Palestine on the mind

I have been going to the Speaker Series from Calvin College (via satellite of course) this January. There have been some very interesting topics. I go partly to avoid driving home in traffic and to get some intellectual speaking that is a bit different from simply watching the news. I quite enjoyed listening to the warden from a penitentiary in Louisiana and the story of a survivor of the holocaust in Rwanda. (and the guy who was totally for Free Enterprise and entrepreneurship vs statism. but given where I live I might have been the only person in the room who appreciated him.) A number of the these topics are available online still if you are curious. . .

Today was the final speaker – Archbishop Elias Chacour, a Palestinian Archbishop in Israel. He was actually rather funny and cracked quite a few jokes. While I did miss some of his points, mainly because when he started touting how our country had done such a great thing electing a former “slave” race to the president (please don’t quote me exactly on that one, but that was the basic jist of it) I quickly began searching online for how Palestinians feel about Obama. Because obviously this guy is anti “W”. He actually made reference to George Senior and seemed to almost like him, but did not like the younger. Anytime a topic goes here and I have the chance I will do some searching and reading, and in this case since I was in the back room with my iPhone I decided to search. What I found was an interesting article from this week regarding Obama and the Middle East.

Highlights (and things I was not totally aware of) being:

Among the factors that made the first 12 months of Obama’s presidency better for peace prospects (for those of us who want a two-state solution) than previous years:
* There was less violence both between Israelis and Palestinians, and between Palestinians and Palestinians, than there has been for years.
* 2009 was the first year without any successful suicide bombs against Israel for a long time.
* The Palestinian security forces in the West Bank have finally started to behave as a security force rather than as a terrorist group.
* There was strong economic growth in both Israel and the Palestinian territories relative to most of the rest of the world, for which 2009 was a bleak year.
* A Likud leader recognized the principle of an independent Palestinian state.
* Benjamin Netanyahu made the most sweeping freeze on Israeli settlement building in the West Bank since 1967.

- from National Post

Also states that Obama to be the most naïve president regarding foreign policy, which I would tend to agree with. Not only naïve but unpatriotic. So the United State is starting to see that he is not getting things done, how long will it take for the approval rating of the rest of the world to follow suit . . . time will tell.

Its Not About Us is it?

Out of hiding

I admit it. I have been avoiding all things political. Well, not really. I have been working with a few groups on some new conservative websites – GippersList – think conservative Craigslist, doing business with like-minded folks. Cool Conservative Gear – some feminine pretty conservative apparel, and a few other random things. I manage to get myself involved in lots of things (have trouble saying NO) and my current situation has me working on the yearbook at my children’s school AND 1/2 of the book is due February 1st. Got to love crunch time.

I was thoroughly excited by the Scott Brown win and do believe that regardless of what cloud the White House has their collective heads in, this seat in Massachusetts going to a Republican was not a referendum supporting the Obama agenda. It was in fact the polar opposite. Listening to Obama and his toy puppet Gibbs talk about how this vote was really supporting the change Obama wants when clearly Brown campaigned against not for all of these policies. But I digress . .  I am very excited to see where it goes with mid-term elections and am looking forward to seeing sweeping Republican wins across the country. While perusing the blogosphere yesterday I read this little article that quotes Obama as suggesting the reason that this will not happen during his term in office as it did to Clinton is 1994 is simply because – “‘Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.’ So apparently Obama’s head is getting a little inflated these days . . . (the article is an interesting little read about the 1994 loss of mid-term elections and some commentary by Senator Berry – I quite enjoyed it)

My other blog read yesterday was regarding the potential for subversion of the legislative process by the current Democrats to pass the Health Care bill before seating Brown to get it done. I am not saying that they are doing this, simply that it is not something I would put past the untrustworthy souls that seem to be the ones ramming the bill through the hardest. And should they actually do this, it would be a very scary thought because they would be circumventing the actual procedural way that our laws govern these types of things. Curious. Personally I hope they seat Scott Brown and throw the Health Care Bill as it is away. Spend more time actually trying to create jobs instead of rewording what the stimulus bill did not do so that the White House can pretend that they actually have affected the employment numbers, when in reality they have had little to no impact on them. But again all smoke and mirrors.

See you soon and hopefully more regularly.

Halloween in Chicago

My favorite conservative poetess is back once again. This time she takes a look at redistribution of the wealth and Halloween. Amazing the insight and application that can come from such a simple analogy. Hats off to you once again Ms. DuBois! Here it is . . .

Halloween in Chicago

( By Katy Zastrow DuBois)

It was Halloween night
We just had to go out
I was taking my daughter
We were running about

We were hitting the houses
At a very good pace
To be first at the door
Turned into a race

Each person who answered
Was dressed pretty cool
There were Witches and Goblins
Vampires and Ghouls

At the last house we went to
The guy was a kook!
He wasn’t dressed up
As a monster or spook

This house in Chicago
Appeared wealthy, and more
As bad luck would have it
Barack answered the door

He was dressed as ‘The Grinch’
Not a Ghost or Black Cat
” OH CRAP! I cried out-
” It’s THE Democrat! “

He eyed my kid’s costume
He checked out her loot
His demeanor alone
Showed he was quite the snoot!

He snatched back his bowl
Before she got candy
With ‘moral indignation’
He thought he was dandy

Oh, the spittle he spewed!
As he said in a huff
” I see by your bag
That you have quite enough”

He quickly leaned over
And set down his bowl
Then he reached in HER bag
I swear, what a Troll!

He snatched a big handful
And claimed ( full of glee )
” There are kids more deserving-
Just look- you will see! “

” Some folks do not work
Who cares if they’re lazy
You owe it to share”
( Can someone say CRAZY? )

“Some kids have less candy,
Or they won’t trick-or-treat
So we’ll give it to them
Oh, isn’t this neat? “

And before we could blink
He stepped back, slammed the door
I guess we were lucky
He didn’t take more!

As we stepped off the porch
We saw a sign in the yard
Can you guess what it said?
( No, this isn’t too hard! )

“HOPE and CHANGE” was his sign
And I wasn’t surprised
With his ‘redistribution’
That much, I’d surmised

I went back there much later
I had one final goal
Tucked under each arm
Was a toilet paper roll……..

What to say to Obama ?
Because of that night?
It’s: “Don’t mess America
We are up for the fight”

“Don’t mess with our Country
You Dem’s have gone wild
Don’t mess with our Health Care
Don’t mess with my child!”

“Don’t ruin her future
Don’t leave her more debt
Quit taking HER CANDY
Or this, you’ll regret!”

” For next year is coming
Your lap dogs will be OUT
And YOU’LL get a taste
Of what CHANGE is about “

” We”ll go after your Congress
Your Senators too
Without most of them
You’ll be ‘deep in the stew’ “

” This Country will rally
Before it’s destroyed
WE’LL be back in three years
And YOU’LL be unemployed!!!! “

A Seussical Take on Cap and Trade

You know I always love a good poem about politics. Here is another one sure to please!

“ Uncle-Sam-I-Am “

By Katy Zastrow DuBois

“Cap and Trade, Cap and Trade
Don’t you like the deals I’ve made?
I’m Obama, yes I am
And I’m your brand new Uncle Sam”
( WE’RE THE PEOPLE! Yes we are!
You haven’t listened much, so far! )
Cap and Trade, Cap and Trade
I do not like the deals you’ve made
I think they’re all just Crap and Scam
I do not like them Uncle Sam

“Don’t you want less green-house gas?
Don’t you want Health Care to pass?
Don’t you want to go all ‘green’?
Don’t you like what all you’ve seen?
Fund my programs, YES WE CAN
Trust me- I’m your Uncle Sam”
The gas this will effect so far
Is how much I’ll pay to drive my car!
Funding with the Health Care Bill
Will cost the working stiffs more still!
I do not want to fund your stuff
Of you, I think we’ve had enough!
I think it’s all just Crap and Scam
I do not trust you, Uncle Sam

“Would you, could you, love new jobs?
Don’t worry who it really robs!
You didn’t like my ‘Green Jobs Czar’
I’ve tried to CHANGE it all so far!
Don’t you BELIEVE it’s not a scam?
Don’t you have HOPE in Uncle Sam?”
Just who is it you want to please?
The new jobs will go overseas!
The jobs will move from higher tax
Domestic workers get the ax!
I BELIEVE you’ll put us in a jam
I think you’re HOPELESS, Uncle Sam!

“Try not to be Rejectionists!
You sound just like Protectionists!
You need to have a ‘global view’
So what if all this hurts a few?
Why all the fuss? Why give a damn?
I know what’s best, I’m Uncle Sam!”
You think you have a ‘global view‘?
WE’RE on this ‘globe‘, it hurts us too!
You’ll cost us all and make it hard
You’re crapping in your own back yard!
You took an oath- What does that mean?
Not very much, from what we’ve seen
But we have figured out the score
You push for power-you want more
It’s obvious you won’t relent
Until you have big government
You say it’s just the need for ‘green’?
So get rid of your limousine!
If you were so involved with that
You’d cut down your own thermostat!
And let us not too soon forget
The gas to fly Pelosi’s jet-
The cost for THAT will really soar
And yet you’ll burden us with more!
40 billion more in added tax
You think that we don’t know the facts?
YOU’VE GOT A PLAN! You’ve got it set!
You’re only racking up more debt!
Electric bills will go sky high
So this is how you’ll SHARE THE PIE?
And THOSE WHO ARE COMING UP BEHIND
Will pay the price, and they WILL mind
You really just want more control
You’ll dig us in a bigger hole!
You see, I am a realist
Who see’s that you’re a Socialist
Chavez! Obama! You’re just the same
But we will beat you at your game
For if we let you have your way
You’d have us be the USSA
But it’s still AMERICA! ( Last time I checked )
A country you have not yet wrecked!
Your legacy will never fade
If we get stuck with Cap and Trade
But you’re about your power and fame
As presidents go, you’re pretty lame
SO HEAR US LOUD! NO CRAP AND SCAM!
And we will fight this, Uncle Sam!

My favorite poet takes on Healthcare

“ Health Care, Health Care!

Get it while it’s hot!

Forced upon the populous

But on the Whitehouse, NOT! “

A Letter to Obama, The Congress, and The Senate:

( Thoughts on The Health Care Reform Bill! )

You say you know “ what’s best “ for them

Or what is best for me-

We working stiffs will pay it all,

While for the rest, it’s free!

You want to change our health care,

To accommodate a few-

The majority wants it’s private care,

The arrogance of you!

You think you’re slick, that we won’t know,

What all is in this Bill-

WE took the time to peak inside,

UNLIKE those on Capitol Hill!

Decisions made by health care Czars?

Our fate not up to us!

You wonder why at town halls meets,

There’s come up such a fuss!

Long waiting lists for treatment,

And no choice in Senior care?

Limits for the handicapped?

You think that THIS is fair?

Accessing all my bank accounts?

And forced enrollment plans?

Illegal’s get more benefits,

With no payment from their hands!

You’ll audit any business

Who won’t accept this health care scheme!

“ More tax , for they can pay it! “

Communistic, it would seem!

So now you want this Great Reform,

And opposition gone!

Why aren‘t you changing out your care?

Why aren’t YOU signing on?

Our movement is not “ Astroturf “

Our objections you resent?

What happened to Hillary screeching:

“ It’s patriotic to dissent ! “

You’ve kicked us out of gatherings

You want to squelch our voice

You try to ram this down our throats

To take away our choice

But woe to those who pass this Bill

I hope that THIS you’ll note:

Our one choice that will still remain

You’ll see it when we VOTE!

( Do you want the government deciding when you’re a senior to stop your health care options and mandate you go on ” end of life ” care? Do you want limited access to health care for special needs people, ie: Autistic, Downs Syndrome, etc….?　Do you want rationed health care? If not- copy this, email it, and KEEP IT GOING!!!- Katy )

Back for more. Finally. Letters #15-20

So I have been on a mental break these past couple weeks. So many stressful things put me in a crabby mood. So I took as much of a break as I could from all things stressful. But alas, I need to get back to reality. There are so many topics right now that I have some major opinions and strong feelings on, but for tonight I am going to continue on my Federalist Papers. I decided to read letters 15-20 and post at the same time since they are dealing with the same topic.

This grouping of letters deals with the issue, Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union.

At this point no one is in disagreement that the present national system was unable to protect the Union. Not even the ones who were against the Constitution argued the basic premise. The country was at the bottom of the barrel as far as how they were viewed by other countries. “We have neither troops, nor treasury, nor government”

None of the states individually could effectively regulate themselves. They needed a government to help settle internal disputes. Another objection is the fear that the government would ultimately be too powerful.

There was a great passage in letter 15 regarding government. Here it is for your reading pleasure:

Government implies the power of making laws. It is essential to the idea of a law that it be attended with a sanction; or, in other words, a penalty or punishment for disobedience. If there be no penalty annexed to disobedience, the resolutions or commands which pretend to be laws will, in fact, amount to nothing more than advice or recommendation. This penalty, whatever it may be, can only be inflicted in two ways; by the agency of the courts and ministers of justice, or by military force; by the coercion of the magistracy, or by the coercion of arms.”

I found this interesting given all of today’s politicians and celebrity figures who break the law and then do not pay the penalty. (ie. Geithner) It is true, laws should have consequences for all. But that was not really the main focus of the letters.

There was a great deal of historical background given into Grecian republics as well as German nations. All had strengths and weaknesses. Finally the author gives a history of the United Netherlands. All of this information was given to give historical background and precedent for setting up a national government and making the states into one Union. By studying societies of the past we can learn from their experience which provides truth and wisdom.

Revenue, Economy and the Union

I have to say I am finding reading these to be very interesting. Seeing how some of the things they said correlate to our country today is amazing. Timeless principles of government.

Letter 12 – The Utility of the Union in Respect to Revenue

This letter deals obviously with streams of revenue for the country both with taxes and with trade. – “A nation cannot long exist without revenue.”

Commerce is the most useful, productive source of income and has such become important in political arenas. All craftsmen and laborers look forward to the reward that comes from the purchase of their created items. It is suggested that as commerce flourishes, land value rises. We know that is true.

“The ability of a country to pay its taxes must always be proportioned in a great degree to the quantity of money in circulation and to the celerity with which it circulates. Commerce must render the payment of taxes easier and facilitate the requisite supplies to the treasury. Tax laws have in vain been multiplied; new methods to enforce the collection have in vain been tried; the public expectation has been uniformly disappointed, and the treasuries of the States have remained empty.”

If the states remained smaller Confederacies there would be competition within them in the issue of lowering duties levied to other countries. As a United States we would only guarding one territory for trade – the Atlantic. This would allow us to patrol our own shores and make sure that there were no rogue operators seeking to interfere with trade.

This line sounds curiously like a Fair Tax precursor – “Personal estate, from the difficulty of tracing it, cannot be subjected to large contributions by any other means than by taxes on consumption.”

Letter 13 – Advantage of the Union in Respect To Economy in Government

This is a shorter letter, dealing with costs of Government. If the states are united into one Union there will only be one civil budget to operate. If they remain individuals states/countries then the expenses would be unnecessarily multiplied. As each group would necessitate a government on the same scale as the one being proposed for the Union. On size and population of the smaller entities alone it would be easy to see how they would struggle to compete with larger states. “Nothing can be more evident than that the thirteen states will be able to support a national government better than one half, or one third, or any number less than the whole.” – With that said, I am sure they never had ANY idea we would get ourselves into the economic mess that our government now is.

Letter 14 – Objections to the Proposed Constitution from Extent of Territory Answered

We open here with again alluding to the differences between a democracy and a republic and confusion that complicates this. “In a democracy the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic they assemble and administer it by their represetnatives and agents. A democracy covers one small spot . A republic can cover a large region.” The limitations of a democracy are that it assembles in one spot. That has easily been done with all the 13 states being in attendance at gatherings. With all the mathematical calculations of the states at the time, the territory was about as large as some European countries, not even much larger than Germany. Poland, France, Spain, Great Britian all with sizes comparable or inferior still have to travel as far for their governmental meetings.

Here is an intersting tidbit – “First, It is to be remembered that the general government is not to be charge with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdicition is limited. Subordinate governments retain due authority and activity.”

Second, “the immediate object of the Constitution is to secure the union of the thirteen primitive states, and to add to them other states.”

Third, “intercourse through the Union will be facilitated by new improvements – roads, travel accommodations, navigation on water, canals.”

Fourth, “and more important is that as almost every State will on one side or other be a frontier.” Even if it would be difficult to get their representatives to the seat of the national government they would find it more troublesome to try and defend themselves against intruders.” As one Union there would be great benefit and great reward.

Ahoy there and why we need a Navy . . .

Letter 10 – A continuation of The Union as a Safeguard against Domestic Faction and Insurrection

As the title states, the letter deals with domestic faction. We are told that there are two ways to remove faction (Conflict within an organization or nation; internal dissension) -  one is to remove it cause; the other is to control its effects. Put another way is to destroy the liberties needed for existence or by giving all citizens the same opinions, passions, and interests.

Obviously removing liberty is not truly an option as it would make the situation worse in the first place. The second is not practical either. All men have their own ideas, passions and interests and it could not ever be assumed that they would have the same naturally. The differences are a natural occurrence that make us all individuals.

Since it is not possible to actually prevent or control faction, ways are suggested to control the effects. When the faction is a minority it could easily be dealth with by a regular vote. However when the faction is the majority the public under the law would be forced to do as they would vote.

Publius suggests that with these things in mind, a true democracy would never work in this situation. Instead a repulic, a government in which the scheme of representation takes place – has promise for what our country was seeking. Here are two specific ways that a republic would differ from a democracy.

1. The delegation of the government , in the republic is to a small number of citizens elected by the rest

2. The great number of citizens and greater sphere of country over which the republic may be extended.

Basically in the democracy there are less people choosing what will happen to all the citizens. In a republic there will be more representatives chosen by the citizens to help make decisions. This was an interesting line: As each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for the unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried. I don’t think our candidates have problems running vicious elections these days. That is the norm.

Essentially the thought was with the republic would be easy to keep running smoothly with proper, equal representation provided by the Constitution. So the whole point of the confusing long letter was that as a United States we would be more able to control the effects of faction within the country since there would be more representation in place to protect the citizens.

Letter 11: The Utility of the Union in Respect to Commercial Relation and a Navy

This letter deals with our ability to arrange commerce with other countries through maritime uses. By working with other countries we can establish our own trade arrangements and agreements making such arrangements beneficial to all, but especially to ourselves. Another topic would be the necessity of creating a federal navy. We would need a respectable maritime army to help protect us against the other two major countries.

An active commerce, an extensive navigation, a flourishing marine, would then be the offspring of moral and physical necessity.

Naval protection and maritime commerce were both necessary to the country. There was no real option. A larger country working together would be more able to succeed in both of these arenas as opposed to each smaller confederacies or states. Europe had long dominated the other countries and we have the opportunity to change that. “It belongs to us to vindicate the honor of the human race, and to teach the assuming brother moderation. Union will enable us to do this. Let Americans disdain to be the instruments of European greatness! Let the thirteen states, bound together in a strict and indissoluable Union, concur in erecting one great American system superior to the control of all transatlantic force or influence and able to dictate the terms of the connections between the old and the new world!”

I have to say these letters are still long and confusing. I am doing the best that I can to find interesting points in each letter. Overall I find the argument for a Union to make great sense. They are giving sufficient reasioning in my opinion that the states were better off as a United States.

No actual use for them

So today Obama lifted a ban on Embryonic Stem Cell research that was previously in place under President Bush. He stated the following . . .

“In recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values,” Obama said during the signing ceremony.  “In this case, I believe the two are not inconsistent. As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering. I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research – and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly.”

My quick question . . . How is this sound science when after nearly ten years of research, there are no approved treatments or human trials using embryonic stem cells. Science is a trial and error proposition. Life either is or isn’t. You can not play it both ways. Not to mention the promise of expanded funding. How many jobs is that going to create in today’s hurting marketplace? Not too many I think. In every argument for stem cells they say it can, it might, it may, perhaps, nothing gives a definitive. I have no problem with using cord blood harvested at birth, adult stem cells, or even if they happen to get stem cells from miscarried pregnancies – not from embryos created just for this purpose. There should be plenty of people willing to donate to help further this research.

I see this more as an opportunity to just take back anything and everything that Bush put into place as a matter of principle. Congressional Democrats are now gearing up to make it permanent and ensure that future presidents will be helpless to put research bans in place.