Unprecedented, or untruthful?
President Obama is hitting the airwaves letting it be known that he will not be happy if the Supreme Court overturns his healthcare law. Just recently he made the following statement to the press: " Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."
You have to wonder who he's talking to and if he even understands what he's saying. This coming, mind you, from a former professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago.
Let's dissect the statement, shall we?
First, is the word 'unprecedented.' As Prof. Obama should know there are several examples of precedent regarding the Court striking down legislation not in line with the Constitution. The most famous is the 1803 decision by the Court, articulated by the great Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall, known as Marbury v Madison. This case set the standard which allowed the Court to implement judicial review. Any first year law student is familiar with this case and would site it as precedent for overturning the healthcare law.
A second case would be Schecther v US in 1935 which rendered FDR's National Industrial Recovery Act unconstitutional. This case would have been well known to Prof. Obama, especially since he likes to compare himself in importance to FDR with respect to effecting, or transforming America to a more enlightened State.
Next we look to the "strong majority" he feels existed when the law was passed. The word strong would indicate something more than just barely enough votes, or what a person would consider a 'slim majority.' The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 60-39 with NO Republican votes. Now this could be considered 'strong' by count alone, but the fact that there were no Republicans voting for the bill begs the question as to it's true strength. The House of Representatives passed the law by a vote of 219-212. Once again, NO Republicans voted for the bill and in any event this certainly cannot be considered a 'strong majority.'
The last point is his reference is to a democratically elected Congress. Exactly what does this have to do with the Court's ability to review legislation produced by Congress? As stated previously, the Court has struck down legislation passed by a 'democratically elected Congress' and will continue to do so if necessary. The entire statement appears to be grandstanding to those not familiar with judicial review. Some commentators have referred to it as an attempt to bully the Court in not overturning the law, but I believe it involves more.
It is unthinkable that President Obama would not be aware of Supreme Court precedent in determining a law's constitutionality. The only logical explanation is that he knew what he said was not accurate. Are we looking at an individual who purposefully misstated the facts? Is President Obama playing to his base constituency in the hope that political pressure can be applied to the Supreme Court? The Court doesn't operate in a vacuum and those Justices he nominated, and we're appointed, to the Court could be especially susceptible to outside pressure.
When all is said and done I can only respond to the President's statement this way: Liar, liar, pants on fire. Intentionally misstating facts is, most decidedly, un-presidential. Start acting like an adult, Mr. President, and be a leader. Not a pseudo Constitutional Law professor who sounds ridiculous.
Showing posts with label political news. Show all posts
Showing posts with label political news. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
The Pete Morin Editorial Review 2012-4
ObamaCare & judicial review
The United States Supreme Court began hearings yesterday on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordability Care act, a.k.a. ObamaCare.
The first day consisted of listening to lawyers(now there's a dreadful thought) drone on about the 1867 anti-injunction law concerning taxing power etc., etc. I don't get a lot of it, but the basic argument is you can't hear a plaintiff's case if the law hasn't affected them yet. Since no one would be fined by not having health insurance until at least 2014, then the law can't be challenged until that time. Apparently, the Justices, including Kagan & Breyer, both considered liberal in their views, are having none of it and are willing to have the case proceed.
The real meat of the argument comes today when the mandate to purchase insurance is presented before the court. The Government will offer the opinion that a mandate is constitutional under the right of the legislature to regulate interstate commerce. The government claims that by not purchasing health insurance a burden would be placed on all other individuals in society to pay for individuals who do not have insurance. Costs would be borne by those who have insurance spread across the entire country, thereby affecting commerce. The plaintiffs(those suing to negate the law) argue that the legislature cannot compel individuals to take part in commerce. In other words, the government is compelling individuals to purchase a product whether they want to or not.
If the government wins, then ObamaCare remains intact. If the plaintiffs prevail, in whole, or in part, then ObamaCare will either be re-written or scrapped.
The more interesting point to be considered is what happens to the ability of the Supreme Court to enact judicial review should ObamaCare prevail.
Judicial review was first employed in the Supreme Court case of Marbury v Madison in 1803. What made this case revolutionary was the fact that the Constitution does not mention judicial review as a legitimate function of the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Marshall was able to use this tactic through some skillful wording and political gamesmanship. After all, if the Court says something can be reviewed can Congress overrule the Court? It might be possible, but Congress has never attempted to do so.
In any event, if the Court upholds ObamaCare, and individuals will be forced to take part in commerce, then what is to stop the Congress from forcing people to purchase a certain vehicle, or purchase a certain kind of house, or, to purchase ANYTHING that Congress deems necessary that applies to a proper regulation of commerce? The logical extension of this thinking is that contesting these laws would no longer be possible. In essence, the United States Supreme Court, with respect to any question regarding commerce, would be out of a job. Judicial review, for all intents and purposes, would be dead.
Interesting question, n'est pas?
The answer as to whether we become wards of the state will be answered in June, when the Court renders its decision. Our basic freedoms as citizens will either stand or fall. Good luck, America.
The United States Supreme Court began hearings yesterday on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordability Care act, a.k.a. ObamaCare.
The first day consisted of listening to lawyers(now there's a dreadful thought) drone on about the 1867 anti-injunction law concerning taxing power etc., etc. I don't get a lot of it, but the basic argument is you can't hear a plaintiff's case if the law hasn't affected them yet. Since no one would be fined by not having health insurance until at least 2014, then the law can't be challenged until that time. Apparently, the Justices, including Kagan & Breyer, both considered liberal in their views, are having none of it and are willing to have the case proceed.
The real meat of the argument comes today when the mandate to purchase insurance is presented before the court. The Government will offer the opinion that a mandate is constitutional under the right of the legislature to regulate interstate commerce. The government claims that by not purchasing health insurance a burden would be placed on all other individuals in society to pay for individuals who do not have insurance. Costs would be borne by those who have insurance spread across the entire country, thereby affecting commerce. The plaintiffs(those suing to negate the law) argue that the legislature cannot compel individuals to take part in commerce. In other words, the government is compelling individuals to purchase a product whether they want to or not.
If the government wins, then ObamaCare remains intact. If the plaintiffs prevail, in whole, or in part, then ObamaCare will either be re-written or scrapped.
The more interesting point to be considered is what happens to the ability of the Supreme Court to enact judicial review should ObamaCare prevail.
Judicial review was first employed in the Supreme Court case of Marbury v Madison in 1803. What made this case revolutionary was the fact that the Constitution does not mention judicial review as a legitimate function of the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Marshall was able to use this tactic through some skillful wording and political gamesmanship. After all, if the Court says something can be reviewed can Congress overrule the Court? It might be possible, but Congress has never attempted to do so.
In any event, if the Court upholds ObamaCare, and individuals will be forced to take part in commerce, then what is to stop the Congress from forcing people to purchase a certain vehicle, or purchase a certain kind of house, or, to purchase ANYTHING that Congress deems necessary that applies to a proper regulation of commerce? The logical extension of this thinking is that contesting these laws would no longer be possible. In essence, the United States Supreme Court, with respect to any question regarding commerce, would be out of a job. Judicial review, for all intents and purposes, would be dead.
Interesting question, n'est pas?
The answer as to whether we become wards of the state will be answered in June, when the Court renders its decision. Our basic freedoms as citizens will either stand or fall. Good luck, America.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
The Pete Morin EDitorial Review 2012-3
A Nation worth saving
Tonight on the Mark Levin radio talk show, Mark will ask his callers to respond to whether or not the United States of America can be returned to a Constitutional Republic; in essence, can it be saved from Progressives, Liberalism and ultimately, Socialism.
I've thought long and hard about this question and have written many articles extolling the virtues of a free economy in a Constitutional Republic along with a genuine reading of the Constitution as the Founders intended. This last statement carries with it the usual opprobrium from leftists that the Founders could not have foreseen the problems facing America in the 21st century, and therefore, a more relaxed reading of the document offers us the best hope to contend with such problems.
OF COURSE THEY COULDN'T FORESEE SUCH PROBLEMS. ANY SUCH ATTEMPT WOULD HAVE BEEN LAUGHED OFF AS NONSENSICAL!
The Founders didn't write a document especially for their time, but a document they intended to explain what, and how, a government should interact with the citizenry. It was a compact, if you will, between the power of the State and the people who would invest it with such a power. It was NEVER intended to answer any pressing social questions, either then, or in the future. It's content and genius was born of the ideal of Federalism; i.e. most governing would take place at the State, or local, level. The more serious points of debt repayment to the States and making commerce 'regular' would be the extreme points to be argued. It even left slavery to be settled by future generations with the importing of slaves being the only point garnering mutual agreement.
But back to the original statement at the beginning of the post.
I believe we have reached a tipping point, if you will, where a majority of Americans re lie on government handouts for their daily sustenance. I'm there myself, having received my first social security check this month. I have to admit that it felt good, but I also know where it comes from; not from some beneficent government concerned with my welfare, but from hard working people contributing from their well earned paychecks. As a matter of jocularity, I remind my nieces and nephews to work hard since I expect the payments to continue. It is no laughing matter, however, that future generations will be expected to pay all bills remitted to them.
And so it is that we are now a handout nation, a majority looking for easy street through a future of toil and sweat from those yet unborn. Liberals have their new Constitution today and will remake it again tomorrow to address a new set of social questions. The roles of the dependents will increase, and freedom , self reliance and limited government will wilt and die.
"What kind of government do we have Mr. Franklin." His answer should have been," a Republic, but I doubt you'll keep it."
Tonight on the Mark Levin radio talk show, Mark will ask his callers to respond to whether or not the United States of America can be returned to a Constitutional Republic; in essence, can it be saved from Progressives, Liberalism and ultimately, Socialism.
I've thought long and hard about this question and have written many articles extolling the virtues of a free economy in a Constitutional Republic along with a genuine reading of the Constitution as the Founders intended. This last statement carries with it the usual opprobrium from leftists that the Founders could not have foreseen the problems facing America in the 21st century, and therefore, a more relaxed reading of the document offers us the best hope to contend with such problems.
OF COURSE THEY COULDN'T FORESEE SUCH PROBLEMS. ANY SUCH ATTEMPT WOULD HAVE BEEN LAUGHED OFF AS NONSENSICAL!
The Founders didn't write a document especially for their time, but a document they intended to explain what, and how, a government should interact with the citizenry. It was a compact, if you will, between the power of the State and the people who would invest it with such a power. It was NEVER intended to answer any pressing social questions, either then, or in the future. It's content and genius was born of the ideal of Federalism; i.e. most governing would take place at the State, or local, level. The more serious points of debt repayment to the States and making commerce 'regular' would be the extreme points to be argued. It even left slavery to be settled by future generations with the importing of slaves being the only point garnering mutual agreement.
But back to the original statement at the beginning of the post.
I believe we have reached a tipping point, if you will, where a majority of Americans re lie on government handouts for their daily sustenance. I'm there myself, having received my first social security check this month. I have to admit that it felt good, but I also know where it comes from; not from some beneficent government concerned with my welfare, but from hard working people contributing from their well earned paychecks. As a matter of jocularity, I remind my nieces and nephews to work hard since I expect the payments to continue. It is no laughing matter, however, that future generations will be expected to pay all bills remitted to them.
And so it is that we are now a handout nation, a majority looking for easy street through a future of toil and sweat from those yet unborn. Liberals have their new Constitution today and will remake it again tomorrow to address a new set of social questions. The roles of the dependents will increase, and freedom , self reliance and limited government will wilt and die.
"What kind of government do we have Mr. Franklin." His answer should have been," a Republic, but I doubt you'll keep it."
Thursday, March 3, 2011
The Pete Morin Editorial Review--Issue # 83
Questions
A few questions you might want to ask yourself---
The headline in today's Springfield Republican read, "Payroll error overpays teachers." Why is it that, apparently, no teacher went to their administration to mention that their pay was not correct? Perhaps someone did, but the paper doesn't give any indication that this happened. Click here for an explanation of why the teachers WERE guilty of something.
The headline in today's Boston Herald read, "Out Of the Blue." Apparently, the former CEO of Blue Cross/Blue Shield got a severance package of $11 million dollars. Why is it that a CEO of a healthcare organization, that lost $150 million dollars in the previous year, should get such a magnanimous 'kiss-off' from the Board of Directors? Healthcare is not cheap in the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts. What's up with this board?
The GAO(Government Accounting Office) has determined that there are multiple programs in the Federal Government that have duplicative functions. WOW! What a surprise! Go back and read my blog, Issue #80. Martin Gross knew about this TWO YEARS ago. Want to bet that NOTHING changes?
Will anything change because of the above revelations? NAH!
A few questions you might want to ask yourself---
The headline in today's Springfield Republican read, "Payroll error overpays teachers." Why is it that, apparently, no teacher went to their administration to mention that their pay was not correct? Perhaps someone did, but the paper doesn't give any indication that this happened. Click here for an explanation of why the teachers WERE guilty of something.
The headline in today's Boston Herald read, "Out Of the Blue." Apparently, the former CEO of Blue Cross/Blue Shield got a severance package of $11 million dollars. Why is it that a CEO of a healthcare organization, that lost $150 million dollars in the previous year, should get such a magnanimous 'kiss-off' from the Board of Directors? Healthcare is not cheap in the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts. What's up with this board?
The GAO(Government Accounting Office) has determined that there are multiple programs in the Federal Government that have duplicative functions. WOW! What a surprise! Go back and read my blog, Issue #80. Martin Gross knew about this TWO YEARS ago. Want to bet that NOTHING changes?
Will anything change because of the above revelations? NAH!
Saturday, January 29, 2011
The Pete Morin Editorial Review--Issue #81
Of Pyramids & Pyramid Schemes
As we speak, the country of Egypt is in a state of meltdown. Hosni Mubarek, American Allie and all around beneficent dictator, is facing the most serious challenge to his 31 year rule. Will he survive and what will come is any one's guess, but I'm betting that it's not democracy. The Muslim Brotherhood, founded in Egypt during the 1920's, may see a chance to impose an Islamic state, similar to Iran, upon the Egyptian people. Should this happen, Israel would be in the cross hairs of an emboldened Islamist nightmare.
But why worry--we in the land of milk and honey have our own pyramids known as crushing debt and a bloated Federal Government. Those of us who consider this a national nightmare have been warning our fellow citizens of the danger of Federal over-reach. We, of course, may not end up with the same kind of social disorder taking place in Egypt, but a cause for alarm cannot be ruled out. As long as we have a government that refuses to acknowledge the burdens it's placing on future citizens, we run the chance of a dissolution of our civil society. What would fill the void? Hard to say, but I'm betting it's not democracy.
More than anything else, we need a bold leader to step forward and recognize the exceptionalism of the American spirit and return us to a path of individual liberty and freedom as exemplified by out unique founding documents. If we are to avoid a long, painful decline to a second rate power, with little influence beyond our own myopic view of a stale society, we must demand that Washington change course. We must pressure our elected Representatives to respect, and acknowledge, our exceptional character.
Time is short; in fact, time may not be on our side. Let's work toward rebuilding our civil society, not pyramids to some Utopian view of egalitarianism and entitlement.
As we speak, the country of Egypt is in a state of meltdown. Hosni Mubarek, American Allie and all around beneficent dictator, is facing the most serious challenge to his 31 year rule. Will he survive and what will come is any one's guess, but I'm betting that it's not democracy. The Muslim Brotherhood, founded in Egypt during the 1920's, may see a chance to impose an Islamic state, similar to Iran, upon the Egyptian people. Should this happen, Israel would be in the cross hairs of an emboldened Islamist nightmare.
But why worry--we in the land of milk and honey have our own pyramids known as crushing debt and a bloated Federal Government. Those of us who consider this a national nightmare have been warning our fellow citizens of the danger of Federal over-reach. We, of course, may not end up with the same kind of social disorder taking place in Egypt, but a cause for alarm cannot be ruled out. As long as we have a government that refuses to acknowledge the burdens it's placing on future citizens, we run the chance of a dissolution of our civil society. What would fill the void? Hard to say, but I'm betting it's not democracy.
More than anything else, we need a bold leader to step forward and recognize the exceptionalism of the American spirit and return us to a path of individual liberty and freedom as exemplified by out unique founding documents. If we are to avoid a long, painful decline to a second rate power, with little influence beyond our own myopic view of a stale society, we must demand that Washington change course. We must pressure our elected Representatives to respect, and acknowledge, our exceptional character.
Time is short; in fact, time may not be on our side. Let's work toward rebuilding our civil society, not pyramids to some Utopian view of egalitarianism and entitlement.
Friday, January 28, 2011
The Pete Morin Editorial Review--Issue #80
Blurbs
I feel an urge towards witticism-so here it goes--
From the February 7, 2011 edition of the National Review--
" Pres. Barack Obama, whose signature achievement in office has been dropping a 1,000-page package of regulations onto the American health-care market, has now decided that there are too many federal regulations, and, with an eye on job growth, has ordered regulators to study the problem. There is a kind of genius at work in that: The regulators already are regulated under regulations derived from the Regulatory Flexibility Act, which requires that regulators, before regulating, study a proposed regulation's impact on small business. To that regulator-regulating regulation, President Obama has added an additional regulation, stipulating that regulators "reduce regulatory burdens on small business." What obviously is needed here are additional regulators to regulate the enforcement of the regulator-regulating regulations, which is to say, regulator-regulating-regulation-regulator regulators. Who says Obama doesn't know how to create jobs?"
If there's anyone out there who believes we can't cut very much waste from the Federal Government, I suggest you read "National Suicide" by Martin Gross. This interesting little tome will make you lose your lunch, or at least get you thinking about a personal preferred method of oxygen/CO2 removal.
Wit--a terrible thing to waste!
I feel an urge towards witticism-so here it goes--
From the February 7, 2011 edition of the National Review--
" Pres. Barack Obama, whose signature achievement in office has been dropping a 1,000-page package of regulations onto the American health-care market, has now decided that there are too many federal regulations, and, with an eye on job growth, has ordered regulators to study the problem. There is a kind of genius at work in that: The regulators already are regulated under regulations derived from the Regulatory Flexibility Act, which requires that regulators, before regulating, study a proposed regulation's impact on small business. To that regulator-regulating regulation, President Obama has added an additional regulation, stipulating that regulators "reduce regulatory burdens on small business." What obviously is needed here are additional regulators to regulate the enforcement of the regulator-regulating regulations, which is to say, regulator-regulating-regulation-regulator regulators. Who says Obama doesn't know how to create jobs?"
If there's anyone out there who believes we can't cut very much waste from the Federal Government, I suggest you read "National Suicide" by Martin Gross. This interesting little tome will make you lose your lunch, or at least get you thinking about a personal preferred method of oxygen/CO2 removal.
Wit--a terrible thing to waste!
Thursday, January 27, 2011
The Pete Morin Editorial Review--Issue #79
What's in a person's heart
"Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women. When it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can do much to help it."
James Madison penned those words at the time of the founding of our nation. It's a stark reminder that once the desire to be free, to be responsible for one' self, is extinguished, then so will our actual freedom be gone. The over- reaching state will consume us leaving but an empty shell with servitude to our political masters as our natural state. Paul Ryan, R-WI, said it best during his response to President Obama's State- of-the-Union speech. "(o)ur nation is approaching the tipping point", by which he meant that not only is the budget unsustainable, but the nation's legacy of pioneering innovation will be only a memory, a thing of the past.
Sadly, I believe this tipping point had already been reached. A majority of Americans look to the Federal Government for their daily survival. How can we possibly reverse the bloated Social Security and Medicare programs, let alone make them solvent for younger generations? How can we convince people that the " Patient Protection Care and Affordability Act" has little to do with care and is hardly affordable. How do we convince environmentalists that their beloved EPA has little to do with a clean environment and more with controlling business. Why are liberals so enamored with the notion of doing good, but unconcerned with the results of their idealism.
We live in a time where we may see the word's greatest economic engine brought to it's knees. We have a President who's providing us with the knee pads and many of us willingly following to oblivion. You were right, Mr. Madison. The hearts of many of our fellow citizens have been dimmed and are now silent to the call of liberty.
A leader, a leader. My Nation for a leader!
"Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women. When it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can do much to help it."
James Madison penned those words at the time of the founding of our nation. It's a stark reminder that once the desire to be free, to be responsible for one' self, is extinguished, then so will our actual freedom be gone. The over- reaching state will consume us leaving but an empty shell with servitude to our political masters as our natural state. Paul Ryan, R-WI, said it best during his response to President Obama's State- of-the-Union speech. "(o)ur nation is approaching the tipping point", by which he meant that not only is the budget unsustainable, but the nation's legacy of pioneering innovation will be only a memory, a thing of the past.
Sadly, I believe this tipping point had already been reached. A majority of Americans look to the Federal Government for their daily survival. How can we possibly reverse the bloated Social Security and Medicare programs, let alone make them solvent for younger generations? How can we convince people that the " Patient Protection Care and Affordability Act" has little to do with care and is hardly affordable. How do we convince environmentalists that their beloved EPA has little to do with a clean environment and more with controlling business. Why are liberals so enamored with the notion of doing good, but unconcerned with the results of their idealism.
We live in a time where we may see the word's greatest economic engine brought to it's knees. We have a President who's providing us with the knee pads and many of us willingly following to oblivion. You were right, Mr. Madison. The hearts of many of our fellow citizens have been dimmed and are now silent to the call of liberty.
A leader, a leader. My Nation for a leader!
Thursday, January 20, 2011
The Pete Morin Editorial Review--Issue # 78
Evergreen Solar--or, so long Nevergreen
Anyone who's read this column for the past year and a half knows how I feel about Government intrusion in the marketplace, but recently there's been an example for all to see what happens when the best of intentions go awry for our masters and overlords.
Evergreen Solar manufacturing received $58 million dollars from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts approximately two years ago for a new factory at the old Fort Devens Army facility outside of Boston. Governor Deval Patrick decided that the money would be well spent since the future of energy production in the US would come from, so called, 'green' energy sources. Now, this is a most laudable idea from our wise and enlightened leader. After all, who could disagree with his assessment that the future would be in this 'green' technology? Apparently, Evergreen. You see, they announced last week that they would be laying off 800 of the 900 person workforce and transferring most operations to-----CHINA!! That's right, our friends and comrades in China. Seems that the cost of doing business and producing solar panels is a little cheaper in the People's Republic of China than in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
It's certainly bad enough when investors make the wrong decision concerning an investment, they lose their money and a little pride also. When a government does so it does somewhat more damage. How so, you say? The money spent on this adventure comes from the paychecks of the citizens of Massachusetts. They don't give it willingly. Taxation and coercion are two adjectives that come to mind. Secondly, lives are adversely affected by the closure of the facility. Notice the report of the words of a 25 year old temp worker as he exited the factory recently in near tears: "It came so suddenly, I don't know what I'm going to do."
The free market isn't perfect and mistakes are made regularly by some very intelligent people, but when the government interjects itself between investors and a product the outcome can be much more detrimental for all concerned. Governor Patrick's desire to see the solar energy industry succeed had nothing to do with the reality of whether or not it would ACTUALITY succeed. The result was a 'mal-investment'; a kind of moral hazard, if you will, committed by a government that should have known better than to venture where it didn't belong.
But Government never learns, or I should say, liberals never learn, They have an agenda, an ideology and a purpose that transcends mere mortals and we little people must learn to accept their higher wisdom. Be it solar energy, healthcare, finance, or any other free market endeavor, liberals never stop trying to impose their ideas for improving the future, results be damned.
The free market--nothing else even comes close.
Anyone who's read this column for the past year and a half knows how I feel about Government intrusion in the marketplace, but recently there's been an example for all to see what happens when the best of intentions go awry for our masters and overlords.
Evergreen Solar manufacturing received $58 million dollars from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts approximately two years ago for a new factory at the old Fort Devens Army facility outside of Boston. Governor Deval Patrick decided that the money would be well spent since the future of energy production in the US would come from, so called, 'green' energy sources. Now, this is a most laudable idea from our wise and enlightened leader. After all, who could disagree with his assessment that the future would be in this 'green' technology? Apparently, Evergreen. You see, they announced last week that they would be laying off 800 of the 900 person workforce and transferring most operations to-----CHINA!! That's right, our friends and comrades in China. Seems that the cost of doing business and producing solar panels is a little cheaper in the People's Republic of China than in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
It's certainly bad enough when investors make the wrong decision concerning an investment, they lose their money and a little pride also. When a government does so it does somewhat more damage. How so, you say? The money spent on this adventure comes from the paychecks of the citizens of Massachusetts. They don't give it willingly. Taxation and coercion are two adjectives that come to mind. Secondly, lives are adversely affected by the closure of the facility. Notice the report of the words of a 25 year old temp worker as he exited the factory recently in near tears: "It came so suddenly, I don't know what I'm going to do."
The free market isn't perfect and mistakes are made regularly by some very intelligent people, but when the government interjects itself between investors and a product the outcome can be much more detrimental for all concerned. Governor Patrick's desire to see the solar energy industry succeed had nothing to do with the reality of whether or not it would ACTUALITY succeed. The result was a 'mal-investment'; a kind of moral hazard, if you will, committed by a government that should have known better than to venture where it didn't belong.
But Government never learns, or I should say, liberals never learn, They have an agenda, an ideology and a purpose that transcends mere mortals and we little people must learn to accept their higher wisdom. Be it solar energy, healthcare, finance, or any other free market endeavor, liberals never stop trying to impose their ideas for improving the future, results be damned.
The free market--nothing else even comes close.
The Pete Morin Editorial Review--Issue #77
A mind is a terrible thing to waste
I can't take it anymore. I've had it. I'm disgusted, flabbergasted and utterly shocked at the current condition of political thinking in, what was, this great nation.
Mark Levin had a piece of tape concerning an interview with John Lewis (D-GA) and his thoughts on where the Constitution authorizes the Government to pass healthcare legislation. Now, I'm going to paraphrase because I don't have the exact quote, but here it goes. Lewis contends that in the Preamble to the Constitution there exists the people's right to 'pursue happiness' and furthermore, healthcare is a human right. This coming from a United States of America House of Representatives elected Congressman. This comes from an individual who's been in the House for around 30 years. This comes from an individual who possesses the power to pass laws that affect the lives of millions of people. Folks--there's no hope for this Republic. I'm now convinced that we are beyond the point of no return. We are now being governed by fools and idiots. Why, you say, do you believe such incredible things?
Dear readers, consider the following: 1)There is no reference to the 'Pursuit of Happiness' in the Constitution. It's found in the Declaration of Independence.
2) Human rights are natural rights not given to us by other humans but acquired from our humanity, or from nature, God, or nature's God. Human rights can NEVER be given to people through , or by, the coercive acts of government. Ordinary rights can be conferred through law and are done so on a regular basis by government, but not human rights.
Lewis' position is not unique. Most of the democrats in the House of Representatives mouth the same nonsense. Therefore, I give up. I concede defeat. There's no hope. We are a nation of fools led by bigger fools headed for a swamp of fiscal insanity.
Our minds are gone--such a terrible waste!
(P.S.--I'm no really giving up--just reloading. OOPS!! Sorry, that's not allowed anymore--I'm retrenching).
I can't take it anymore. I've had it. I'm disgusted, flabbergasted and utterly shocked at the current condition of political thinking in, what was, this great nation.
Mark Levin had a piece of tape concerning an interview with John Lewis (D-GA) and his thoughts on where the Constitution authorizes the Government to pass healthcare legislation. Now, I'm going to paraphrase because I don't have the exact quote, but here it goes. Lewis contends that in the Preamble to the Constitution there exists the people's right to 'pursue happiness' and furthermore, healthcare is a human right. This coming from a United States of America House of Representatives elected Congressman. This comes from an individual who's been in the House for around 30 years. This comes from an individual who possesses the power to pass laws that affect the lives of millions of people. Folks--there's no hope for this Republic. I'm now convinced that we are beyond the point of no return. We are now being governed by fools and idiots. Why, you say, do you believe such incredible things?
Dear readers, consider the following: 1)There is no reference to the 'Pursuit of Happiness' in the Constitution. It's found in the Declaration of Independence.
2) Human rights are natural rights not given to us by other humans but acquired from our humanity, or from nature, God, or nature's God. Human rights can NEVER be given to people through , or by, the coercive acts of government. Ordinary rights can be conferred through law and are done so on a regular basis by government, but not human rights.
Lewis' position is not unique. Most of the democrats in the House of Representatives mouth the same nonsense. Therefore, I give up. I concede defeat. There's no hope. We are a nation of fools led by bigger fools headed for a swamp of fiscal insanity.
Our minds are gone--such a terrible waste!
(P.S.--I'm no really giving up--just reloading. OOPS!! Sorry, that's not allowed anymore--I'm retrenching).
Saturday, January 1, 2011
The Pete Morin Editorial Review--Issue # 76
Welcome to 2011--New Year, New laws
Happy new year everyone. Let's hope this year is better than the last, but judgment will, of course, be delayed until 12/31.
The headline of a local newspaper read "Anti-bully law goes into effect." Why this is just what we need, isn't it? A law to stop bullying. All bullying will now cease and desist as youngsters will most assuredly respect the feelings of their revered classmates. This one headline shows how inept, and ineffective we, as a nation, have become in dealing with societal problems. Does anyone think, for one moment, that a law of this kind will actually stop children from doing what comes almost naturally? Once again, liberal sentiments trump reality. Laws won't stop bullying, nor will they be successful in having students treat each other with sweetness and love; that act comes from the home, with two parents in tune with the actions of their dear progeny. Teaching children how to respect others is the sole responsibility of parents concerned with the well-being of their little ones--not the nanny state!
It really doesn't matter, however, since Americans are now told that government knows best how we should live our lives. Michelle Obama is waging her war on calories and Barack is waging his war on healthcare, the energy industry, financial institutions and college tuition to name just a few nanny moments.
But let's not quibble, enjoy yourselves. The nanny state is protecting you, and your children, from the vagaries of the big bully free enterprise system. So--pop a cold one and let's toast all the new laws we'll get to see in 2011! Utopia, here we come!!!
Happy new year everyone. Let's hope this year is better than the last, but judgment will, of course, be delayed until 12/31.
The headline of a local newspaper read "Anti-bully law goes into effect." Why this is just what we need, isn't it? A law to stop bullying. All bullying will now cease and desist as youngsters will most assuredly respect the feelings of their revered classmates. This one headline shows how inept, and ineffective we, as a nation, have become in dealing with societal problems. Does anyone think, for one moment, that a law of this kind will actually stop children from doing what comes almost naturally? Once again, liberal sentiments trump reality. Laws won't stop bullying, nor will they be successful in having students treat each other with sweetness and love; that act comes from the home, with two parents in tune with the actions of their dear progeny. Teaching children how to respect others is the sole responsibility of parents concerned with the well-being of their little ones--not the nanny state!
It really doesn't matter, however, since Americans are now told that government knows best how we should live our lives. Michelle Obama is waging her war on calories and Barack is waging his war on healthcare, the energy industry, financial institutions and college tuition to name just a few nanny moments.
But let's not quibble, enjoy yourselves. The nanny state is protecting you, and your children, from the vagaries of the big bully free enterprise system. So--pop a cold one and let's toast all the new laws we'll get to see in 2011! Utopia, here we come!!!
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
The Pete Morin Editorial Review--Issue # 74
Smoke & Mirrors
The Wall Street Journal had some interesting pieces today on the current tax debates taking place in Congress. According to the Journal, the democrats are starting to realize that the proposed tax bill working its way through Congress will finally be accepted by the more liberal members of their party. The lame duck Congress, should it succeed in convincing the Republicans that they're acquiescing to conservative demands in extending the Bush tax rates, will have pulled off one of their most impressive feats of this Congress. Understand this about the current proposed bill: the tax rates will be effective for only two years and the national debt increases by almost $900 BILLION dollars over the next ten years. Lots of wiggle room for the more progressive members of the Democrat Party to change the rates in 2012 and loads of pork for everyone for at least the next twelve months.
Some disturbing developments are starting to show themselves with relation to our debt situation. The Chinese are seeing inflation rearing its ugly head on their mainland. What does this mean for the United States? Inflation is defined as "too much money chasing too few goods."
The Chinese can rectify this situation by allowing their citizens to purchase more of their own products rather than sell them to the U.S. By doing this, they would not be funding our deficits, making our dollar less valuable to Americans---thus inflation would start to take off in the U.S. The Federal Reserve would have NO choice but to print funny money to cover the deficit. It's extremely unlikely that our government would have the political will to slash spending and the resulting effect could be hyper-inflation. At that point, a civil society could turn into an 'every man for himself ' nightmare. In any event, a reckoning is not far off; the politicians either admit that current budgets cannot be sustained and spending is drastically reduced, or the cost of everything increases dramatically.
But don't worry liberals. You got yours, and that's all that really matters, isn't it?
Welcome to the world of the gutless, useless politicians called Democrats & Republicans.
The Wall Street Journal had some interesting pieces today on the current tax debates taking place in Congress. According to the Journal, the democrats are starting to realize that the proposed tax bill working its way through Congress will finally be accepted by the more liberal members of their party. The lame duck Congress, should it succeed in convincing the Republicans that they're acquiescing to conservative demands in extending the Bush tax rates, will have pulled off one of their most impressive feats of this Congress. Understand this about the current proposed bill: the tax rates will be effective for only two years and the national debt increases by almost $900 BILLION dollars over the next ten years. Lots of wiggle room for the more progressive members of the Democrat Party to change the rates in 2012 and loads of pork for everyone for at least the next twelve months.
Some disturbing developments are starting to show themselves with relation to our debt situation. The Chinese are seeing inflation rearing its ugly head on their mainland. What does this mean for the United States? Inflation is defined as "too much money chasing too few goods."
The Chinese can rectify this situation by allowing their citizens to purchase more of their own products rather than sell them to the U.S. By doing this, they would not be funding our deficits, making our dollar less valuable to Americans---thus inflation would start to take off in the U.S. The Federal Reserve would have NO choice but to print funny money to cover the deficit. It's extremely unlikely that our government would have the political will to slash spending and the resulting effect could be hyper-inflation. At that point, a civil society could turn into an 'every man for himself ' nightmare. In any event, a reckoning is not far off; the politicians either admit that current budgets cannot be sustained and spending is drastically reduced, or the cost of everything increases dramatically.
But don't worry liberals. You got yours, and that's all that really matters, isn't it?
Welcome to the world of the gutless, useless politicians called Democrats & Republicans.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
The Pete Morin Editorial Review--Issue #73
Common Sense--An American (un)activity
It just never ceases to amaze me how many people come into my bookstore, and after having looked around for a few minutes will ask me how to get to the basement. Books are priced at a bargain rate in the basement, so that's a natural destination for some customers.
When customers enter the store by the front door they get an immediate view of the stairway leading to the second floor. Now, common sense would tell you that a stairway leading to an upper floor is also the overhead to a stairway leading to a lower floor; at least in most of my observations with respect to stairways. Could this be, perhaps, a lack of said 'common sense' in an unperceptive American consciousness?
When Americans listen to politicians promise them the world and much more if elected, do they not understand, perhaps, that this is merely a staircase to nowhere? What makes Americans think government can do a better job of running an economy than private markets. What makes them believe politicians can actually deliver on promises to make your life better, richer, safer and more rewarding than doing so for one's self?
The art of governing is said to be compromise. But compromise is nothing more than a rather large opportunity cost. Economists use this term to refer to actions that prohibit an individual from doing more than one activity or action simultaneously; i.e. attending evening college classes, but not being able to work a second shift that conflicts with the classes. Personally, I don't put too much credence in compromise, especially when I'm trusting a politician to perform the negotiation. In my mind politics is less about compromise and more about power; raw, unmitigated power to ensconce a grifter in a cocoon of protected, unchecked magnificence. Nevertheless, we have those gullible people who listen to these self-proclaimed lords & masters and expect our civilization to improve.
I would rather live my life, complete with all its flaws, misunderstandings and foolishness than subject some other individual to such a precarious existence. I wish others would act in the same manner, but I guess this is too much to ask. The urge to acquire power, either for one's self or through the agency of an elected representative is an urge not to be denied.
I'll take this as compromise: you leave me alone and I'll do the same for you. But first, learn about stairways.
It just never ceases to amaze me how many people come into my bookstore, and after having looked around for a few minutes will ask me how to get to the basement. Books are priced at a bargain rate in the basement, so that's a natural destination for some customers.
When customers enter the store by the front door they get an immediate view of the stairway leading to the second floor. Now, common sense would tell you that a stairway leading to an upper floor is also the overhead to a stairway leading to a lower floor; at least in most of my observations with respect to stairways. Could this be, perhaps, a lack of said 'common sense' in an unperceptive American consciousness?
When Americans listen to politicians promise them the world and much more if elected, do they not understand, perhaps, that this is merely a staircase to nowhere? What makes Americans think government can do a better job of running an economy than private markets. What makes them believe politicians can actually deliver on promises to make your life better, richer, safer and more rewarding than doing so for one's self?
The art of governing is said to be compromise. But compromise is nothing more than a rather large opportunity cost. Economists use this term to refer to actions that prohibit an individual from doing more than one activity or action simultaneously; i.e. attending evening college classes, but not being able to work a second shift that conflicts with the classes. Personally, I don't put too much credence in compromise, especially when I'm trusting a politician to perform the negotiation. In my mind politics is less about compromise and more about power; raw, unmitigated power to ensconce a grifter in a cocoon of protected, unchecked magnificence. Nevertheless, we have those gullible people who listen to these self-proclaimed lords & masters and expect our civilization to improve.
I would rather live my life, complete with all its flaws, misunderstandings and foolishness than subject some other individual to such a precarious existence. I wish others would act in the same manner, but I guess this is too much to ask. The urge to acquire power, either for one's self or through the agency of an elected representative is an urge not to be denied.
I'll take this as compromise: you leave me alone and I'll do the same for you. But first, learn about stairways.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
The Pete Morin Editorial Review--Issue #72
Nightmares & Reality
--there's no doubt I deserve a good life. Thank goodness the new tax bill the Congress is proposing will extend my unemployment benefits at least for another year. You can't be expected to get a great job after only two years on unemployment benefits. I just don't understand why they had to include all those rich people in the legislation. After all, they should pay their fair share.
--I'm really happy that Berkeley, California is awarding the guy who gave wikileaks all those documents hero status. Our Government needs to be brought down a peg or two. We've got too much compared to the rest of the world--I agree with Obama on the wealth redistribution thing and the Government shouldn't have secrets, diplomatic or otherwise.
--our society is racist, homophobic, sexist, ageist and overly vertically challenged. We definitely need to pass laws that make our society more just, equitable and short. The Democrats were doing such a great job. I can't believe that the less enlightened conservative boobs did what they did in November. Talk about bad food for the kiddies--I'm supportive of what Michelle Obama is doing to stop those horrible cookies at bake sales. Our kids nutrition is way more important than choosing to eat crummy, rotten food.
--the Government should definitely spend whatever's necessary to get us back on track. Any economist who knows about anything knows Keynesian economics works every time. A trillion here, a trillion there--whatever!
--we're all immigrants. This nation is a nation of immigrants. The dream act gives illegals--ah--that is undocumented workers--a chance to have the American dream. Besides, they take the jobs that us hard working--ah--us want to be working--Americans can't do.
--everything would be just a whole lot better if George Soros ran the world, everything would be just a ---------
(RINGALINGALINGALINGALINGDINGGGGGGG) Man, I wish that alarm clock wasn't so loud. I think I was having a nightmare, or something was really out of whack. For a moment there I thought that our country was a horrible place to live. But, then again, if it were, would anyone willingly live here? Yeah, it must have been a nightmare--must have been a REAL bad dream. I hope there's hot water. A shower would feel great right now and bring me back to reality. That's what we really need more of--reality.
--there's no doubt I deserve a good life. Thank goodness the new tax bill the Congress is proposing will extend my unemployment benefits at least for another year. You can't be expected to get a great job after only two years on unemployment benefits. I just don't understand why they had to include all those rich people in the legislation. After all, they should pay their fair share.
--I'm really happy that Berkeley, California is awarding the guy who gave wikileaks all those documents hero status. Our Government needs to be brought down a peg or two. We've got too much compared to the rest of the world--I agree with Obama on the wealth redistribution thing and the Government shouldn't have secrets, diplomatic or otherwise.
--our society is racist, homophobic, sexist, ageist and overly vertically challenged. We definitely need to pass laws that make our society more just, equitable and short. The Democrats were doing such a great job. I can't believe that the less enlightened conservative boobs did what they did in November. Talk about bad food for the kiddies--I'm supportive of what Michelle Obama is doing to stop those horrible cookies at bake sales. Our kids nutrition is way more important than choosing to eat crummy, rotten food.
--the Government should definitely spend whatever's necessary to get us back on track. Any economist who knows about anything knows Keynesian economics works every time. A trillion here, a trillion there--whatever!
--we're all immigrants. This nation is a nation of immigrants. The dream act gives illegals--ah--that is undocumented workers--a chance to have the American dream. Besides, they take the jobs that us hard working--ah--us want to be working--Americans can't do.
--everything would be just a whole lot better if George Soros ran the world, everything would be just a ---------
(RINGALINGALINGALINGALINGDINGGGGGGG) Man, I wish that alarm clock wasn't so loud. I think I was having a nightmare, or something was really out of whack. For a moment there I thought that our country was a horrible place to live. But, then again, if it were, would anyone willingly live here? Yeah, it must have been a nightmare--must have been a REAL bad dream. I hope there's hot water. A shower would feel great right now and bring me back to reality. That's what we really need more of--reality.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
The Pete Morin Editorial Review--Issue #71
Fairness
Turn on the television, or listen to the democrats and all you'll hear is "fairness" with respect to the tax code. According to our President and the current lame duck congress, we must return tax levels to where they were prior to 2001. "Tax cuts for the rich" is all the rage when liberals talk about the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.
Let's take a look at the results of raising capital gains taxes on the 'so called' wealthy.
Thomas Sowell writes an excellent column that appears in the Jewish World Review in which he reports on the results of raising, or lowering the capital gains tax rate. Click here for a full reading of that text.
Next, you'll want to see candidate Barack Obama's response to a question from Charles Gibson in a debate with Hillary Clinton concerning capital gains taxes. Any questions about the illogical position of the liberal democrats on tax increases and tax revenue? Keep dreaming that increasing taxes on the "rich" will lead to more revenue for our dear Uncle Sam.
Be fearful--VERY fearful for our future.
Turn on the television, or listen to the democrats and all you'll hear is "fairness" with respect to the tax code. According to our President and the current lame duck congress, we must return tax levels to where they were prior to 2001. "Tax cuts for the rich" is all the rage when liberals talk about the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.
Let's take a look at the results of raising capital gains taxes on the 'so called' wealthy.
Thomas Sowell writes an excellent column that appears in the Jewish World Review in which he reports on the results of raising, or lowering the capital gains tax rate. Click here for a full reading of that text.
Next, you'll want to see candidate Barack Obama's response to a question from Charles Gibson in a debate with Hillary Clinton concerning capital gains taxes. Any questions about the illogical position of the liberal democrats on tax increases and tax revenue? Keep dreaming that increasing taxes on the "rich" will lead to more revenue for our dear Uncle Sam.
Be fearful--VERY fearful for our future.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
The Pete Morin Editorial Review--Issue #69
The President and the Constitution
The following article is re-published from a speech given at Hillsdale College by Congressman Mike Pence of Indiana on September 20, 2010. It's re-printed from Hillsdale's Imprimus October edition in its entirety because of its extreme importance in understanding where we are today as a people living in a Constitutional Republic. The importance of its meaning cannot be overstated.
October 2010
Mike Pence
U.S. Representative
Indiana’s Sixth Congressional District
The Presidency and the Constitution
THE PRESIDENCY is the most visible thread that runs through the tapestry of the American government. More often than not, for good or for ill, it sets the tone for the other branches and spurs the expectations of the people. Its powers are vast and consequential, its requirements impossible for mortals to fulfill without humility and insistent attention to its purpose as set forth in the Constitution of the United States.
Isn’t it amazing, given the great and momentous nature of the office, that those who seek it seldom pause to consider what they are seeking? Rather, unconstrained by principle or reflection, there is a mad rush toward something that, once its powers are seized, the new president can wield as an instrument with which to transform the nation and the people according to his highest aspirations.
But, other than in a crisis of the house divided, the presidency is neither fit nor intended to be such an instrument. When it is made that, the country sustains a wound, and cries out justly and indignantly. And what the nation says is the theme of this address. What it says—informed by its long history, impelled by the laws of nature and nature’s God—is that we as a people are not to be ruled and not to be commanded. It says that the president should never forget this; that he has not risen above us, but is merely one of us, chosen by ballot, dismissed after his term, tasked not to transform and work his will upon us, but to bear the weight of decision and to carry out faithfully the design laid down in the Constitution in accordance with the Declaration of Independence.
* * *
The presidency must adhere to its definition as expressed in the Constitution, and to conduct defined over time and by tradition. While the powers of the office have enlarged, along with those of the legislature and the judiciary, the framework of the government was intended to restrict abuses common to classical empires and to the regal states of the 18th century.
Without proper adherence to the role contemplated in the Constitution for the presidency, the checks and balances in the constitutional plan become weakened. This has been most obvious in recent years when the three branches of government have been subject to the tutelage of a single party. Under either party, presidents have often forgotten that they are intended to restrain the Congress at times, and that the Congress is independent of their desires. And thus fused in unholy unity, the political class has raged forward in a drunken expansion of powers and prerogatives, mistakenly assuming that to exercise power is by default to do good.
Even the simplest among us knows that this is not so. Power is an instrument of fatal consequence. It is confined no more readily than quicksilver, and escapes good intentions as easily as air flows through mesh. Therefore, those who are entrusted with it must educate themselves in self-restraint. A republic is about limitation, and for good reason, because we are mortal and our actions are imperfect.
The tragedy of presidential decision is that even with the best choice, some, perhaps many, will be left behind, and some, perhaps many, may die. Because of this, a true statesman lives continuously with what Churchill called “stress of soul.” He may give to Paul, but only because he robs Peter. And that is why you must always be wary of a president who seems to float upon his own greatness. For all greatness is tempered by mortality, every soul is equal, and distinctions among men cannot be owned; they are on loan from God, who takes them back and evens accounts at the end.
It is a tragedy indeed that new generations taking office attribute failures in governance to insufficient power, and seek more of it. In the judiciary, this has seldom been better expressed than by Justice Thurgood Marshall, who said: “You do what you think is right and let the law catch up.” In the Congress, it presents itself in massive legislation, acts and codes thousands of pages long and so monstrously over-complicated that no human being can read through them—much less understand them, much less apply them justly to a people that increasingly feel like they are no longer being asked, but rather told. Our nation finds itself in the position of a dog whose duty it is not to ask why—because the “why” is too elevated for his nature—but simply to obey.
America is not a dog, and does not require a “because-I-said-so” jurisprudence; or legislators who knit laws of such insulting complexity that they are heavier than chains; or a president who acts like, speaks like, and is received as a king.
The president is not our teacher, our tutor, our guide or ruler. He does not command us; we command him. We serve neither him nor his vision. It is not his job or his prerogative to redefine custom, law, and beliefs; to appropriate industries; to seize the country, as it were, by the shoulders or by the throat so as to impose by force of theatrical charisma his justice upon 300 million others. It is neither his job nor his prerogative to shift the power of decision away from them, and to him and the acolytes of his choosing.
Is my characterization of unprecedented presumption incorrect? Listen to the words of the leader of President Obama’s transition team and perhaps his next chief-of-staff: “It’s important that President-Elect Obama is prepared to really take power and begin to rule day one.” Or, more recently, the latest presidential appointment to avoid confirmation by the Senate—the new head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—who wrote last Friday: “President Obama understands the importance of leveling the playing field again.”
“Take power. . .rule. . .leveling.” Though it is the model now, this has never been and should never again be the model of the presidency or the character of the American president. No one can say this too strongly, and no one can say it enough until it is remedied. We are not subjects; we are citizens. We fought a war so that we do not have to treat even kings like kings, and—if I may remind you—we won that war. Since then, the principle of royalty has, in this country, been inoperative. Who is better suited or more required to exemplify this conviction, in word and deed, than the President of the United States?
* * *
The powers of the presidency are extraordinary and necessarily great, and great presidents treat them sparingly. For example, it is not the president’s job to manipulate the nation’s youth for the sake of his agenda or his party. They are a potent political force when massed by the social network to which they are permanently attached. But if the president has their true interests at heart he will neither flatter them nor let them adore him, for in flattery is condescension and in adoration is direction, and youth is neither seasoned nor tested enough to direct a nation. Nor should it be the president’s business to presume to direct them. It is difficult enough to do right by one’s own children. No one can be the father of a whole continent’s youth.
Is the president, therefore, expected to turn away from this and other easy advantage? Yes. Like Harry Truman, who went to bed before the result on election night, he must know when to withdraw, to hold back, and to forgo attention, publicity, or advantage.
There is no finer, more moving, or more profound understanding of the nature of the presidency and the command of humility placed upon it than that expressed by President Coolidge. He, like Lincoln, lost a child while he was president, a son of sixteen. “The day I became president,” Coolidge wrote, “he had just started to work in a tobacco field. When one of his fellow laborers said to him, ‘If my father was president I would not work in a tobacco field,’ Calvin replied, ‘If my father were your father you would.’” His admiration for the boy was obvious.
Young Calvin contracted blood poisoning from an incident on the South Lawn of the White House. Coolidge wrote, “What might have happened to him under other circumstances we do not know, but if I had not been president. . . .” And then he continued,
“In his suffering he was asking me to make him well. I could not. When he went, the power and glory of the Presidency went with him.”
A sensibility such as this, and not power, is the source of presidential dignity, and must be restored. It depends entirely upon character, self-discipline, and an understanding of the fundamental principles that underlie not only the republic, but life itself. It communicates that the president feels the gravity of his office and is willing to sacrifice himself; that his eye is not upon his own prospects but on the storm of history, through which he must navigate with the specific powers accorded to him and the limitations placed on those powers both by man and by God.
* * *
The modern presidency has drifted far from the great strength and illumination of its source: the Constitution as given life by the Declaration of Independence, the greatest political document ever written. The Constitution—terse, sober, and specific—does not, except by implication, address the president’s demeanor. But this we can read in the best qualities of the founding generation, which we would do well to imitate. In the Capitol Rotunda are heroic paintings of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the victory at Saratoga, the victory at Yorktown, and—something seldom seen in history—a general, the leader of an armed rebellion, resigning his commission and surrendering his army to a new democracy. Upon hearing from Benjamin West that George Washington, having won the war and been urged by some to use the army to make himself king, would instead return to his farm, King George III said: “If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world.” He did, and he was.
To aspire to such virtue and self-restraint would in a sense be difficult, but in another sense it should be easy—difficult because it would be demanding and ideal, and easy because it is the right thing to do and the rewards are immediately self-evident.
A president who slights the Constitution is like a rider who hates his horse: he will be thrown, and the nation along with him. The president solemnly swears to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. He does not solemnly swear to ignore, overlook, supplement, or reinterpret it. Other than in a crisis of existence, such as the Civil War, amendment should be the sole means of circumventing the Constitution. For if a president joins the powers of his office to his own willful interpretation, he steps away from a government of laws and toward a government of men.
Is the Constitution a fluctuating and inconstant document, a collection of suggestions whose purpose is to stimulate debate in a future to which the Founders were necessarily blind? Progressives tell us that even the Framers themselves could not reach agreement in its regard. But they did agree upon it. And they wrote it down. And they signed it. And they lived by it. Its words are unchanging and unchangeable except, again, by amendment. There is no allowance for a president to override it according to his supposed superior conception. Why is this good? It is good because the sun will burn out, the Ohio River will flow backwards, and the cow will jump over the moon 10,000 times before any modern president’s conception is superior to that of the Founders of this nation.
Would it be such a great surprise that a good part of the political strife of our times is because one president after another, rather than keeping faith with it, argues with the document he is supposed to live by? This discontent will only be calmed by returning the presidency to the nation’s first principles. The Constitution and the Declaration should be on a president’s mind all the time, as the prism through which the light of all question of governance passes. Though we have—sometimes gradually, sometimes radically—moved away from this, we can move back to it. And who better than the president to restore this wholesome devotion to limited government?
* * *
And as the president returns to the consistent application of the principles in the Constitution, he will also ensure fiscal responsibility and prosperity. Who is better suited, with his executive and veto powers, to carry over the duty of self-restraint and discipline to the idea of fiscal solvency? When the president restrains government spending, leaving room for the American people to enjoy the fruits of their labor, growth is inevitable. As Senator Robert Taft wrote: “Liberty has been the key to our progress in the past and is the key to our progress in the future.... If we can preserve liberty in all its essentials, there is no limit to the future of the American people.”
Whereas the president must be cautious, dutiful, and deferential at home, his character must change abroad. Were he to ask for a primer on how to act in relation to other states, which no holder of the office has needed to this point, and were that primer to be written by the American people, whether of 1776 or 2010, you can be confident that it would contain the following instructions:
You do not bow to kings. Outside our shores, the President of the United States of America bows to no man. When in foreign lands, you do not criticize your own country. You do not argue the case against the United States, but the case for it. You do not apologize to the enemies of the United States. Should you be confused, a country, people, or region that harbors, shelters, supports, encourages, or cheers attacks upon our country or the slaughter of our friends and families are enemies of the United States. And, to repeat, you do not apologize to them.
Closely related to this, and perhaps the least ambiguous of the president’s complex responsibilities, is his duty as commander-in-chief of the military. In this regard there is a very simple rule, unknown to some presidents regardless of party: If, after careful determination, intense stress of soul, and the deepest prayer, you go to war, then, having gone to war, you go to war to win. You do not cast away American lives, or those of the innocent noncombatant enemy, upon a theory, a gambit, or a notion. And if the politics of your own election or of your party intrude upon your decisions for even an instant—there are no words for this.
More commonplace, but hardly less important, are other expectations of the president in this regard. He must not stint on the equipment and provisioning of the armed forces, and if he errs it must be not on the side of scarcity but of surplus. And he must be the guardian of his troops, taking every step to avoid the loss of even a single life.
The American soldier is as precious as the closest of your kin—because he is your kin, and for his sake the president must, in effect, say to the Congress and to the people: ÒI am the Commander-in-Chief. It is my sacred duty to defend the United States, and to give our soldiers what they need to complete the mission and come home safe, whatever the cost.Ó
If, in fulfilling this duty, the president wavers, he will have betrayed his office, for this is not a policy, it is probity. It is written on the blood-soaked ground of Saratoga, Yorktown, Antietam, Cold Harbor, the Marne, Guadalcanal, the Pointe du Hoc, the Chosin Reservoir, Khe Sanh, Iraq, Afghanistan, and a thousand other places in our history, in lessons repeated over and over again.
* * *
The presidency, a great and complex subject upon which I have only touched, has become symbolic of overreaching. There are many truths that we have been frightened to tell or face. If we run from them, they will catch us with our backs turned and pull us down. Better that we should not flee but rather stop and look them in the eye.
What might our forebears say to us, knowing what they knew, and having done what they did? I have no doubt that they would tell us to channel our passions, speak the truth and do what is right, slowly and with resolution; to work calmly, steadily and without animus or fear; to be like a rock in the tide, let the water tumble about us, and be firm and unashamed in our love of country.
I see us like those in Philadelphia in 1776. Danger all around, but a fresh chapter, ready to begin, uncorrupted, with great possibilities and—inexplicably, perhaps miraculously—the way is clearing ahead. I have never doubted that Providence can appear in history like the sun emerging from behind the clouds, if only as a reward for adherence to first principles. As Winston Churchill said in a speech to Congress on December 26, 1941: “He must indeed have a blind soul who cannot see that some great purpose and design is being worked out here below, of which we have the honor to be the faithful servants.”
As Americans, we inherit what Lincoln in his First Inaugural called “the mystic chords of memory stretching from every patriot grave.” They bind us to the great and the humble, the known and the unknown of Americans past—and if I hear them clearly, what they say is that although we may have strayed, we have not strayed too far to return, for we are their descendants. We can still astound the world with justice, reason and strength. I know this is true, but even if it was not we could not in decency stand down, if only for our debt to history. We owe a debt to those who came before, who did great things, and suffered more than we suffer, and gave more than we give, and pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor for us, whom they did not know. For we “drink from wells we did not dig” and are “warmed by fires we did not build,” and so we must be faithful in our time as they were in theirs.
Many great generations are gone, but by the character and memory of their existence they forbid us to despair of the republic. I see them crossing the prairies in the sun and wind. I see their faces looking out from steel mills and coal mines, and immigrant ships crawling into the harbors at dawn. I see them at war, at work and at peace. I see them, long departed, looking into the camera, with hopeful and sad eyes. And I see them embracing their children, who became us. They are our family and our blood, and we cannot desert them. In spirit, all of them come down to all of us, in a connection that, out of love, we cannot betray.
They are silent now and forever, but from the eternal silence of every patriot grave there is yet an echo that says, “It is not too late; keep faith with us, keep faith with God, and do not, do not ever despair of the republic.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following article is re-published from a speech given at Hillsdale College by Congressman Mike Pence of Indiana on September 20, 2010. It's re-printed from Hillsdale's Imprimus October edition in its entirety because of its extreme importance in understanding where we are today as a people living in a Constitutional Republic. The importance of its meaning cannot be overstated.
October 2010
Mike Pence
U.S. Representative
Indiana’s Sixth Congressional District
The Presidency and the Constitution
THE PRESIDENCY is the most visible thread that runs through the tapestry of the American government. More often than not, for good or for ill, it sets the tone for the other branches and spurs the expectations of the people. Its powers are vast and consequential, its requirements impossible for mortals to fulfill without humility and insistent attention to its purpose as set forth in the Constitution of the United States.
Isn’t it amazing, given the great and momentous nature of the office, that those who seek it seldom pause to consider what they are seeking? Rather, unconstrained by principle or reflection, there is a mad rush toward something that, once its powers are seized, the new president can wield as an instrument with which to transform the nation and the people according to his highest aspirations.
But, other than in a crisis of the house divided, the presidency is neither fit nor intended to be such an instrument. When it is made that, the country sustains a wound, and cries out justly and indignantly. And what the nation says is the theme of this address. What it says—informed by its long history, impelled by the laws of nature and nature’s God—is that we as a people are not to be ruled and not to be commanded. It says that the president should never forget this; that he has not risen above us, but is merely one of us, chosen by ballot, dismissed after his term, tasked not to transform and work his will upon us, but to bear the weight of decision and to carry out faithfully the design laid down in the Constitution in accordance with the Declaration of Independence.
* * *
The presidency must adhere to its definition as expressed in the Constitution, and to conduct defined over time and by tradition. While the powers of the office have enlarged, along with those of the legislature and the judiciary, the framework of the government was intended to restrict abuses common to classical empires and to the regal states of the 18th century.
Without proper adherence to the role contemplated in the Constitution for the presidency, the checks and balances in the constitutional plan become weakened. This has been most obvious in recent years when the three branches of government have been subject to the tutelage of a single party. Under either party, presidents have often forgotten that they are intended to restrain the Congress at times, and that the Congress is independent of their desires. And thus fused in unholy unity, the political class has raged forward in a drunken expansion of powers and prerogatives, mistakenly assuming that to exercise power is by default to do good.
Even the simplest among us knows that this is not so. Power is an instrument of fatal consequence. It is confined no more readily than quicksilver, and escapes good intentions as easily as air flows through mesh. Therefore, those who are entrusted with it must educate themselves in self-restraint. A republic is about limitation, and for good reason, because we are mortal and our actions are imperfect.
The tragedy of presidential decision is that even with the best choice, some, perhaps many, will be left behind, and some, perhaps many, may die. Because of this, a true statesman lives continuously with what Churchill called “stress of soul.” He may give to Paul, but only because he robs Peter. And that is why you must always be wary of a president who seems to float upon his own greatness. For all greatness is tempered by mortality, every soul is equal, and distinctions among men cannot be owned; they are on loan from God, who takes them back and evens accounts at the end.
It is a tragedy indeed that new generations taking office attribute failures in governance to insufficient power, and seek more of it. In the judiciary, this has seldom been better expressed than by Justice Thurgood Marshall, who said: “You do what you think is right and let the law catch up.” In the Congress, it presents itself in massive legislation, acts and codes thousands of pages long and so monstrously over-complicated that no human being can read through them—much less understand them, much less apply them justly to a people that increasingly feel like they are no longer being asked, but rather told. Our nation finds itself in the position of a dog whose duty it is not to ask why—because the “why” is too elevated for his nature—but simply to obey.
America is not a dog, and does not require a “because-I-said-so” jurisprudence; or legislators who knit laws of such insulting complexity that they are heavier than chains; or a president who acts like, speaks like, and is received as a king.
The president is not our teacher, our tutor, our guide or ruler. He does not command us; we command him. We serve neither him nor his vision. It is not his job or his prerogative to redefine custom, law, and beliefs; to appropriate industries; to seize the country, as it were, by the shoulders or by the throat so as to impose by force of theatrical charisma his justice upon 300 million others. It is neither his job nor his prerogative to shift the power of decision away from them, and to him and the acolytes of his choosing.
Is my characterization of unprecedented presumption incorrect? Listen to the words of the leader of President Obama’s transition team and perhaps his next chief-of-staff: “It’s important that President-Elect Obama is prepared to really take power and begin to rule day one.” Or, more recently, the latest presidential appointment to avoid confirmation by the Senate—the new head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—who wrote last Friday: “President Obama understands the importance of leveling the playing field again.”
“Take power. . .rule. . .leveling.” Though it is the model now, this has never been and should never again be the model of the presidency or the character of the American president. No one can say this too strongly, and no one can say it enough until it is remedied. We are not subjects; we are citizens. We fought a war so that we do not have to treat even kings like kings, and—if I may remind you—we won that war. Since then, the principle of royalty has, in this country, been inoperative. Who is better suited or more required to exemplify this conviction, in word and deed, than the President of the United States?
* * *
The powers of the presidency are extraordinary and necessarily great, and great presidents treat them sparingly. For example, it is not the president’s job to manipulate the nation’s youth for the sake of his agenda or his party. They are a potent political force when massed by the social network to which they are permanently attached. But if the president has their true interests at heart he will neither flatter them nor let them adore him, for in flattery is condescension and in adoration is direction, and youth is neither seasoned nor tested enough to direct a nation. Nor should it be the president’s business to presume to direct them. It is difficult enough to do right by one’s own children. No one can be the father of a whole continent’s youth.
Is the president, therefore, expected to turn away from this and other easy advantage? Yes. Like Harry Truman, who went to bed before the result on election night, he must know when to withdraw, to hold back, and to forgo attention, publicity, or advantage.
There is no finer, more moving, or more profound understanding of the nature of the presidency and the command of humility placed upon it than that expressed by President Coolidge. He, like Lincoln, lost a child while he was president, a son of sixteen. “The day I became president,” Coolidge wrote, “he had just started to work in a tobacco field. When one of his fellow laborers said to him, ‘If my father was president I would not work in a tobacco field,’ Calvin replied, ‘If my father were your father you would.’” His admiration for the boy was obvious.
Young Calvin contracted blood poisoning from an incident on the South Lawn of the White House. Coolidge wrote, “What might have happened to him under other circumstances we do not know, but if I had not been president. . . .” And then he continued,
“In his suffering he was asking me to make him well. I could not. When he went, the power and glory of the Presidency went with him.”
A sensibility such as this, and not power, is the source of presidential dignity, and must be restored. It depends entirely upon character, self-discipline, and an understanding of the fundamental principles that underlie not only the republic, but life itself. It communicates that the president feels the gravity of his office and is willing to sacrifice himself; that his eye is not upon his own prospects but on the storm of history, through which he must navigate with the specific powers accorded to him and the limitations placed on those powers both by man and by God.
* * *
The modern presidency has drifted far from the great strength and illumination of its source: the Constitution as given life by the Declaration of Independence, the greatest political document ever written. The Constitution—terse, sober, and specific—does not, except by implication, address the president’s demeanor. But this we can read in the best qualities of the founding generation, which we would do well to imitate. In the Capitol Rotunda are heroic paintings of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the victory at Saratoga, the victory at Yorktown, and—something seldom seen in history—a general, the leader of an armed rebellion, resigning his commission and surrendering his army to a new democracy. Upon hearing from Benjamin West that George Washington, having won the war and been urged by some to use the army to make himself king, would instead return to his farm, King George III said: “If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world.” He did, and he was.
To aspire to such virtue and self-restraint would in a sense be difficult, but in another sense it should be easy—difficult because it would be demanding and ideal, and easy because it is the right thing to do and the rewards are immediately self-evident.
A president who slights the Constitution is like a rider who hates his horse: he will be thrown, and the nation along with him. The president solemnly swears to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. He does not solemnly swear to ignore, overlook, supplement, or reinterpret it. Other than in a crisis of existence, such as the Civil War, amendment should be the sole means of circumventing the Constitution. For if a president joins the powers of his office to his own willful interpretation, he steps away from a government of laws and toward a government of men.
Is the Constitution a fluctuating and inconstant document, a collection of suggestions whose purpose is to stimulate debate in a future to which the Founders were necessarily blind? Progressives tell us that even the Framers themselves could not reach agreement in its regard. But they did agree upon it. And they wrote it down. And they signed it. And they lived by it. Its words are unchanging and unchangeable except, again, by amendment. There is no allowance for a president to override it according to his supposed superior conception. Why is this good? It is good because the sun will burn out, the Ohio River will flow backwards, and the cow will jump over the moon 10,000 times before any modern president’s conception is superior to that of the Founders of this nation.
Would it be such a great surprise that a good part of the political strife of our times is because one president after another, rather than keeping faith with it, argues with the document he is supposed to live by? This discontent will only be calmed by returning the presidency to the nation’s first principles. The Constitution and the Declaration should be on a president’s mind all the time, as the prism through which the light of all question of governance passes. Though we have—sometimes gradually, sometimes radically—moved away from this, we can move back to it. And who better than the president to restore this wholesome devotion to limited government?
* * *
And as the president returns to the consistent application of the principles in the Constitution, he will also ensure fiscal responsibility and prosperity. Who is better suited, with his executive and veto powers, to carry over the duty of self-restraint and discipline to the idea of fiscal solvency? When the president restrains government spending, leaving room for the American people to enjoy the fruits of their labor, growth is inevitable. As Senator Robert Taft wrote: “Liberty has been the key to our progress in the past and is the key to our progress in the future.... If we can preserve liberty in all its essentials, there is no limit to the future of the American people.”
Whereas the president must be cautious, dutiful, and deferential at home, his character must change abroad. Were he to ask for a primer on how to act in relation to other states, which no holder of the office has needed to this point, and were that primer to be written by the American people, whether of 1776 or 2010, you can be confident that it would contain the following instructions:
You do not bow to kings. Outside our shores, the President of the United States of America bows to no man. When in foreign lands, you do not criticize your own country. You do not argue the case against the United States, but the case for it. You do not apologize to the enemies of the United States. Should you be confused, a country, people, or region that harbors, shelters, supports, encourages, or cheers attacks upon our country or the slaughter of our friends and families are enemies of the United States. And, to repeat, you do not apologize to them.
Closely related to this, and perhaps the least ambiguous of the president’s complex responsibilities, is his duty as commander-in-chief of the military. In this regard there is a very simple rule, unknown to some presidents regardless of party: If, after careful determination, intense stress of soul, and the deepest prayer, you go to war, then, having gone to war, you go to war to win. You do not cast away American lives, or those of the innocent noncombatant enemy, upon a theory, a gambit, or a notion. And if the politics of your own election or of your party intrude upon your decisions for even an instant—there are no words for this.
More commonplace, but hardly less important, are other expectations of the president in this regard. He must not stint on the equipment and provisioning of the armed forces, and if he errs it must be not on the side of scarcity but of surplus. And he must be the guardian of his troops, taking every step to avoid the loss of even a single life.
The American soldier is as precious as the closest of your kin—because he is your kin, and for his sake the president must, in effect, say to the Congress and to the people: ÒI am the Commander-in-Chief. It is my sacred duty to defend the United States, and to give our soldiers what they need to complete the mission and come home safe, whatever the cost.Ó
If, in fulfilling this duty, the president wavers, he will have betrayed his office, for this is not a policy, it is probity. It is written on the blood-soaked ground of Saratoga, Yorktown, Antietam, Cold Harbor, the Marne, Guadalcanal, the Pointe du Hoc, the Chosin Reservoir, Khe Sanh, Iraq, Afghanistan, and a thousand other places in our history, in lessons repeated over and over again.
* * *
The presidency, a great and complex subject upon which I have only touched, has become symbolic of overreaching. There are many truths that we have been frightened to tell or face. If we run from them, they will catch us with our backs turned and pull us down. Better that we should not flee but rather stop and look them in the eye.
What might our forebears say to us, knowing what they knew, and having done what they did? I have no doubt that they would tell us to channel our passions, speak the truth and do what is right, slowly and with resolution; to work calmly, steadily and without animus or fear; to be like a rock in the tide, let the water tumble about us, and be firm and unashamed in our love of country.
I see us like those in Philadelphia in 1776. Danger all around, but a fresh chapter, ready to begin, uncorrupted, with great possibilities and—inexplicably, perhaps miraculously—the way is clearing ahead. I have never doubted that Providence can appear in history like the sun emerging from behind the clouds, if only as a reward for adherence to first principles. As Winston Churchill said in a speech to Congress on December 26, 1941: “He must indeed have a blind soul who cannot see that some great purpose and design is being worked out here below, of which we have the honor to be the faithful servants.”
As Americans, we inherit what Lincoln in his First Inaugural called “the mystic chords of memory stretching from every patriot grave.” They bind us to the great and the humble, the known and the unknown of Americans past—and if I hear them clearly, what they say is that although we may have strayed, we have not strayed too far to return, for we are their descendants. We can still astound the world with justice, reason and strength. I know this is true, but even if it was not we could not in decency stand down, if only for our debt to history. We owe a debt to those who came before, who did great things, and suffered more than we suffer, and gave more than we give, and pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor for us, whom they did not know. For we “drink from wells we did not dig” and are “warmed by fires we did not build,” and so we must be faithful in our time as they were in theirs.
Many great generations are gone, but by the character and memory of their existence they forbid us to despair of the republic. I see them crossing the prairies in the sun and wind. I see their faces looking out from steel mills and coal mines, and immigrant ships crawling into the harbors at dawn. I see them at war, at work and at peace. I see them, long departed, looking into the camera, with hopeful and sad eyes. And I see them embracing their children, who became us. They are our family and our blood, and we cannot desert them. In spirit, all of them come down to all of us, in a connection that, out of love, we cannot betray.
They are silent now and forever, but from the eternal silence of every patriot grave there is yet an echo that says, “It is not too late; keep faith with us, keep faith with God, and do not, do not ever despair of the republic.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, October 28, 2010
The Pete Morin Editorial Review--Issue #68
The Day of Days
Next Tuesday, November 2, 2010, may be one of the most important dates in the history of the United States. On that day the electorate, the voters, the citizens of this great country will have the opportunity to decide for themselves whether we will continue as a Constitutional Republic, or will relinquish our freedoms to a hyper taxing, bloated, out of control central government. We must decide if we will be forever wards of this nanny state, or be free to make our own decisions that best benefit our lives.
For the past two years we've been subjected to the greatest assault on our liberties as free citizens of this country than any other period in our history. Whether it be healthcare, cap & trade, Wall street bailouts, or any other ill conceived government boondoggle, the ability to decide for ourselves what it best for our individual survival has been threatened by an arrogant, aristocratic ruling class impervious to the wishes of people it regards as nothing more than benighted fools intent on leading uninformed lives.
Look around you today. Look at the tremendous achievements of the private sector and what it has done for the advancement of our society. Government didn't create the automobile, the computer, household appliances or any other convenience that has brought us such wealth and made our lives beyond tolerable, but enabled us to seek and pursue happiness. Government, by once playing its intended role of referee and arbiter had all but guaranteed men would flourish in such a free environment. This environment, should we reject the call of a Constitutional Republic and replace it forever with a liberal/socialist/progressive agenda this coming Tuesday, could be damaged beyond repair.
The 'hope and change' that President Obama so artfully projected for the American future is nothing but a fools paradise limiting initiative, risk taking and innovation with a bland, bureaucratic nightmare destroying everything the Declaration of Independence personified as inimical to the rights of a free people. The hope part of the equation is whimsical, but the change part of this same equation is absolutely warranted. We will change our future, Mr. President. We will discard your progressive minions from Congress and then we will discard you in 2012.
The American future will not be relegated to a socialist state, nor will it be subjected to your narcissistic bent.
Look on the bright side Mr. Obama--you can spend thirty or more years spreading your Marxist ideology to any number of universities/aristocratic institutions willing to listen to you expounding on your vast knowledge of how government can best rule people's lives; hopefully, it won't be the American people.
May the Rule of Law once again rule our land.
Next Tuesday, November 2, 2010, may be one of the most important dates in the history of the United States. On that day the electorate, the voters, the citizens of this great country will have the opportunity to decide for themselves whether we will continue as a Constitutional Republic, or will relinquish our freedoms to a hyper taxing, bloated, out of control central government. We must decide if we will be forever wards of this nanny state, or be free to make our own decisions that best benefit our lives.
For the past two years we've been subjected to the greatest assault on our liberties as free citizens of this country than any other period in our history. Whether it be healthcare, cap & trade, Wall street bailouts, or any other ill conceived government boondoggle, the ability to decide for ourselves what it best for our individual survival has been threatened by an arrogant, aristocratic ruling class impervious to the wishes of people it regards as nothing more than benighted fools intent on leading uninformed lives.
Look around you today. Look at the tremendous achievements of the private sector and what it has done for the advancement of our society. Government didn't create the automobile, the computer, household appliances or any other convenience that has brought us such wealth and made our lives beyond tolerable, but enabled us to seek and pursue happiness. Government, by once playing its intended role of referee and arbiter had all but guaranteed men would flourish in such a free environment. This environment, should we reject the call of a Constitutional Republic and replace it forever with a liberal/socialist/progressive agenda this coming Tuesday, could be damaged beyond repair.
The 'hope and change' that President Obama so artfully projected for the American future is nothing but a fools paradise limiting initiative, risk taking and innovation with a bland, bureaucratic nightmare destroying everything the Declaration of Independence personified as inimical to the rights of a free people. The hope part of the equation is whimsical, but the change part of this same equation is absolutely warranted. We will change our future, Mr. President. We will discard your progressive minions from Congress and then we will discard you in 2012.
The American future will not be relegated to a socialist state, nor will it be subjected to your narcissistic bent.
Look on the bright side Mr. Obama--you can spend thirty or more years spreading your Marxist ideology to any number of universities/aristocratic institutions willing to listen to you expounding on your vast knowledge of how government can best rule people's lives; hopefully, it won't be the American people.
May the Rule of Law once again rule our land.
Friday, September 24, 2010
The Pete Morin Editorial Review--Issue #64
Obama—the stealth President
Midterm elections are almost upon us and President Obama may soon be able to reveal to the nation his true character and aims to improve the economic climate. The President may finally tell us what many are undoubtedly thinking, but have been unable to do so before the appropriate time. The President will gather up his Teleprompters and apprise the country of his true intentions and political affiliation: President Obama will reveal that he is a CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN!
That’s correct!—he’s a stealth conservative. Before you dismiss this out of hand, I ask you to consider the following.
Obama foresaw a McCain presidency as one of accommodation and general ‘go along to get along.’ This approach would lead the country nowhere. So he did the only thing he could; he ran to the left of McCain on a platform of “hope and change.” This maneuver allowed him to appease the left and not anger the moderates. The right would support McCain and if he played his cards just right the media would assist him in making the right look like a bunch of extremists. Comments of ‘spreading the wealth’ and capital gains taxes not being reduced would placate the left and then it was on to Election Day.
Once in the Oval Office, the president passed a series of mind numbing legislative acts. First came the stimulus package, the GM and Chrysler bailout and finally, healthcare. Along the way there was an aborted attempt to get Cap & Trade passed—but what the heck, one misfire isn’t that bad.
All Obama had to do now was sit back and wait for the anticipated backlash from conservative America. He knew it would come, but it was just a matter of when. And did it ever come. The right responded magnificently. Many people came out of their homes and left their couches to protest this hard lurch to the left. The 40% of the electorate that identified themselves as conservative, and many independents to boot, created the “Tea Party.” Finally, after years of sitting on the sidelines the silent majority was energized. The President, when ensconced in his private office, must have been overjoyed at the new found patriotism of his fellow conservatives. All the President needed to do now was keep the pressure on the left by not agreeing to extend the Bush tax cuts and spending more phony stimulus money. A gigantic political wave was about to hit Washington head on. Conservatives would regain control of both houses and the first order of business would be to repeal and replace the healthcare law.
Here’s where the real shocker for the hard left would take place. Expecting him to veto any such attempt, the President would announce to the nation his true affiliation. Passage of a new bill would take place and the American people would be the beneficiaries of the new healthcare legislation!
Alright, so all of this is a little wacky, but other than that hasn’t the President done a great job of energizing America? Hasn’t he done what John McCain would never have been able to do? Barack Obama, stuck in his ideological mindset and unable to understand the greatness of the free market, will be judged as he wanted to be judged: he’ll be a great one term president.
I salute you President Obama. You’re the best thing that ever happened to conservative America.
.
Midterm elections are almost upon us and President Obama may soon be able to reveal to the nation his true character and aims to improve the economic climate. The President may finally tell us what many are undoubtedly thinking, but have been unable to do so before the appropriate time. The President will gather up his Teleprompters and apprise the country of his true intentions and political affiliation: President Obama will reveal that he is a CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN!
That’s correct!—he’s a stealth conservative. Before you dismiss this out of hand, I ask you to consider the following.
Obama foresaw a McCain presidency as one of accommodation and general ‘go along to get along.’ This approach would lead the country nowhere. So he did the only thing he could; he ran to the left of McCain on a platform of “hope and change.” This maneuver allowed him to appease the left and not anger the moderates. The right would support McCain and if he played his cards just right the media would assist him in making the right look like a bunch of extremists. Comments of ‘spreading the wealth’ and capital gains taxes not being reduced would placate the left and then it was on to Election Day.
Once in the Oval Office, the president passed a series of mind numbing legislative acts. First came the stimulus package, the GM and Chrysler bailout and finally, healthcare. Along the way there was an aborted attempt to get Cap & Trade passed—but what the heck, one misfire isn’t that bad.
All Obama had to do now was sit back and wait for the anticipated backlash from conservative America. He knew it would come, but it was just a matter of when. And did it ever come. The right responded magnificently. Many people came out of their homes and left their couches to protest this hard lurch to the left. The 40% of the electorate that identified themselves as conservative, and many independents to boot, created the “Tea Party.” Finally, after years of sitting on the sidelines the silent majority was energized. The President, when ensconced in his private office, must have been overjoyed at the new found patriotism of his fellow conservatives. All the President needed to do now was keep the pressure on the left by not agreeing to extend the Bush tax cuts and spending more phony stimulus money. A gigantic political wave was about to hit Washington head on. Conservatives would regain control of both houses and the first order of business would be to repeal and replace the healthcare law.
Here’s where the real shocker for the hard left would take place. Expecting him to veto any such attempt, the President would announce to the nation his true affiliation. Passage of a new bill would take place and the American people would be the beneficiaries of the new healthcare legislation!
Alright, so all of this is a little wacky, but other than that hasn’t the President done a great job of energizing America? Hasn’t he done what John McCain would never have been able to do? Barack Obama, stuck in his ideological mindset and unable to understand the greatness of the free market, will be judged as he wanted to be judged: he’ll be a great one term president.
I salute you President Obama. You’re the best thing that ever happened to conservative America.
.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
The Pete Morin Editorial Review--Issue #63
The Heart of Free Enterprise
Did you ever stop to consider what the true essence of a free society embodies? Just what makes us a free people with the ability to determine our own path in life? Nothing can be more sacred to the free enterprise system and capitalism itself then the contract. Every time we engage in a transaction with another individual, or a business, we exercise this most basic of all human endeavors.
Today, in America, the contract is under relentless assault from the far left. President Obama and his minions want to let you know you're too stupid to determine what's best for you. Their prime aim is to ingratiate themselves between you and those with whom you wish to contract. Think this is a preposterous notion? I invite you to reflect on the following:
1) The current U.S. Congress has determined that you can't be trusted to purchase your own healthcare. The new ObamaCare injects itself between you and your doctor with respect to the best treatment you should receive. Don't like the government's choice and run afoul of the law and you'll get a visit from the IRS.
2) With a little help from their friends (General Electric), Congress has seen fit to outlaw incandescent light bulbs in approximately two years for the new CFL light bulbs. They're so much better, according to the ruling class. Any business that attempts to sell those old bulbs after the proscribed date will feel the wrath of a nanny government scorned.
3) We now have several 'safeguards' in place to prevent financial institutions from ripping us off, or at least that's what we're led to believe. The truth, however, is a little more complex. Credit will be harder for small companies to secure since banks will be less likely to sustain any losses that could put them at a financial disadvantage. Credit cards will be more difficult to obtain and rates will remain high even for the most credit worthy.
4) The Environmental Protection Agency has determined that our energy producing industries don't meet their stringent requirements with respect to carbon emissions. Think your heating oil is expensive now? Wait until you see the price come winter.
5) Want to renovate your bathroom? When it comes time to choose a new toilet the only kind you'll be able to purchase is the inefficient, low-flow, 1.6 gallon model (anyone familiar with this type of toilet knows it takes as many as three flushes before you get the desired result).
6) Aren't you just excited about the new Chevy Volt? Can't wait to get your hands on this $40,000 + vehicle, can you. You'll get an amazing 100 + miles of emission free mileage from this beauty. When you get home (assuming you make it home), all you have to do is plug it in to an electrical outlet for eight hours and you're all set for another 100 + mile cruise. Hopefully, your electrical supplier is a wind turbine farm, otherwise it's more carbon emissions! Don't fret though. I'm sure the price will come down when government hits car companies with a surcharge, or tax, for producing those antiquated gas burning vehicles.
All of the above are instances where government has come between you and other people, or businesses, with whom you might wish to contract. Under the guise of protection, or superior knowledge, the ruling class let's us know we're not capable of contracting on our own. They will decide for us because we are the benighted, unwashed masses. The two hundred year tradition of buying and selling; the bond that has made our nation the most successful in the history of mankind will be junked for a more efficient model. The heart of free enterprise will be ripped from the collective chest.
If we don't get to the polls on November, 2nd and change this disastrous course we'll have no one to blame but ourselves. The choice to contract freely is yours--don't waste it.
Did you ever stop to consider what the true essence of a free society embodies? Just what makes us a free people with the ability to determine our own path in life? Nothing can be more sacred to the free enterprise system and capitalism itself then the contract. Every time we engage in a transaction with another individual, or a business, we exercise this most basic of all human endeavors.
Today, in America, the contract is under relentless assault from the far left. President Obama and his minions want to let you know you're too stupid to determine what's best for you. Their prime aim is to ingratiate themselves between you and those with whom you wish to contract. Think this is a preposterous notion? I invite you to reflect on the following:
1) The current U.S. Congress has determined that you can't be trusted to purchase your own healthcare. The new ObamaCare injects itself between you and your doctor with respect to the best treatment you should receive. Don't like the government's choice and run afoul of the law and you'll get a visit from the IRS.
2) With a little help from their friends (General Electric), Congress has seen fit to outlaw incandescent light bulbs in approximately two years for the new CFL light bulbs. They're so much better, according to the ruling class. Any business that attempts to sell those old bulbs after the proscribed date will feel the wrath of a nanny government scorned.
3) We now have several 'safeguards' in place to prevent financial institutions from ripping us off, or at least that's what we're led to believe. The truth, however, is a little more complex. Credit will be harder for small companies to secure since banks will be less likely to sustain any losses that could put them at a financial disadvantage. Credit cards will be more difficult to obtain and rates will remain high even for the most credit worthy.
4) The Environmental Protection Agency has determined that our energy producing industries don't meet their stringent requirements with respect to carbon emissions. Think your heating oil is expensive now? Wait until you see the price come winter.
5) Want to renovate your bathroom? When it comes time to choose a new toilet the only kind you'll be able to purchase is the inefficient, low-flow, 1.6 gallon model (anyone familiar with this type of toilet knows it takes as many as three flushes before you get the desired result).
6) Aren't you just excited about the new Chevy Volt? Can't wait to get your hands on this $40,000 + vehicle, can you. You'll get an amazing 100 + miles of emission free mileage from this beauty. When you get home (assuming you make it home), all you have to do is plug it in to an electrical outlet for eight hours and you're all set for another 100 + mile cruise. Hopefully, your electrical supplier is a wind turbine farm, otherwise it's more carbon emissions! Don't fret though. I'm sure the price will come down when government hits car companies with a surcharge, or tax, for producing those antiquated gas burning vehicles.
All of the above are instances where government has come between you and other people, or businesses, with whom you might wish to contract. Under the guise of protection, or superior knowledge, the ruling class let's us know we're not capable of contracting on our own. They will decide for us because we are the benighted, unwashed masses. The two hundred year tradition of buying and selling; the bond that has made our nation the most successful in the history of mankind will be junked for a more efficient model. The heart of free enterprise will be ripped from the collective chest.
If we don't get to the polls on November, 2nd and change this disastrous course we'll have no one to blame but ourselves. The choice to contract freely is yours--don't waste it.
Monday, September 6, 2010
The Pete Morin Editorial Review--Issue #61
A view from the stands
Saturday was a beautiful day to take in a college football game. A deep blue sky with puffy white clouds and a nice twenty mile an hour breeze made for a great day to see a game from high in the stands.
Just as much fun as the game though is watching and listening to the banter of the folks in attendance as they enjoy the day as well. The good natured rivalry and spirit of the competing forces, the smell of grilled hamburgers and hotdogs and the spirited cajoling of the cheerleaders imploring the fans to support their team were enough to make me realize how much I missed this venue for almost a year.
There was something else that caught my eye amid the hoopla and celebration; something that made me realize how great it was to be an American. Two individuals sat just below me wearing shirts that may have given an indication of where they were from, or possibly just shirts they chose for this occasion without any particular thought to their significance. Both were Harley-Davidson shirts, extolling the virtues of their dealerships in Stoughton, MA and Valparaiso, IN. Whether or not these two individuals were actually from these two cities didn't strike me as important, but what did cause me to take pause was this: What do the people of Stoughton, or Valparaiso think about what's going on in our country today? Are they happy with the state of affairs that our President has consigned to our nation on its current path? How about the folks in Des Moines, IA, or Brookings, SD, or Butte, MT? As I looked at these people, whose background I could know nothing, could it be they're satisfied with the policies of this administration?
How about the people of Arizona whose State has been sued by our own Justice Department while only trying to enforce Federal law with respect to immigration. Do they agree with what's being done to them by our own Government? When Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton offered up the State law as an instance of a violation of civil rights to the United Nations Human Rights Commission are we not even slightly embarrassed, not by the law, but by the actions of this administration? Being lumped in with the horrific regimes of North Korea, Iran, Venezuela and Cuba would make me wonder which side our government is on.
Do the people of Beaufort, SC, or Baton Rouge, LA, or Casper, WY really believe there's nothing exceptional about America? Is our exceptionalism no better than Britain or France or China? There were two world wars fought in the last century that indicate there certainly is something exceptional about America. The Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines who fought the great battles of those wars would beg to differ with President Obama. They didn't give their time, honor and some the ultimate sacrifice to hear an American President talk so cavalierly about our greatness. I, for one, am embarrassed to even hear this President talk about America, because I honestly believe he's embarrassed to invoke its greatness. How such a man attained the position he now holds is beyond comprehension. Mistakes do happen, even in a nation such as ours. We can, however, rectify this mistake in 2012. We can also show our love of Nation and Constitution by rectifying other mistakes in the coming Congressional elections on November 2Nd of this year.
We are an exceptional nation, with exceptional people and exceptional dreams and hopes for our children and grandchildren. We will make those changes necessary to put us on the correct path of renewed exceptionalism and we will do it because we love this nation and refuse to follow anyone who does not.
It was a grand day on Saturday. The team I was rooting for was victorious, scoring two touchdowns to come from behind in the fourth quarter. All of us will make sure America wins again. We'll do it with our voices and our votes and we'll do it from more than the stands; we'll do it from our hearts as well.
Saturday was a beautiful day to take in a college football game. A deep blue sky with puffy white clouds and a nice twenty mile an hour breeze made for a great day to see a game from high in the stands.
Just as much fun as the game though is watching and listening to the banter of the folks in attendance as they enjoy the day as well. The good natured rivalry and spirit of the competing forces, the smell of grilled hamburgers and hotdogs and the spirited cajoling of the cheerleaders imploring the fans to support their team were enough to make me realize how much I missed this venue for almost a year.
There was something else that caught my eye amid the hoopla and celebration; something that made me realize how great it was to be an American. Two individuals sat just below me wearing shirts that may have given an indication of where they were from, or possibly just shirts they chose for this occasion without any particular thought to their significance. Both were Harley-Davidson shirts, extolling the virtues of their dealerships in Stoughton, MA and Valparaiso, IN. Whether or not these two individuals were actually from these two cities didn't strike me as important, but what did cause me to take pause was this: What do the people of Stoughton, or Valparaiso think about what's going on in our country today? Are they happy with the state of affairs that our President has consigned to our nation on its current path? How about the folks in Des Moines, IA, or Brookings, SD, or Butte, MT? As I looked at these people, whose background I could know nothing, could it be they're satisfied with the policies of this administration?
How about the people of Arizona whose State has been sued by our own Justice Department while only trying to enforce Federal law with respect to immigration. Do they agree with what's being done to them by our own Government? When Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton offered up the State law as an instance of a violation of civil rights to the United Nations Human Rights Commission are we not even slightly embarrassed, not by the law, but by the actions of this administration? Being lumped in with the horrific regimes of North Korea, Iran, Venezuela and Cuba would make me wonder which side our government is on.
Do the people of Beaufort, SC, or Baton Rouge, LA, or Casper, WY really believe there's nothing exceptional about America? Is our exceptionalism no better than Britain or France or China? There were two world wars fought in the last century that indicate there certainly is something exceptional about America. The Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines who fought the great battles of those wars would beg to differ with President Obama. They didn't give their time, honor and some the ultimate sacrifice to hear an American President talk so cavalierly about our greatness. I, for one, am embarrassed to even hear this President talk about America, because I honestly believe he's embarrassed to invoke its greatness. How such a man attained the position he now holds is beyond comprehension. Mistakes do happen, even in a nation such as ours. We can, however, rectify this mistake in 2012. We can also show our love of Nation and Constitution by rectifying other mistakes in the coming Congressional elections on November 2Nd of this year.
We are an exceptional nation, with exceptional people and exceptional dreams and hopes for our children and grandchildren. We will make those changes necessary to put us on the correct path of renewed exceptionalism and we will do it because we love this nation and refuse to follow anyone who does not.
It was a grand day on Saturday. The team I was rooting for was victorious, scoring two touchdowns to come from behind in the fourth quarter. All of us will make sure America wins again. We'll do it with our voices and our votes and we'll do it from more than the stands; we'll do it from our hearts as well.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
The Pete Morin Editorial Review--Issue #60
Failure is not an option
The above was supposedly uttered by Gene Krantz when Apollo 13 was in danger of being lost on its return flight from the moon in 1970.
America faces a challenge today far greater than that faced by the astronauts on that fateful mission. If we Americans fail to retain the freedom to pursue our lives as we see fit without an overreaching government breathing down our necks, then we will have failed not just ourselves, but all those generations that came before us in securing liberty for themselves and their posterity.
This is no idle observation easily dismissed out of hand by those who would wish to see their power and control over men's lives undiminished. The forces of the left would like nothing better than for those of us who cherish our liberty to simply fade away, or acquiesce to their superior intelligence and natural ruling ability. I, for one, will have none of it! I will not stop exposing their shameless record of failed economic policies and blatant attempts to turn our Republic into a European socialist state.
It becomes more apparent every day that President Obama is not qualified for the position he now occupies. The 'historic' moment has turned into an ugly nightmare. Unemployment, home foreclosures, increased taxes and a ridiculous health care plan are but a few of the horrific scenarios that this 'not so presidential' individual has visited upon this great nation. The very least we can do is continue to expose this charlatan for what he is; a Marxist ideologue.
So, I will keep fighting for liberty, limited government and a free enterprise system that exemplifies our history and best traditions. For all Americans failure to do so is not an option.
(Thanks Dave for your kind words of support)
The above was supposedly uttered by Gene Krantz when Apollo 13 was in danger of being lost on its return flight from the moon in 1970.
America faces a challenge today far greater than that faced by the astronauts on that fateful mission. If we Americans fail to retain the freedom to pursue our lives as we see fit without an overreaching government breathing down our necks, then we will have failed not just ourselves, but all those generations that came before us in securing liberty for themselves and their posterity.
This is no idle observation easily dismissed out of hand by those who would wish to see their power and control over men's lives undiminished. The forces of the left would like nothing better than for those of us who cherish our liberty to simply fade away, or acquiesce to their superior intelligence and natural ruling ability. I, for one, will have none of it! I will not stop exposing their shameless record of failed economic policies and blatant attempts to turn our Republic into a European socialist state.
It becomes more apparent every day that President Obama is not qualified for the position he now occupies. The 'historic' moment has turned into an ugly nightmare. Unemployment, home foreclosures, increased taxes and a ridiculous health care plan are but a few of the horrific scenarios that this 'not so presidential' individual has visited upon this great nation. The very least we can do is continue to expose this charlatan for what he is; a Marxist ideologue.
So, I will keep fighting for liberty, limited government and a free enterprise system that exemplifies our history and best traditions. For all Americans failure to do so is not an option.
(Thanks Dave for your kind words of support)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)