harder than others. The Pilgrim society flourished only when they allowed for free enterprise so that each would prosper according to their own effort.
When Senator Joe Biden was asked if the proposals by Barack Obama were not similar to the Marxist premise of “from each according to their means to each according to their needs.”, Biden scoffed at the question but the reality is that the United States has crept along this path for a long time and is now arriving at the logical conclusion. The fact is that the country’s founders did not even want the government to be able to tax the earnings of individuals; it took a constitutional amendment to reverse this important constitutional prohibition. As is usually the case, once a there is an opening in the dike the wall of resistance weakens and if allowed to expand ultimately leads to its destruction.
The constitutional amendment permitting individual income tax eventually gave way to the concept of “progressive taxation” which allows those with more to be taxed at a higher rate that others with less. This may sound fair to some but is not too dissimilar to the failed program initiated by the Pilgrims on their arrival. Perhaps this can be called “communism light.”
So today we have seen a further weakening of the wall of resistance with election of someone who has made no secret of his desire to “spread the wealth.” Where this will lead is really not a mystery. Take a look at the president elect’s agenda. First all of the executive orders implemented by George Bush will be rescinded and replaced with new policies demanded by Obama’s liberal supporters. Secret ballots for workers will be replace with an arrangement intended to increase union membership and power at the expense of worker freedom and our basic democratic system. Of course, this is just one example of many we will see in the at least the next four years.
We can also expect to see a reduction in personal freedom and choice as our government ignores the plethora of evidence that man does not cause climate change and imposes upon us huge changes on our way of life to conform to the liberal orthodoxy that our successful society must be curtailed to “save the planet.”
It may be that people get the government they want, but unfortunately the mistakes they make affect us all.
On a personal note; those who have been regular readers of this blog have noted that fewer articles have been posted recently. This is because I am going through a bit of a difficult patch right now; hopefully I will be able to resume regular postings sometime but it will not be for a while. I hope you will bear with me and come back from time-to-time.
Vincent
Sunday, November 2, 2008
I am sorry for what has happened to Americans
This is a very sad election; not only because the most liberal senator ever elected to office may become president, but because of what this says about Americans.
Those victimized by Nazi rule in Germany and others appalled by the horror may wonder how someone like Adolph Hitler could come to power and receive the support of so many average Germans. Documentaries frequently feature film of the Hitler days showing huge crowds yelling and waiving support for the most fiendish world leader in thousands of years; an amazing sight.
If you read this and think I am equating Adolph Hitler and Barack Obama you are completely wrong; I absolutely am not. What is equitable however is the support of huge numbers of the American people who are ready to accept a leader who is without doubt intent on changing the whole fabric of the country and values held dear since our beginning based on individual liberty, free enterprise and a capitalist system where individual effort and hard work is rewarded.
Most Obama supporters are sold on the idea that “change” is needed but ignore the reality of the kind of change Obama wants for all of us. Obama’s change drives us toward government control and intrusion into our lives beyond all comprehension of our founding fathers and of the governments we elected for the past two hundred years. Whether it’s called socialism or something else, the fact is that everywhere Obama’s ideas have been tried there was failure. What has made our country great is the recognition that we all benefit when we distinguish between those who work hard to better their lives and those who are in for a free ride. Hard work and initiative must be rewarded or people will not exert extra effort; why should they? Why would anyone settle for a piece of a common pie when he is responsible for the pie in the first place?
There are many ways to achieve a socialistic or autocratic society. Stalin and his predecessors chose force and physical intimidation. But Hitler initially came to power by convincing Germans of the need for change and that his way, though ultimately oppressive, was the way to go.
Barack Obama is more subtle. As Saul Alinski taught his disciples, of which Obama and Hillary Clinton were two, the way to achieve the ultimate society was to work through the working class. It was not sufficient to harness support of the poor people because they had no power. But if the middle class could be persuaded to accept change that causes hard working successful Americans to part with more of the reward for their labor and share it with the “less fortunate” then a sufficiently large voting mass would be assembled to bring to power someone with a true socialist agenda. Once in office and the changes are enshrined into law, it would be nearly impossible to undue the successful achievement of their goal.
Someone had the nerve to ask Obama’s running mate, Senator Joe Biden, if this approach was not in keeping with the Marxist idea of “from each according to his means, to those according to their need.” Biden sought to discredit the question, and later the questioner, with ridicule. But I defy anyone to explain why the Obama approach is not consistent with the Marxist premise.
Yes it can be said that any progressive income tax system is the same thing and Obama is merely taking the idea to another level. But the fact is we have been accepting the Marxist philosophy for as long as we have had a progressive income tax and the result is always the same; a certain degree of discouragement of success. The fact that Obama is comfortable publicly acknowledging he want to “spread the wealth” says more about Americans than it says about Obama.
Obama has openly called for a change of our capitalistic society to one where those who have not made the sacrifices of successful members of our society will share in the bounty but without making any of the effort.
Obama and those who have laid out the road to socialism for America have done well. One day we will wake up and see the logical extension of the policies Obama has convinced Americans to accept, and we won’t recognize our country.
Those victimized by Nazi rule in Germany and others appalled by the horror may wonder how someone like Adolph Hitler could come to power and receive the support of so many average Germans. Documentaries frequently feature film of the Hitler days showing huge crowds yelling and waiving support for the most fiendish world leader in thousands of years; an amazing sight.
If you read this and think I am equating Adolph Hitler and Barack Obama you are completely wrong; I absolutely am not. What is equitable however is the support of huge numbers of the American people who are ready to accept a leader who is without doubt intent on changing the whole fabric of the country and values held dear since our beginning based on individual liberty, free enterprise and a capitalist system where individual effort and hard work is rewarded.
Most Obama supporters are sold on the idea that “change” is needed but ignore the reality of the kind of change Obama wants for all of us. Obama’s change drives us toward government control and intrusion into our lives beyond all comprehension of our founding fathers and of the governments we elected for the past two hundred years. Whether it’s called socialism or something else, the fact is that everywhere Obama’s ideas have been tried there was failure. What has made our country great is the recognition that we all benefit when we distinguish between those who work hard to better their lives and those who are in for a free ride. Hard work and initiative must be rewarded or people will not exert extra effort; why should they? Why would anyone settle for a piece of a common pie when he is responsible for the pie in the first place?
There are many ways to achieve a socialistic or autocratic society. Stalin and his predecessors chose force and physical intimidation. But Hitler initially came to power by convincing Germans of the need for change and that his way, though ultimately oppressive, was the way to go.
Barack Obama is more subtle. As Saul Alinski taught his disciples, of which Obama and Hillary Clinton were two, the way to achieve the ultimate society was to work through the working class. It was not sufficient to harness support of the poor people because they had no power. But if the middle class could be persuaded to accept change that causes hard working successful Americans to part with more of the reward for their labor and share it with the “less fortunate” then a sufficiently large voting mass would be assembled to bring to power someone with a true socialist agenda. Once in office and the changes are enshrined into law, it would be nearly impossible to undue the successful achievement of their goal.
Someone had the nerve to ask Obama’s running mate, Senator Joe Biden, if this approach was not in keeping with the Marxist idea of “from each according to his means, to those according to their need.” Biden sought to discredit the question, and later the questioner, with ridicule. But I defy anyone to explain why the Obama approach is not consistent with the Marxist premise.
Yes it can be said that any progressive income tax system is the same thing and Obama is merely taking the idea to another level. But the fact is we have been accepting the Marxist philosophy for as long as we have had a progressive income tax and the result is always the same; a certain degree of discouragement of success. The fact that Obama is comfortable publicly acknowledging he want to “spread the wealth” says more about Americans than it says about Obama.
Obama has openly called for a change of our capitalistic society to one where those who have not made the sacrifices of successful members of our society will share in the bounty but without making any of the effort.
Obama and those who have laid out the road to socialism for America have done well. One day we will wake up and see the logical extension of the policies Obama has convinced Americans to accept, and we won’t recognize our country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
