From the Right: The Massachusetts Election Result Brings Change

Background - Flashback 2009:

The election of Barak Obama was an election of Change. A change in government, a change in the way government operated. Barak Obama campaigned as a centrist leader; a leader who would govern from the center. Some of the things he told us made some sense to me; other things were inconsistent to his background. Obama promised to govern by working with the opposition party. Despite what I thought or what many conservatives thought, the people spoke. They were tired of the governing of George W. Bush; the people felt they needed a change. While they voted for this change, they also voted for a super-majority in congress. It was at this point, that things changed.

The economy was in a tailspin, and according to the new President, we were heading not just into a recession, but a depression, and that we must listen to his leadership and begin to enact his programs. The Republicans, reeling from their recent defeat looked at the stimulus package offered by the new President, and offered some suggestions. The economy, they identified, needed a boost. They identified that the stimulus must come from businesses, and that businesses needed tax relief. The President listened to the Republican leaders of Congress and said clearly "I Won.. You Lost". Rahm Emmanuel, the President's chief of staff saw the economic problem as a chance to push through A Progressive Liberal Democrat agenda. His famous quote still resonates "Never let a Crisis go to waste."

The President put through a $700 Billion stimulus Bill that provided no real stimulus to the economy. The people would get a $60 - $80 a month increase in their take home pay ($1.50 - $2.00 an hour). The banks would get Billions in loans, and temporary government programs would be enacted all throughout the country. These led to temporary jobs, which in some cases lasted a few weeks. Programs the Progressive left wanted for years appeared in the program. The congress had 24 hours to read the bill… But as Congressional leaders have said over and over again... who reads these Bills…. But to keep unemployment low, we needed to trust the new President. Just pass the Bill, and worry about it later. (My father always told me to be wary of people who asked you to trust them).

The Congress also increased spending in government programs by over 20%. Small businesses - they needed to wait for their stimulus (they are still waiting). Unemployment in this country went from 8% to 10%. Real Unemployment is hovering around 18%. So how does the Obama administration react??? By trying to enact a Cap and Trade Bill and a "Health Care Reform" package, that would increase the cost of doing business. How did businesses react? They reacted the way businesses always do, if the amount of taxes go up, they need to shed jobs to increase profit. So, with businesses losing money, and with no hope of relief in taxes, businesses stopped hiring as well as laying off people.

The basic economics of Business is not that difficult to understand. If a business loses money and people do not want the product, it contracts, or it goes out of business – Except in the Obama Administration. So what we have had is businesses deciding not to hire people… Why?… If you are someone who wants to make money, the climate for business is not good. If capitalism is greedy (as Obama has said on occasion), and the government will tax profits, why would a business want to grow? This administration has a very good anti business campaign, and the effects show in the lack of employment.

However, not all businesses will go out of business – Especially if the businesses have a large amount of Union workers that helped the President get elected. The government will choose the winners, which one's should survive… loan them money, and once under it's grasp, they will take the company over. They will dump the Shareholders who invested their money in the future of the company, and put the Union in control. Despite the fact, it was the Union contract that caused the problem in the first place. The Republicans despite their opposition to the government takeover of a private business were in the minority. The conservatives feel the best way to increase business growth is to give them incentives to increase profit (read less taxes) However, the class warfare of the Progressive Liberals is TAX, and TAX again. Business has made too much money… It is time for government to tax these people so that they can give more to the government, and the government can redistribute the money to whoever they want. The result is a large deficit spending and a stagnant economy. When the Republicans tried to provide some suggestions to increase the growth in the economy, President Obama said in his familiar speech… "I'm busy and Nancy (Pelosi is) busy with our mop cleaning up somebody else's mess --- we don't want somebody sitting back saying, you're not holding the mop the right way". They heard from the President the familiar refrain: "I Won… you Lost".

The President also had his signature agenda item – Health Care reform. He was going to change the face of health care. The Progressive Liberals saw their majority, and the goal to enact control of the Health Care Industry (The only industry in this economy that actually grew jobs). They were going to provide health care to 40 Million more people without increasing the supply of doctors or Nurses. Not only that, they were going to do this while at the same time reducing costs. They were going to cut the Medicare program by $500 Billion, and provide either the same or better services. (Despite the fact the same Progressive Liberal democrats howled that Senior Citizens would be harmed if the Republican President or Republican led congress cut 10% of this amount in previous years). They said this with a straight face, and asked us once again to "Trust Them".

The Republicans had many ideas on health care reform. They wanted to offer the ability to purchase health care in different states, and wanted to limit the amount of settlements(Tort Reform), which in most cases the judgments won don't go to the victims but to the trial lawyers (many of whom are contributors to the Democratic Party). They wanted to find a bipartisan way to resolve the problem. They were totally shut out of negotiations in the House. Marginalized in the Senate. With a Super Majority, the President didn't need the help of the Republican Minority. Yet he kept saying they were in the way. Politics has a great way of proposing blame. The Republicans were shut out, but they were still in the way. When the Republicans cried they were not invited to the meetings. Once again they heard from the President the familiar refrain: "I Won… you Lost".

The people became upset… They marched on Washington. When the Progressive left marches on Washington, it is to exercise their constitutional rights. Each time the left marches on Washington, it is according to the Liberal Media with a fervor that must be heard. During the Economic Summit in Pittsburgh, the Progressive liberal left protested, to the point that the police were brought in and had to arrest hundreds of people. Riots ensued and tear gas was sent into the crowds. What we heard was that they had a reason to protest. The progressive left was justified in destroying property and performing violence against the police – Despite the fact that the Progressive Liberal Left was in charge.

However, when the Right exercises their constitutional right to assemble, they are Extremists. The Liberal Media called the Tea Party people racists. The Secretary of Homeland Security said that many of these people should be considered as Terrorists. During their march on Washington, not one person was arrested, and they cleaned up their own garbage. Did you see what garbage was left after the inauguration… During the Tea Party demonstration, there was not a trace of that behavior. Hundreds of thousands of people showed up from around the country. What was reported was that less than 10,000 people showed up. These people were shouted down by the Progressive Media as "Tea Baggers" – a derogative term defined as a sex act. Their goal was to say to the government – You may have won, but we are not happy with what you are doing. Spending is out of control, you were not given this mandate. President Obama responded by saying: "What I reject is when some folks say we should go back to the past policies when it was those very same policies that got us into this mess in the first place." In other words… "I Won… you Lost".

The same people showed up at Town hall meetings, to voice their displeasure at the policies enacted by the same people who were elected by the people. They were polite, but firm in their response. They were not happy with the results. They wanted their elected officials to listen. The elected officials discounted these people as "Right Wing Extremists". Senator Barbara Boxer called these people a "Diversion" to the business of health care. She derided that "well dressed people" showed up, as if these people were not ordinary Americans. How dare the American people want to exercise their first amendment right of free speech. How dare they try to redress their government? How dare they question their congressional leaders?…." In other words the left was saying… "I Won… you Lost".

FAST FORWARD January 22, 2010:

The People are speaking. They are not as dumb as the Progressive Media seems to believe. It is time for the Progressive Left learned how to govern with the support of the American People, and in a Bi-Partisan way, that would help the country grow. The people are not looking for government to run their lives. The American people need a government to protect us from the people looking to take away our way of life - Terrorists. We need a government to provide the ground rules so that no one business has an advantage over the other. We need a government to protect the ordinary citizen from predators'. We do not need a government to tell us how to live our lives. We do not need a government to tell us how much money we can make, or if we can do a job. We do not need a government who will pick winning businesses and losing businesses, based upon their whim. We do not need a government takeover of Private industry. We do not need a government to tell limit our health care options. We do not need a government that is looking to redistribute wealth.

The people are speaking very loudly Congress and maybe you should listen to the people who elected you to office. We need a government to provide us with the opportunity to succeed. We do not need government to strangle small businesses with oppressive taxes. The People are looking to government to protect their assets, not to take them and give them to someone else. We need smaller government, and we need government to stop intruding into places they have no business to be.

The people of Massachusetts have spoken. The People of Massachusetts are not a representation of the rest of the country, they are more liberal and more progressive than most states, which is all the more telling. The majority of people spoke loudly and clearly. They made their vote on a long time Democratic Seat, one held by the Lion of the Senate for 42 years. The Left called it Ted Kennedy's Seat. Scott Brown called it "The People's Seat". The People have spoken. The Democrats lost the seat, and their Super Majority. The signature issues were – Lower Taxes, Smaller Government, and of course a resounding NO to Government Run Health Care. It was a large turnout in what normally would be a low turnout election. The people made their arguments clear. The people don't want the government to take over their lives. The progressive left needs to learn how to govern according to "The People's" wishes. Not based on an agenda of socialistic programs that are based upon wealth redistribution. The people are speaking Mr. President, and they are using strong language… With the election last week they are saying clearly… STOP WHAT YOU ARE DOING. If you didn't hear us at the Tea Parties..., you will hear us at the ballot box. Maybe the people are using a language you can identify with. In other words…"We Won… You Lost".

 

 

 

 

From the Left: The Supreme Court Decision - Not True Democracy

From Todd Eckenfelder:

Democracy: A Market Place of Ideas Worth Protecting?

The recent Supreme Court ruling found, limits (any limits at all actually) on political spending to be unconstitutional –the entities most directly affected by this ruling were large political entities with strong and motivated lobbyists such as unions, corporations, and even entire markets. The legal principal upon which this ruling balances is the equality of corporations to citizens under the law. It also equates monetary donations as a form of speech. Therefore, if [this form of political] speech is free, and corporations are citizens, corporations must be afforded equal protection under the law to speak. One way to protect it, according to the court, is to allow no restrictions.

In assessing how much speech is enough free speech, one must weight potential causes an affects. Let me give a brief example to illustrate my point. It is clear, not all speech is free. One cannot wear a shirt with the letters F, U, C, K on them into a public courthouse. People can be prosecuted in a court of law for speaking out against their country in harmful ways. People can even sue each other in civil courts for using speech that may harm one another –libel, and slander are two examples of personal harmful speech, which are illegal. And then, there is the popular example of yelling fire in a crowded public place. These are all popular examples of limited speech. The question isn’t whether we can limit speech; it is under what circumstances is it in our best interests to limit certain kinds of speech. There has to be a justification. What McCain/Feingold presumed, was that it was in the best interest of the country, to limit certain kinds of political “speech” (or in other words, amounts certain entities could contribute to potential candidates and campaigns). The court thought otherwise.

We might analogize the articulation of political ideas in a market off free speech, to the production of widgets to a free market of goods and services. We have laws that both restrict and protect certain areas of commerce. Some protect the free market place, and act as economic lubricant, and others like the Sherman Anti-trust act, act as a means to restrict certain areas of free trade, in order to protect the integrity of the free market system.

In 1890, Senator John Sherman, a Republican from Ohio sponsored a bill that would in essence promote fair competition in the marketplace of goods. In order to do this, it imposed certain restrictions on legal relationships between corporations, called trusts. These trusts allowed large organizations with huge market clout to “corner” and “control”, or “monopolize” certain markets, at the detriment of competition, and the common good. These large entities engineered these legal relationships precisely to dominate and profit in their areas of influence. These instruments called trusts pushed potential rivals in the market place to the fringes, and blocked competition, creating an unbalanced and inherently unfair market place.

The Sherman Act, therefore, placed limits on what otherwise might have been described as a “free market”. But, since those who already had influence in the market were using their influence to create an atmosphere of inequality, government, or regulation was needed to balance the economic equation. This last point is an important one to understand. The law restricted, or regulated, the kind of business certain entities could participate in. It acted as a kind of market place mediator. The Supreme Court in a later case was quoted as saying, in support of the restrictions in the market place said…

"The purpose of the [Sherman] Act is not to protect businesses from the working of the market; it is to protect the public from the failure of the market. The law directs itself not against conduct which is competitive, even severely so, but against conduct which unfairly tends to destroy competition itself."

The kind of public detriment to certain markets was so severe, that it was commonly referred to as a public harm. Therefore, the restrictions placed on certain activities and organizations were seen as necessary for a fairer market place, and the protection of the common good. In the eyes of the law, restrictions equaled more freedom.

In politics, if money is speech, then more money is more speech. Our government is a representative form of government, and is supposed to represent all of us. In theory, this representative form of government should provide a level playing field to all of its’ citizens as it relates to access, in order for those citizens to participate equally. If money is access, or influence, it might be important for a marketplace of political ideas to be as level as possible –or limit the amount of money coming from some in relation to the rest of us. If there is a dominant group in this area, restrictions might be seen as a positive step much as the Sherman Anti trust act was seen as a means to protect a free economic market place.

Money in politics is used to market ideas and as stated before, acquire access and influence. Where the money comes from matters a great deal. The more a candidate receives from a single group or entity, the more he/she will feel obligated to that group or entity. That obligation may create a conflict between those entities interests and the interests of the general public. Therefore, in order for government to be as effective as possible, there needs to be as little “acute obligation” as possible. Any pollution of this ethic ensnares legislators in a web of compromise between special interests and general interests, creating a veritable monopoly of ideas for those with the greatest access, or in other words, those who are able to give the largest amounts of money.

The bulk of the decade’s nearly $10 billion in donations to federal candidates came from special interests and individuals associated with specific special interests who gave $200 or more. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the top special-interest givers in the election cycles in this decade, generally in this order, were…
…the finance, insurance and real-estate industries; lawyers and lobbyists; miscellaneous business; ideological and single-issue donors; the health industries; communications and electronics; labor; agribusiness; energy and natural-resource interests; transportation; and the defense industry.
Corporations and individuals associated with these special interests donated more than $8 billion this decade to federal candidates. And the leader in campaign largesse for the decade and in each election cycle, at $1.62 billion, or more than 16 percent of all campaign contributions to federal candidates? The winner, by a wide margin, is the finance, insurance and real estate industries.

All of these numbers were acquired under McCain/Feingold. It is only reasonable to deduce these numbers will skew further in the direction of special interests and large organizations now that any and all restrictions employed under McCain/Feingold are now rendered impotent by the High Court.

It is as if the court eliminated any and all restrictions in the market place of political access and ideas, creating monopolies, at the detriment of the public. We may now be getting ready to witness a monopoly of ideas, which will in essence create a relationship based on mutual obligations between special interests and politicians, which, will likely create monopolies in the market place of goods and services too. The era of Democratic accountability may be over.

Corporations and special interests lost under the Sherman Anti Trust act, but now, they have won big under the courts current ruling. This is no more a loss for the Democrats than it is a win for the Republicans. This isn’t a partisan issue, unless of course, large entities represent one party more than others. Do they?

Only time will tell whether a completely “free market place of political ideas” is good for all of us. But one fact is clear. Under the new climate, access will be inherently unequal and unfair. There is now a political architecture in place that will create more Democratic inequality than at any other time in our history. If money is representation, we may no longer actually live in a democracy at all. Free speech in Politics may have been preserved, but at the expense of a free political marketplace. Apparently the court values speech over Democracy.

From the Right: Supreme Court Ruling - Upholds Free Speech

By Frank R. D'Onofrio

This week’s ruling by the US Supreme Court upholding political speech was widely derided by the Left (Progressives) and applauded by the Right (Conservatives).

To quote popular vernacular: What is up with that?

I thought in this country we are free to speak. So in ways that mirror political thought, as a conservative, I tend to agree with the conservative justices of the Supreme Court

This from the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal 01/23/2010:

“Hopefully, this ruling marks an end to 20 years of jurisprudence in which the Court has provided less protection to core political speech than it has to Internet pornography, the transmission of stolen information, flag burning, commercial advertising, topless dancing, and burning a cross outside an African-American church.”

Say what you think about the ruling let me tell you what I feel about it. When you limit the first amendment right of free speech in any matter or form political, or whatever. It gives rise to abuse. There are ways for ordinary people to express their views and to be heard. The internet has done a good job of that. You and I disagree, but my point is that our society has gone way too far to “limit” what can or cannot be said. Oliver Wendell Holmes’ in hs famous remarks about "shouting fiore in a crowded theater" was right to say that:

“The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present
danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress
has a right to prevent.” Schenck v. United States in 1919.

However, what is transpiring is a new form of political speech that of shutting up the opposition that you do not agree with. I very much disagree with the talk that people spew out every day… However to quote Voltaire ( who actually did not say it, but is attributed as saying it).

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

We live in a society that you cannot say things in the event of "offending people". We cannot have Christmas displays because it offends non believers. We cannot have the 10 Commandments displayed because it offends people due to its religious affiliation. However, we can have things said that are considered offensive such as pornographic material, or perform acts such as burning a cross outside burning a cross outside a black church, or burning the symbol of our country the American flag, because they are “protected acts of free speech”. I don’t get it, and I never will.

The American people thought they had heard the truth when Barak Obama ran for President. They only heard some of the conversations. The Liberal left was so caught up with their ideological hero that they needed to elect him president (Chris Matthews – I feel a thrill running up my leg). He was not vetted, some of his views can be considered to the far left of center. He campaigned to the right of that. When he was elected his first year was governed to a left that a majority of Americans were unaccustomed to and against. When given the chance to vote - the most Progressive liberal state in the Union Massachusetts - voted for a conservative. A repudiation of the policies of the first year President.

We have liberal leaders such as Dennis Kucinich who because they disagree with the political speech on Talk Radio (Conservative Speech) stating on January 22nd on the Bill O’Reiley show The O’Reiley Factor, that because there is not a diversity of content on the radio, that we should re-institute the “Fairness Doctrine”. What he is saying is that because of the success of Conservative Talk Radio, we should limit people’s access to it. The non-success of Liberal or Progressive Air America, is giving rise to a new kind of speech: That of if we don’t agree with you – we shut you up…. For Good.

In February of 2005 the House of representatives voted to limit the free speech on the internet. This is the passage of the bill that COULD NOT PASS in Congress….

Paragraph (22) of section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(22)) is amended by adding at the end of the following new sentence:

"Such term shall not include communications over the Internet."

Can you believe a bill which actually defines free speech over the internet (This Blog for example), could not pass a House representatives vote.

The media is deeply liberal. That is a fact. Turn to any Television station and read most Newspapers, and what you get is a liberal slant on the news. We get a news which denigrates the Conservative right and lifts the Liberal Left. Let’s speak a moment about that.

To the Liberal Media the following presidents in my political lifetime are considered “Brilliant”.

Barak Obama – He is just Brilliant – a Harvard Graduate
Bill Clinton – A Rhodes Scholar
Jimmy Carter – A physicist

The following Presidents were considered by the media about a quarter short of a dollar – meaning not too bright…

George W. Bush – Supreme Commander of the less brilliant, (because he could not say the word Nuclear, and created words such as “Misunderestimated”)
George H.W. Bush (and who could not forget his Vice President Dan Quayle – who could not spell the word potato on the David Letterman Show)
Ronald Reagan – who slept his way through his presidency ( The press ridiculed his defense initiative and nicknamed it “Star Wars” – Now it does work)
Gerald Ford – Who tripped his way through his presidency.

Now – find me a Progressive on this list that is considered by the media as – “Not too Bright”….
– OR –
This one is harder – Find me a Conservative on this list who is considered by the media as “Intelligent”…

Are you getting the point?
(Thank you Glenn Beck (January 21st Show on Fox News)

Regardless of the intelligence of these presidents… we have a press and media that is comprised of people who have a large impression of book smarts, and no impression of people who actually get the job done. I have personally worked for some brilliant idiots in my life (People who were considered brilliant, but could not navigate out of a paper bag) and have also worked for people who were not as smart intellectually, but they knew how to get a job done right. However, the Progressive Liberal movement SO believes that they are correct they will limit your access to information to prove themselves correct.

The Liberal Progressive Movement owns the following outlets
– The Newspapers of Most major cities (except maybe the Wall Street
Journal) The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times,
The Baltimore Sun. There are more
– The Major Network TV outlets (Except Fox News- which according to the
Obama Administration isn’t a “real” News outlet)
– Academia – Most College Professors consider themselves Liberal Progressive.

The Conservative Movement owns the following outlets
– Talk Radio
– The Internet

So do we actually NEED diversity... For Liberal Outlets to compete???
(a Rhetorical Question )

The People However are speaking:

The only point I need to make here is that people are speaking with their pocketbooks. The readership at the once powerful New York Times is down so much that they need to mortgage their building to stay in business… The Baltimore Sun is so close to going out of business.... readership is so low that the paper on a daily basis is so tiny.. The ads are disappearing. The Progressive Liberal News Outlets CNN, and MSNBC are getting trounced by a balanced Fox News by a 7 to 1 Margin in viewership.

The Progressive Liberal Media which owned the News outlets for most of my adult life are outraged. Their Progressive message is not resonating with “the people” they represent. So majority of people are not buying their newspapers, they are not turning in to their pundits, and they are refusing to accept the message that Progressivism works… This is a center right country, and the progressive liberals have been working hard to skew this country to the left and are not succeeding. They are succeeding in academia however, since the balance of academia is so far liberal it is upsetting ( a conversation for another post). The only way to resolve this issue TODAY, is to limit the message, and where is the focus of the limitation gravitating to? The Internet and Talk Radio…. The Progressive left must limit their speech.

This brings me full circle to the events of this week.

Representative Chris Van Holland (democrat - Maryland) is attacking the Supreme Court decision: "I think it's an un-American decision.”

Do we really want to go down this slippery slope.

I am afraid that the country I grew up in, the country that when as a child when others told me not say something ... I would rebuke “It’s a Free Country”. Will no longer be free. The fact that we limit free speech in any place in the United States of America is as Un-American as anything you could imagine. The First Amendment to the Constitution is an Unalienable right! And according to the founding fathers a RIGHT attributed to us by the Almighty…..By GOD. It is a right that is unassailable.

Limiting the right to expression by anyone, or any group, is to deny a right that we hold to be sacred. Probably THE MOST SACRED RIGHT we have. Can there be abuses.. yes… there can be abuses. However, I believe that WE THE PEOPLE, can determine for ourselves what is true or not true, what we want and do not want to hear. The people are saying it now at the ballot boxes of America.. they are turning away the Progressive Left Media because they are WRONG. They are not drowning out their speech. They are refusing to listen to the radio programs when they don’t agree… Refusing to buy the newspapers of those who disagree… refusing to watch the news of those people who do not agree.

This summer, when the people chose to tell their congressional representatives, that they were not happy with their votes on many issues facing them… the liberal media discounted them… they made fun of them… they told them in print and on the airwaves that they were non consequential. That they were WRONG.

The Progressive media refused to acknowledge their upset. WHY? Because it did not sit with their agenda. However, the people found solace in the places that would listen to them – Talk Radio and the Internet. Our congressional leaders – those who were elected to represent the people – denounced them as EXTREMISTS AND TERRORISTS. Even though these demonstrations were peaceful. Could you Believe THAT!

When their congressional representatives refused to confront the anger of their constituencies, they literally told their constituents to shut up. The Progressive Congressmen did not want to hear their constituents who waited for hours to be heard. Ultimately, they had "Telephone Town Meetings", so they could control the message. The Progressive Liberal left sent goons to shout down the voices of the right.They were sent in some cases to "beat up" people fromt he right who disagree. Even though the people who disagreed were polite, but firm. The conservatives were were told figuratively “to sit down and shut up”. I NEVER have seent his in the United States of America...

When a dictator (such as Iranian President Ahmadenijad, or Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez) comes to Columbia University, or the United Nations to speak, he is welcomed by academia, and by the political world – regardless of the hatred he espouses. However, when a conservative candidate, or a conservative speaker comes to Columbia to speak, there are demonstrations to PREVENT THEIR SPEECH FROM BEING HEARD.

WHY?

Why is free speech no longer free. Is Speech only free if I agree. This is wrong, and cannot be tolerated by the people of the United States of America. To the progressive left, my interpretation of their motives is Free Speech is allowed ONLY if the intellectuals or those in power agree it is correct or true. Other than that it cannot be considered true speech- That is why talk Radio is so despised, and why talk radio pundits on the right are so hated… In London the roots of Free speech can be found in Speakers Corner in Hyde Park. Today we can say the roots of free speech can be the Internet… It may also be talk radio.

People will listen to the truth and they should be allowed to make up their own minds, as to what is truth, and what is not. THAT IS FREEDOM. THAT IS THE UNALIENABLE RIGHT ESPOUSED BY THE CONSTITUTION. What would have happened if 400 years ago, people in Hyde Park London were told that the only speech allowed was that to which people agreed with? The limitation of Free speech is the first right to be taken away in a dictatorship, and in Communism. It is a right not allowed in countries such as Iran, Venezuela, and China.

Free Speech is the reason the American experiment worked. It is why I agree with the Supreme Court decision this week.

An Introduction from the Left

The following is a post from a friend I have know for a long time. He is a man that I have known since he was in his pre-teens. Our love of Baseball (The New York Yankees) was the key to a friendship that started between a 12 Year old and young man of 23. Now, 26 years later we have taken our email discussion front and center so that everyone can participate.

The following was Submitted By Todd Eckenfelder:

An Introduction: More than less, Socially Democratic

Our senses dulled by machines that work to satisfy their own fiduciary needs, and apathy becomes the status of our primal social instincts, like a drug numbing our senses, this machine neuters our political will to act on our, and others behalf. We are no longer able to act for ourselves, stumbling about, half comatose, and lobotomized by the very machine our forefathers put in place to originally protect us.

Those in political control have turned away from those who they must serve and towards legal entities without life, but large accounts. We are docile and complacent, unable to think outside of the box –clay in the hands of the entities and their slaves the politicians. SoundBites are what we understand, and social policy is no more than just a word heard and not understood.

What is required is a silent populist revolution of the mind, heart, and soul of American, and back to the original thesis of a government for and by the people.

There is a void in our civic and social lives, one so large we are incapable of seeing it. Like the lack of perspective one has as they see the Grand Canyon for the first time, they see a whole –maybe- but can’t comprehend the depth and magnitude of the obstacle before them.

What I want –what we should want- more than anything else is to make a positive social democratic difference in the place we live. My hope is, that by writing my thoughts on the sate of American politics, economics, and foreign policy, I can inspire positive change amongst those who are tired of apathy, and who itch to agitate and tickle the positive populist, and socialist bone we all have.

I believe a politician’s responsibility is to teach, and inspire others to embrace socially democratic values. We must understand, and create policy conducive to current social circumstances. We must take into consideration what the state of being is for all of us –even the least of us -especially those who have no voice per status or finance.

We must start to look out for the best interests of those who have no leverage in society. History has shown us our other institutions, and organizations, and legal entities will not; in fact they tend to exploit them, placing the masses at a distinct disadvantage. Like feudal Europe, the financial landlords of our current system use and abuse the common man, in an effort to enlarge his kingdom. Not to say there are no good, or even great organizations, making a better life for the rest of us. There are those who have values sustainable in a society focused on providing quality of life benefits to the marginalized; a social investment paying dividends for decades to come, not just to stockholders in quarterly increments. Simply, the cost of ideologically, rightist, capitalist may be rising above our capacity to collectively pay.

I am a 38 year old white male who grew up in Wilton CT. I have lived on both coasts; in one of our most conservative states (Utah), and one of our most liberal (Vermont). I attended a conservative undergraduate university in Utah, and a liberal graduate program in Vermont. I have worked for a Republican congressman hopeful, and a few Democratic hopefuls. I have written from the left and from the right before, in previous websites dedicated to politics. I am an educator by trade who has spent time as a carpenter, consultant, coach, and classroom teacher. I discovered a love for teaching while serving a religious mission in a third world country as a young adult.

I played competitive collegiate baseball for two plus years in college.

I have five children, and my best friend is my wife -whom I have known since I was 8.

It is my goal; to shed constant light and understanding on the dangers that exist, the dangers of allowing us to be run over by interests whom are self serving.

An Introduction from the Right

I am an American.

I think I need to say that first, because it is important. It defines who I am, and it defines that I live in the greatest country in the world. There is no better, and I shudder to think what would happen if this country did not exist, which is why I decided to start this blog: RED WHITE AND BLUE USA.
Purpose of the Blog

I am a conservative American.

You can define it any way you’d like. I am not a progressive, and I believe in conservative principles. A Conservative can be Democrat or Republican, but in today’s politics most conservatives are Republican, there are few, if any, Democrat Conservatives... There are a few progressive Republicans though. That is what I define as left and right. Conservative thought vs. liberal or progressive thought.
That being said, I think there are many others like me who believe the same things. I am totally appalled at the partisan bickering; and the lack of integrity in our government. I see the left coming to take away my liberties, even though they say they respect my rights, I don’t see it. I am not in agreement at all with the progressive movement. It makes no sense to me. I see elitists creating rules for everyone else but themselves. I am a decent person, and I believe that everyone should be able to live their life without government interfering. I believe in taxation for the support of basic needs (roads, military, law enforcement, fire, etc.) I do not believe in the redistribution of wealth. I believe that we are endowed by our creator with basic unalienable rights…. I believe in God. I also believe that here are good people in this country, who want to do the right thing. I also believe, and this is from direct observation, that there are others looking to scam the system, and get what they can for themselves. Not in an honest, but a dishonest way. Many of them have found their way into politics.

I also believe there are many that want to take our rights away – If we are willing to give them up. In a recent American Revolution poll that I saw presented this week on Glenn Beck here are some astounding numbers:

• 15% believe it is NOT an essential Right to Receive Speedy Trial
• 18% believe it is NOT an essential Right to practice the Religion of your choice
• 24% believe it is NOT an essential Right to privacy
• 30% DO NOT believe it is a RIGHT to speak Freely
• 36% DO NOT believe it a RIGHT to not practice ANY religion
• 35% DO NOT BELIEVE it is a RIGHT to Question/ Petition against your government
• 41% DO NOT BELIEVE it is a right to not have your property seized
• 55% DO NOT BELIEVE it is a RIGHT to own firearms

See for yourself: www.americanrevolutioncenter.org/node/89

These numbers are astounding…. I thought our country fought for these rights over 200 years ago

James Madison Said in 1888:
“Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations.”

This is happening TODAY! And I am fearful of it. Congress and our President are assaulting our rights on a daily basis.

Ronald Reagan said in a speech in 1961 about the perils of socialized medicine and about being an everyday conservative:

What can we do about this? Well, you and I can do a great deal. We can say right now that we want no further encroachment on these individual liberties and freedoms and that you demand the continuation of our traditional free enterprise system. You and I can do this. The only way we can do it is by writing to our congressmen, even if we believe that he's on our side to begin with, write to strengthen his hand. Write those letters now. Call your friends and tell them to write. If you don't, this program, I promise you, will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow. And behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country... until one day as Norman Thomas said, we will awake to find that we have socialism. And if you don't do this and if I don't do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it once was like in America when men were free."

That is exactly what this Blog is about! Congress isn’t listening 36% (That means 64% against) of Americans favor the current legislation on healthcare (Socialized medicine), yet congress will take this legislation and shove it down our throats – Even if it will provide us with less than what we have now. Letters to our Congressmen and Senators do nothing. They avoid us - the people who elected them. Because they will do what they want! ... Not what we elected them to do.

I believe in charity, but I do not believe that the government has right to take someone’s earnings and give them to someone else. We are a charitable country, and when things go bad in the world, we have provided more than any other people to those who do not have. But enough is enough… People need to be able to hold on to what they have earned, and not have someone else tell them how to or where to spend their money. I DO NOT believe in the redistribution of wealth. It is wrong, and it is a legalized form of stealing.

I grew up in New York City, and I must say, I saw a lot of scamming going on. I saw people who didn’t want to work living quite well, and I saw people who worked hard getting their money taken in taxes. I grew up in one of the most progressive states in the Union, and I realized that giving money away does not get people to work harder. It gets them to want more money. I also realized that where this money comes from is from you and I. If I have to work for it, I expect everyone else to do so…. Unless you are sick, or there is some physical reason. But you should put back as well. I saw my family living together under one roof, grandparents and parents, because they couldn’t afford to live apart, and helping each other in the process.

This conversation that exists today that we should fend for ourselves, wasn’t what we brought here. My family didn’t put people in nursing homes when they were sick, we took care of them. We made sure that we gave back to them what they gave to us. Today, people put you in a nursing home because it’s inconvenient, or they take away your belongings, and leave them alone for 8 hours. Do you know what is inconvenient…getting up at 2 am with a child that is sick and nursing them back to health. It’s getting up at the crack of dawn with your child because you have to get them to an event. It may be inconvenient, but you do it. You do it because there is love.

So, I am going to try to present a blog that has both sides. I have asked a friend to contribute his side of the story from the left. I am definitely coming from the right… As you will see from my history below, I am definitely right wing… I don’t know how I got here, but these are my beliefs.

Every day, you will hear my rants from the right about a lot of things. I am hoping my counterpart will contribute from the left. I am also hoping that I do one of 2 things. I really upset the left, as they will not comprehend my side… I will convert you left leaning people to the right, because as you read and understand what is at stake you will tend to change your views….

Either way, I believe it will be entertaining. My friend and I have been doing this for over a year through email… We are good friends despite our differences in politics. We are still Yankees fans.. so we definitely have a lot in common. I am looking forward to having all of you in the blogosphere comment on what we have said. Get into it with us… and react to what is said. But keep your language to a PG13 level…. Our wives and mothers may be reading too.

MY HISTORY FOR REFERENCE:

I am 49 Years old, as I start this Blog. I am an American of Italian descent

I think that my age is important because it also defines who I am. I was born after World War II and during the cold war. I was a baby when John F. Kennedy was shot, and I lived through the sixties as a toddler. I wasn’t effected much by the Vietnam War, and I was too young to be affected by Martin Luther King.

My teen years were spent during the most tumultuous time, and a time for great strides in our country. I think we were learning how to live together. I believe race was not as much an issue for my generation as it was for previous generations. The Civil Rights era was ending, the war in Vietnam was over and people started to enjoy the peace. We watched as our parents argued about things that honestly we thought were inconsequential – The color of people’s skin. As people were fighting over race, we were children playing with the children of those our parents were fighting with. When Willie Mays was playing baseball, I didn’t see a man of Color, I saw a graceful ballplayer. I admired Jackie Robinson, and I tried hard to understand what it took to be the first of color, in a country where color WAS a major issue. When music was played, it didn’t much matter what the color was of the person singing the song. If the song was beautiful we listened to it. It didn’t matter if it was Michael Jackson or Donnie Osmond, The Temptations or the Beach Boys. All that mattered was we liked the music. All in all, I felt growing up, based on my friendships and my experiences… what was the issue? Why all the fuss?

Vietnam, now that was supposed to be an issue for my generation, but by the time I was “of age”, the war was over. But I do remember the music, and the protests against the war. I remember hearing the reports of body counts. I only knew one person who was in Vietnam, he was my cousin. When I met him he had just returned, a young man. He was so cool, and I only met him once, but he was such a positive person. Unfortunately, he died very young. Shortly after I met him for the first time, after coming back from the war, he had an aneurism, and died at the Veteran’s hospital.

Both of these issues when I grew up polarized the country. There were riots, and living in New York, there were riots it seemed every day. I remember when Martin Luther King died, being afraid of rioters coming into my neighborhood, and causing problems. I didn’t see any of it, and I guess it was overblown. My parents did not have many friends of color. Well, I would say my mother didn’t. My dad worked with many people of different colors and nationalities. While I heard the stereotypes of all of them, I never really understood what the fuss was about.

There was that Watergate thing – but once again I was a little too young to be involved with that as well. What hit us was economic. We were seeing our parents working hard, and getting less. Inflation was hitting home, and when we were just learning how to drive, there was an oil embargo. We were told that we needed to wear sweaters more in the house, because well we just could not afford the heating bills.

We learned about the Middle East; not because it was an important place, but that’s where our oil and gas came from, and since they decided to slow the oil coming in, people were waiting for hours on gas lines, so that they could go to work. We teenagers could not understand why the price of gas doubled. Or why there were long lines… We just didn’t like it. How did we know as young kids.. that this was a response to an Arab / Israeli conflict, and the support of the US for Israel. We were just kids... All we knew was it didn't make sense.

When I was a teenager in High School I could remember my history teacher saying to all of us, that we were going to have to change, that the United States was changing, that we ‘students’ needed to learn that we could not live better than our parents did. Jimmy Carter was president, and as an adult, I can understand that mentality. However, I believe my generation refused to believe that. We just wanted more. In my first election I had a choice of Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan. I believed the press when they said that Reagan would send us into a war. I believed them when they said that he just was too conservative for this country. I admit, I voted for Jimmy Carter. It was the last time, that I would be influenced by the media. I decided at that moment I would inspect for myself what was going on.

I graduated in the class of 1978. I was a young man with big dreams. I could say I was like George Bailey

In the Christmas classic “It’s a Wonderful Life”. I was going to see the world. Unfortunately, I was not independently wealthy, and I didn’t have a trust fund. So…. Well the best way was to work for people who would send me around the world to work for them. At the same time, I would get to go to places I’ve never been, and could never afford. I have to admit this strategy worked, and I travelled the world, most of the time in quite a luxurious style. I’ve been to Europe, South America, Mexico, and most places in the US; all with someone else paying for it.


My Family

I must admit, I am really very happy. At the age of almost 50, I have accomplished things I set out to do, and in some cases I splurged a bit too much. But after all of those years I have quite a family. My first marriage did not work, for some reason that were mine (selfishness, uncompromising), and some hers (selfishness, uncompromising). But I have 2 children (1 Girl and 1 Boy) that I honestly adore. And though most times, I am not sure why… they adore me.
10 Years ago I met the love of my life… My wife Irene, she has brought total joy to my life. Am I still selfish.. Yes a little...Am I still uncompromising… A little there too… The only difference: she truly loves me… She loves my imperfections, and she doesn’t demand I change. I change, because I love her. She is my hero.. I will talk about that in a later post.

Irene came with a package. 3 Boys… Who I love like my own... well let me change that. They are my own. Unlike many married couples we do not distinguish between who is yours or mine. We distinguish that they are all ours. Imperfect as they are, they are ours.

I now have 3 Grandchildren…. Who are the reason for existence. Great line I read on the internet… “Grandchildren are God’s reward for not killing our children…. “

My dad… I think I should say a few things about him, because he influenced me more than I realized. My dad was a strong man. He was skinny growing up, but I remember how strong he was. He delivered boxes when I was a kid, and he carried heavy things. He belonged to a union, and while we were not poor, I wouldn’t consider us rich either. We lived with my grandparents, and we always had food and nice clothes. We went to private catholic school. M dad worked hard. He worked 2 jobs. We didn’t see him very much growing up, because of that. But he was a good guy. Everyone thought he was an honest man, and I remember him being the family “consigliere”, the person who they came to see when there were disputes. He would advise them, and they would do it. Everyone went to Roland for advice.

When I was a teen, my dad took the risk of owning a business. We had a little more after that, things weren’t quite so tight. We went on a few vacations, and again while not rich, we didn’t know there were problems. My dad was a good man. He died of cancer, at 63, and I miss him, because it wasn’t until I was in my mid 20’s that I learned to understand him, and got who he was. I also understood, that he was one of the smartest people I knew without an education. If had an education, I guarantee he would have been rich. However, what I learned was, you don’t have to be rich to be wealthy, and he was wealthy in the love of his family. When he died, I could not believe how many people mourned him. He was a hero to me.

That’s my background… That’s who I am and where I come from.