Week Beginning 10/27/08:
Many railers don't know that the B&O (Baltimore & Ohio) Railroad was the first railroad in the country. It was the first to take the country on a rail ride and now, the country is facing a new B&O Express (Barack & Obama)that plans to railroad the American public so a woefully inexperienced and left-leaning world citizen with a paper-thin resume can reside in the White House.
My frustration is not with a political philosophy that differs from my own, but rather, the deception involved in trying to make a candidate's beliefs more acceptable to the average voter. In an attempt to throw a switch and re-route this political freight train-turned-Acela, I shall address several issues that have been presented as the Gospel according to St. Barack.
95% of Americans will get a tax cut. Huh? When 40% of the population doesn't pay income taxes, a check from the federal government is nothing but a transfer payment. It's the whole wealth-transfer discussion. Obama wants to tax those making too much (by his definition) to be able to send a check to others. It has nothing to do with tax reduction. Also, the repeal of current Bush tax rate reductions is a tax increase, not to mention increasing capital gains tax rates and increased social security taxes.
Sarah Palin is unqualified to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency. Double huh? Her resume is significantly deeper and more relevant than BO himself and he's applying for the job of the heartbeat of the Presidency! It's a joke to use this as a reason to vote for the Obama ticket. Examine Joe Biden! Can he make any more foot-in-the-mouth gaffes? Plus, he has 36 years of being wrong, and it's usually on foreign policy! Experience only counts when it puts you on the correct side of a decision.
Eight years of failed economic polices. Hello! American family net worth had grown by $20 TRILLION during the last 8 years prior to the economic calamity of the last two months. This exceptional growth was AFTER the dotcom bubble-burst and recession, 9/11, and funding an expensive war on terror! This is an economic failure? The financial mess that has dominated the markets is the result of social engineering that was mandated by Democrats in control (Frank and Dodd) of key oversight committees so that more "disadvantaged" people could obtain home loans. This pressure combined with selected institutional greed and corruption overextended the capacity of the system.
The worse economic environment since the Great Depression. Wrong again. 1987 was worse. It represented a larger % decrease in the Dow. Also, unemployment in 1980 was 11%, significantly higher than the current rate and the prime interest rate was 21%! Some analysts have opined that the market continues to be resistant to the Federal rescue plan due to fears over an Obama administration and the expectation of an increasing deficit and new taxes.
Past acquaintances don't matter. Isn't a big part of executive decision making involved with making judgements? Particularly when you have large political ambitions. The Big O's track record on this count has been dismal: Ayers, Wright, ACORN, Khalidi and Rezko to name a few. If he can allow himself to be associated with these questionable "colleagues", then deny his relationships, this has to call into question his judgement, voracity and character.
He's a genius! He can read a teleprompter extremely well, but so can an evening news person. When caught on his own, he seems very mortal, offering the usual amount of himming and hawing. He generally repeats the same talking points and mentions change, with very few real details. I'm sure he's bright, but genius, not!
Let me make this perfectly clear! This is a speech habit that means that the next thing out of his mouth is a boldface lie. It's like the person who claims "It's not about the money." In that case, it's always about the money.
He's even-keeled and doesn't seem to get rattled. This only applies when he knows the environment will be friendly. Whenever he's challanged, he's VERY uncomfortable. His eyes narrow and his body language changes and he gets VERY TESTY. He clearly doesn't like to be admonished or have his positions questioned. He generally pushes the interviewer by saying he wants to make his point. He'll say, "Now hold on a minute" and will continue with his talking points. Many said he came out of the Washington conclave during the bailout discussions with very little to say and appeared at a loss as to what to do.
All Aboard! Let's hope not!
Monday, October 27, 2008
The Color of Money
Week Beginning 10/27/08:
Many in the media are proclaiming that the election is over. Mrs. Twain and I don't buy it for a second. I believe it could be a landslide for McCain, with Obama winning only 13 states. The mainstream media, of course, wants to try and influence the undecided lemmings and publishes that Obama has a double-digit lead in some polls and that all that is left is to plan the inauguration. In fact, stories have been printed that describe the victory rallies that are being planned. "It's money in the bank," they say. The question I pose, however, "What is the new color of money?"
In my view, the answer is red. This is because the money we're seeing in this election is being promised to be taken from one group and is to be handed ("handout") over to another, and what should ordinarily be prosecuted as larceny becomes re-characterized as "fairness". This "spreading of the wealth" via someone else's pocketbook sure does not pass the smell test (a "red tide"). Now some have raised an issue (a "red herring?") that if you criticize Mr. Obama, then you are really racist and just can't deal with voting for a person of color. What color is Barack Obama? Again, like money, it's red!
Obama has run on a message of change, one where he claims to present new ideas for fixing the problems in Washington. He has done a marvelous job, along with a schoolgirl exuberant and complacent mainstream media, of perpetrating this myth. I submit that everything he has presented is a re-hash of very old ideas, ones that we saw from FDR, LBJ, WJC, the French Revolution and KHM (Karl Heinrich Marx). How "new" is it for BHO (Barack H. Obama) to tell the middle class (nee proletariat) that they have been taken advantage of by greedy capitalists. That it's not fair that they don't have a better life, and that it's government's job, in fact, its government's responsibility to help give the people a leg up! He even trumpets wanting to grow the economy "from the bottom up, not from the top down." Can he point to a national economy that has prospered in this way? The idea in this country that has fueled our economic engine as the envy of the world is the dream and the desire to become rich, to make it to the top. People on the bottom can make it to the top if their ambition is not quashed by a system of over-regulation and taxation, and when bureaucrats believe they create jobs and are needed to control the show.
This, my dear readers, is not, in my view the role of government. It seems to me that government's social role should help those truly in need and not able to help themselves. It should not be in the business of trying to create a bigger class of needy! Yet that is the step-progression in a socialist society: segregation, confiscation, re-distribution and then, elimination of opposition (The Fairness Doctrine). The message from Obama embraces these tenants. His writings, associations and now, through recently released audio tapes of interviews given when he was an adjunct law professor (2001), proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he is not the centrist reformer he claims to be.
Color BHO a very scarlet red! A Democratic executive branch, coupled with a super majority in the Senate and control of the House would bring a whirlwind of new spending and social engineering (listen to Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi). Obama has said that "the Constitution is fundamentally flawed" as it relates to issues of race discrimination. His litmus test for the Federal judiciary and Supreme Court nominees will be a dozy!
All of this "red-or-ic" also changes the color of money. This has been a record-breaking campaign haul and media spend. The ability to buy advertising time and present uninterrupted infomercial-style collectivism propaganda by BHO is part of this political "obamination." Donors give in order to get. The more they get from someone else's W-2, the more we slip into the self-perpetuation of dependent constituencies. Witness the almost universally accepted belief that "progressive" taxes are "fair!" "They can afford to pay more" is the mantra. That's why liberals prefer to call themselves progressives!
Many in the media are proclaiming that the election is over. Mrs. Twain and I don't buy it for a second. I believe it could be a landslide for McCain, with Obama winning only 13 states. The mainstream media, of course, wants to try and influence the undecided lemmings and publishes that Obama has a double-digit lead in some polls and that all that is left is to plan the inauguration. In fact, stories have been printed that describe the victory rallies that are being planned. "It's money in the bank," they say. The question I pose, however, "What is the new color of money?"
In my view, the answer is red. This is because the money we're seeing in this election is being promised to be taken from one group and is to be handed ("handout") over to another, and what should ordinarily be prosecuted as larceny becomes re-characterized as "fairness". This "spreading of the wealth" via someone else's pocketbook sure does not pass the smell test (a "red tide"). Now some have raised an issue (a "red herring?") that if you criticize Mr. Obama, then you are really racist and just can't deal with voting for a person of color. What color is Barack Obama? Again, like money, it's red!
Obama has run on a message of change, one where he claims to present new ideas for fixing the problems in Washington. He has done a marvelous job, along with a schoolgirl exuberant and complacent mainstream media, of perpetrating this myth. I submit that everything he has presented is a re-hash of very old ideas, ones that we saw from FDR, LBJ, WJC, the French Revolution and KHM (Karl Heinrich Marx). How "new" is it for BHO (Barack H. Obama) to tell the middle class (nee proletariat) that they have been taken advantage of by greedy capitalists. That it's not fair that they don't have a better life, and that it's government's job, in fact, its government's responsibility to help give the people a leg up! He even trumpets wanting to grow the economy "from the bottom up, not from the top down." Can he point to a national economy that has prospered in this way? The idea in this country that has fueled our economic engine as the envy of the world is the dream and the desire to become rich, to make it to the top. People on the bottom can make it to the top if their ambition is not quashed by a system of over-regulation and taxation, and when bureaucrats believe they create jobs and are needed to control the show.
This, my dear readers, is not, in my view the role of government. It seems to me that government's social role should help those truly in need and not able to help themselves. It should not be in the business of trying to create a bigger class of needy! Yet that is the step-progression in a socialist society: segregation, confiscation, re-distribution and then, elimination of opposition (The Fairness Doctrine). The message from Obama embraces these tenants. His writings, associations and now, through recently released audio tapes of interviews given when he was an adjunct law professor (2001), proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he is not the centrist reformer he claims to be.
Color BHO a very scarlet red! A Democratic executive branch, coupled with a super majority in the Senate and control of the House would bring a whirlwind of new spending and social engineering (listen to Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi). Obama has said that "the Constitution is fundamentally flawed" as it relates to issues of race discrimination. His litmus test for the Federal judiciary and Supreme Court nominees will be a dozy!
All of this "red-or-ic" also changes the color of money. This has been a record-breaking campaign haul and media spend. The ability to buy advertising time and present uninterrupted infomercial-style collectivism propaganda by BHO is part of this political "obamination." Donors give in order to get. The more they get from someone else's W-2, the more we slip into the self-perpetuation of dependent constituencies. Witness the almost universally accepted belief that "progressive" taxes are "fair!" "They can afford to pay more" is the mantra. That's why liberals prefer to call themselves progressives!
Off to College
Week Beginning 10/27/08:
I'm riding the rails south today, headed to a meeting in D.C. As I get closer to our nation's capital, I'm thinking of the power that resides here, and the sense of the upcoming election is almost overwhelming. This election represents so many critical outcomes that will have a major bearing on the future of our Republic. The economy and the role of our federal overseers, international trade and tariffs, national security, foreign policy, taxation, and judicial appointments that will steer the social contract will all be on the table.
As I ponder the weight and responsibility that each citizen has to become an informed voter, it dawned on me that very few of those that will be pulling the lever for the candidate of their choice knows anything about the history or operations of our electoral college, the proces and institution that actually decides the next caretaker of the Oval Office. Try this on for size:
The 1888 Presidential election was very close. Democratic party candidate President Grover Cleveland and running mate Allen G. Thurman of Ohio won the popular election by 95,713 votes. President Cleveland, however, was not re-elected because he lost the electoral college vote by 65 votes. Instead Benjamin Harrison, former senator from Indiana and the Grandson of President William Henry Harrison, was elected as the 23rd President of the United States.
Today a President must win 270 electoral votes, a majority, to become President. If no candidate wins a majority of electoral votes, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution provides for Presidential election by the House of Representatives with each State delegation receiving one vote. Twice in our history, the House of Representatives has chosen the President -- Thomas Jefferson's election in 1801 and John Quincy Adams' election in 1825.
The first constitutional crisis occurred when Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr received the same number of electoral votes. Even though they were both Republicans and Jefferson was chosen as the Presidential candidate and Burr as the Vice Presidential candidate, it took the House of Representatives 36 successive ballots to finally elect Thomas Jefferson as President. Twenty-four years later, again no candidate received a 131 vote majority of electoral votes needed to become President. In this case, the House of Representatives voted for John Quincy Adams over Andrew Jackson and William H. Crawford on the first ballot.
These instances in our political history remind us of the important role that the Electoral College plays in electing a President. Few voters know that the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) is the repository for essential evidence that documents the rights of American citizens, the actions of Federal officials and the national experience. A little known function of NARA, however, is the administration of the Electoral College by the Office of the Federal Register. As part of the documentation of the rights of American citizens, the Federal Register plays a key role in ensuring that the complicated and sometimes confusing steps in the electoral process are followed exactly.
The Electoral College was devised by the founding fathers as a compromise between the election of a President by popular vote and by the Congress. The College currently consists of 538 electors -- based on the total number of Representatives and Senators, plus three District of Columbia electors. U.S. territories are not represented in the College. The electors are a popularly elected body chosen by the states and the District of Columbia on the day of the general election
(November 2nd). The slate of electors for the Presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes is recorded on a Certificate of Ascertainment.
Rather than directly voting for the President and Vice President, United States citizens cast votes for electors. Electors are technically free to vote for anyone eligible to be President, but in practice pledge to vote for specific candidates and voters cast ballots for favored presidential and vice presidential candidates by voting for correspondingly pledged electors. Most states allow voters to choose between statewide slates of electors pledged to vote for the presidential and vice presidential tickets of various parties; the ticket that receives the most votes statewide 'wins' all of the votes cast by electors from that state. U.S. presidential campaigns concentrate on winning the popular vote in a combination of states that choose a majority of the electors, rather than campaigning to win the most votes nationally.
Each elector casts one vote for President and one vote for Vice President. In order to be elected, a candidate must have a majority (at least 270) of the electoral votes cast for that office. Should no candidate for President win a majority of the electoral votes, the choice is referred to the House of Representatives. Should no candidate for Vice President possess a majority of the electoral votes, the choice is given to the Senate.
The next step is for the electors in each State to meet to cast their votes (this year it will be on December 15th). Certificates of Vote are prepared listing all persons voted for as President and as Vice President and the number of electors voting for each candidate.
NARA plays an important role in educating the states regarding their responsibilities vis a vis the Electoral College. It also ensures the facial sufficiency of the Certificates of Ascertainment and the Certificates of Vote and controls the integrity of the Certificates by limiting the number of people handling the documents. It is responsible for transmitting two of the original Certificates of Ascertainment to the House and Senate and making one original available for public inspection at the Federal Register. Finally, NARA ensures that all 538 electoral votes are accounted for on the Certificates of Vote and are delivered to the Congress to be unsealed and counted on the date of the official tally
(January 6th).
After one year the Certificates of Ascertainment and the Certificates of Vote are placed in the permanent custody of NARA where they serve as an enduring testimonial to the strength and resilience of our political system.
God Bless America!!!
I'm riding the rails south today, headed to a meeting in D.C. As I get closer to our nation's capital, I'm thinking of the power that resides here, and the sense of the upcoming election is almost overwhelming. This election represents so many critical outcomes that will have a major bearing on the future of our Republic. The economy and the role of our federal overseers, international trade and tariffs, national security, foreign policy, taxation, and judicial appointments that will steer the social contract will all be on the table.
As I ponder the weight and responsibility that each citizen has to become an informed voter, it dawned on me that very few of those that will be pulling the lever for the candidate of their choice knows anything about the history or operations of our electoral college, the proces and institution that actually decides the next caretaker of the Oval Office. Try this on for size:
The 1888 Presidential election was very close. Democratic party candidate President Grover Cleveland and running mate Allen G. Thurman of Ohio won the popular election by 95,713 votes. President Cleveland, however, was not re-elected because he lost the electoral college vote by 65 votes. Instead Benjamin Harrison, former senator from Indiana and the Grandson of President William Henry Harrison, was elected as the 23rd President of the United States.
Today a President must win 270 electoral votes, a majority, to become President. If no candidate wins a majority of electoral votes, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution provides for Presidential election by the House of Representatives with each State delegation receiving one vote. Twice in our history, the House of Representatives has chosen the President -- Thomas Jefferson's election in 1801 and John Quincy Adams' election in 1825.
The first constitutional crisis occurred when Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr received the same number of electoral votes. Even though they were both Republicans and Jefferson was chosen as the Presidential candidate and Burr as the Vice Presidential candidate, it took the House of Representatives 36 successive ballots to finally elect Thomas Jefferson as President. Twenty-four years later, again no candidate received a 131 vote majority of electoral votes needed to become President. In this case, the House of Representatives voted for John Quincy Adams over Andrew Jackson and William H. Crawford on the first ballot.
These instances in our political history remind us of the important role that the Electoral College plays in electing a President. Few voters know that the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) is the repository for essential evidence that documents the rights of American citizens, the actions of Federal officials and the national experience. A little known function of NARA, however, is the administration of the Electoral College by the Office of the Federal Register. As part of the documentation of the rights of American citizens, the Federal Register plays a key role in ensuring that the complicated and sometimes confusing steps in the electoral process are followed exactly.
The Electoral College was devised by the founding fathers as a compromise between the election of a President by popular vote and by the Congress. The College currently consists of 538 electors -- based on the total number of Representatives and Senators, plus three District of Columbia electors. U.S. territories are not represented in the College. The electors are a popularly elected body chosen by the states and the District of Columbia on the day of the general election
(November 2nd). The slate of electors for the Presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes is recorded on a Certificate of Ascertainment.
Rather than directly voting for the President and Vice President, United States citizens cast votes for electors. Electors are technically free to vote for anyone eligible to be President, but in practice pledge to vote for specific candidates and voters cast ballots for favored presidential and vice presidential candidates by voting for correspondingly pledged electors. Most states allow voters to choose between statewide slates of electors pledged to vote for the presidential and vice presidential tickets of various parties; the ticket that receives the most votes statewide 'wins' all of the votes cast by electors from that state. U.S. presidential campaigns concentrate on winning the popular vote in a combination of states that choose a majority of the electors, rather than campaigning to win the most votes nationally.
Each elector casts one vote for President and one vote for Vice President. In order to be elected, a candidate must have a majority (at least 270) of the electoral votes cast for that office. Should no candidate for President win a majority of the electoral votes, the choice is referred to the House of Representatives. Should no candidate for Vice President possess a majority of the electoral votes, the choice is given to the Senate.
The next step is for the electors in each State to meet to cast their votes (this year it will be on December 15th). Certificates of Vote are prepared listing all persons voted for as President and as Vice President and the number of electors voting for each candidate.
NARA plays an important role in educating the states regarding their responsibilities vis a vis the Electoral College. It also ensures the facial sufficiency of the Certificates of Ascertainment and the Certificates of Vote and controls the integrity of the Certificates by limiting the number of people handling the documents. It is responsible for transmitting two of the original Certificates of Ascertainment to the House and Senate and making one original available for public inspection at the Federal Register. Finally, NARA ensures that all 538 electoral votes are accounted for on the Certificates of Vote and are delivered to the Congress to be unsealed and counted on the date of the official tally
(January 6th).
After one year the Certificates of Ascertainment and the Certificates of Vote are placed in the permanent custody of NARA where they serve as an enduring testimonial to the strength and resilience of our political system.
God Bless America!!!
Training to be President
Week Ending 10/24/08:
During the closing days of this presidential campaign season, I can’t help but think about how the American people reach their conclusions regarding the candidates. During the first half of the 20th century trains became a big part of gaining public exposure. Remember, these were the days prior to easy airline connections, cable news, internet blogs and cell phones. Radio, almost non-existent TV and print newspapers were the only mediums to project a message, and all of those mass communications were controlled by a few media titans.
Trains became the way to traverse the country to see the people, making stops in both large metro areas as well as rural stations along the way. At one time, the private Pullman car on a special train was for the president what Air Force One is today, allowing him freedom to make important trips, campaign for re-election, and to do the nation's business wherever he was needed.
John Quincy Adams was the first to ride a train and Harry Truman became the last “railroad president”, although Bill Clinton decided to do a little barnstorming of his own and created several photo ops reminiscent of FDR. Truman’s successors learned to depend on the automobile and airplanes to travel.
The issues, too frequently, become a secondary consideration for many voters. When asked, these information-intolerant ballot casters have responded “I just like him.” Likeability, however, can be overcome by other qualities or circumstances, as demonstrated by Hoover, LBJ and Nixon. Some folks base their decision on a candidate’s military service. Examples such as Washington, Jackson, Grant, Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower come to mind. Others weigh public service as a critical experience factor, i.e., Adams, Van Buren, Buchanan , and Polk. Communicators carry the day as well with Reagan, FDR and Clinton being the best. How about academics: Jefferson, Madison and Wilson . Sometimes it’s just plain speaking “common sense” that resonates with the people: Lincoln, Coolidge, Truman and Carter. For others, it’s good looks and charisma, witness Kennedy and Pierce.
Picking a president should be serious business. It should represent the elevation of the candidate that wins the most electoral college votes. It should not be a subverted or corrupted outcome, where ineligible voters are allowed to cast an invalid claim, or where the candidates themselves, camouflage their real identities and agendas. I’d prefer each pretender, I mean, contender, to clearly define what they believe and let each voter decide based on a transparent platform.
Whoever wins, somewhere between 45 -49% of the electorate will be unhappy, a number much too large for the winner to claim an overwhelming mandate. The party that comes out on the short end of the stick will believe that their horse was robbed, cheated and disenfranchised and will have to bear the emotional scars for four long years. Let's hope that the political process has not degenerated to a point where large blocks of voters will not acknowledge the validity of the election results, when each state’s tally’s will be called into question and will resort in lawlessness and anarchy.
During the closing days of this presidential campaign season, I can’t help but think about how the American people reach their conclusions regarding the candidates. During the first half of the 20th century trains became a big part of gaining public exposure. Remember, these were the days prior to easy airline connections, cable news, internet blogs and cell phones. Radio, almost non-existent TV and print newspapers were the only mediums to project a message, and all of those mass communications were controlled by a few media titans.
Trains became the way to traverse the country to see the people, making stops in both large metro areas as well as rural stations along the way. At one time, the private Pullman car on a special train was for the president what Air Force One is today, allowing him freedom to make important trips, campaign for re-election, and to do the nation's business wherever he was needed.
John Quincy Adams was the first to ride a train and Harry Truman became the last “railroad president”, although Bill Clinton decided to do a little barnstorming of his own and created several photo ops reminiscent of FDR. Truman’s successors learned to depend on the automobile and airplanes to travel.
The issues, too frequently, become a secondary consideration for many voters. When asked, these information-intolerant ballot casters have responded “I just like him.” Likeability, however, can be overcome by other qualities or circumstances, as demonstrated by Hoover, LBJ and Nixon. Some folks base their decision on a candidate’s military service. Examples such as Washington, Jackson, Grant, Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower come to mind. Others weigh public service as a critical experience factor, i.e., Adams, Van Buren, Buchanan , and Polk. Communicators carry the day as well with Reagan, FDR and Clinton being the best. How about academics: Jefferson, Madison and Wilson . Sometimes it’s just plain speaking “common sense” that resonates with the people: Lincoln, Coolidge, Truman and Carter. For others, it’s good looks and charisma, witness Kennedy and Pierce.
Picking a president should be serious business. It should represent the elevation of the candidate that wins the most electoral college votes. It should not be a subverted or corrupted outcome, where ineligible voters are allowed to cast an invalid claim, or where the candidates themselves, camouflage their real identities and agendas. I’d prefer each pretender, I mean, contender, to clearly define what they believe and let each voter decide based on a transparent platform.
Whoever wins, somewhere between 45 -49% of the electorate will be unhappy, a number much too large for the winner to claim an overwhelming mandate. The party that comes out on the short end of the stick will believe that their horse was robbed, cheated and disenfranchised and will have to bear the emotional scars for four long years. Let's hope that the political process has not degenerated to a point where large blocks of voters will not acknowledge the validity of the election results, when each state’s tally’s will be called into question and will resort in lawlessness and anarchy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)