Commencement Speech

What follows in Neal Boortz's fictional commencement speech.  It is fictional only in the sense that it was never delivered as such, it was included in his book The Terrible Truth about Liberals and has been widely distributed in other mediums.  What follows is the text of his speech as well as some of my own commentary in italics.  Read it, enjoy it and pass it on!

I am honored by the invitation to address you on this august occasion. It's about time. Be warned, however, that I am not here to impress you; you'll have enough smoke blown your way today. And you can bet your tassels I'm not here to impress the faculty and administration.

You may not like much of what I have to say, and that's fine. You will remember it though. Especially after about 10 years out there in the real world. This, it goes without saying, does not apply to those of you who will seek your careers and your fortunes as government employees.

This gowned gaggle behind me is your faculty. You've heard the old saying that those who can - do. Those who can't - teach. That sounds deliciously insensitive. But there is often raw truth in insensitivity, just as you often find feel-good falsehoods and lies in compassion. Say good-bye to your faculty because now you are getting ready to go out there and do. These folks behind me are going to stay right here and teach.

By the way, just because you are leaving this place with a diploma doesn't mean the learning is over. When an FAA flight examiner handed me my private pilot's license many years ago, he said, 'Here, this is your ticket to learn.' The same can be said for your diploma. Believe me, the learning has just begun.

Now, I realize that most of you consider yourselves Liberals. In fact, you are probably very proud of your liberal views. You care so much. You feel so much. You want to help so much. After all, you're a compassionate and caring person, aren't you now? Well, isn't that just so extraordinarily special. Now, at this age, is as good a time as any to be a Liberal; as good a time as any to know absolutely everything. You have plenty of time, starting tomorrow, for the truth to set in. Over the next few years, as you begin to feel the cold breath of reality down your neck, things are going to start changing pretty fast .. including your own assessment of just how much you really know.

Okay, here we go.  I am so tired of the liberal/conservative thing because it can mean so many different things.  The way I like to look at it is liberal government vs. conservative government, that is BIG (liberal) vs SMALL (conservative) government. I know that people like to extend this to economic liberal/conservative or social liberal/conservative, however, I like to stick to the government piece for the most part.  Just because I am a conservative DOES NOT mean I hate homosexuals, non-christians, poor people or anybody else.  It only means I believe the government should be involved in as little as possible.  Oky day? Lets continue...

So here are the first assignments for your initial class in reality: Pay attention to the news, read newspapers, and listen to the words and phrases that proud Liberals use to promote their causes. Then compare the words of the left to the words and phrases you hear from those evil, heartless, greedy conservatives. From the Left you will hear "I feel." From the Right you will hear "I think." From the Liberals you will hear references to groups --The Blacks, The Poor, The Rich, The Disadvantaged, The Less Fortunate. From the Right you will hear references to individuals. On the Left you hear talk of group rights; on the Right, individual rights.

You are sitting there, right now, whoever you are and you know he's right! The argument against this is easy because you think John McCain is on the the right and he likes to use group politics too...John McCain is a politician interested in appealing to 50% +1 of the country...that is all...

That about sums it up, really: Liberals feel. Liberals care. They are pack animals whose identity is tied up in group dynamics. Conservatives and Libertarians think -- and, setting aside the theocracy crowd, their identity is centered on the individual.

Liberals feel that their favored groups, have enforceable rights to the property and services of productive individuals. Conservatives (and Libertarians, myself among them I might add) think that individuals have the right to protect their lives and their property from the plunder of the masses.

The right to protect their lives and their propert from the plunder of the masses...exactly.  We are guaranteed the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happyness (property)...this means the pursuit of OUR OWN life/liberty/happyness not that of others.  This is where nationalized healthcare = fail.  You cannot force free doctors to provide their services for free because you want them to, doctors are doctors because they GET PAID to do so! They may, out of the kindness of their hearts, provide their services at their discretion to those without financial resources, but that must ALWAYS remain their choice.  This (to me) extends to discirmination, if a business owner prefers not to serve certain groups, that is his right and his freedom. The beauty of the system is that all free people then have the right and freedom to not patronize his business and therefore the free economy takes care of the discriminatory problem. 

In college you developed a group mentality, but if you look closely at your diplomas you will see that they have your individual names on them. Not the name of your school mascot, or of your fraternity or sorority, butyourname. Your group identity is going away. Your recognition and appreciation of your individual identity starts now.

If, by the time you reach the age of 30, you do not consider yourself to be a libertarian or a conservative, rush right back here as quickly as you can and apply for a faculty position. These people will welcome you with open arms. They will welcome you, that is, so long as you haven't developed an individual identity. Once again you will have to be willing to sign on to the group mentality you embraced during the past four years.

Something is going to happen soon that is going to really open your eyes. You're going to actually get a full time job! You're also going to get a lifelong work partner. This partner isn't going to help you do your job. This partner is just going to sit back and wait for payday. This partner doesn't want to share in your effort, just your earnings.

Your new lifelong partner is actually an agent; an agent representing a strange and diverse group of people. An agent for every teenager with an illegitimate child. An agent for a research scientist who wanted to make some cash answering the age-old question of why monkeys grind their teeth. An agent for some poor aging hippie who considers herself to be a meaningful and talented artist ... but who just can't manage to sell any of her artwork on the open market.

Your new partner is an agent for every person with limited, if any, job skills; for every person who ignored all offered educational opportunities, dreaming of nothing more than a job at City Hall. An agent for tin-horn dictators in fancy military uniforms grasping for American foreign aid. An agent for multi-million-dollar companies who want someone else to pay for their overseas advertising. An agent for everybody who wants to use the unimaginable power of this agent's for their personal enrichment and benefit.

That agent is our wonderful, caring, compassionate, oppressive Imperial Federal Government. Believe me, you will be awed by the unimaginable power this agent has. Power that you do not have. A power that no individual has, will have or should have. This agent has the legal power to use force – deadly force – to accomplish its goals.

You have no choice here. Your new friend is just going to walk up to you, introduce itself rather gruffly, hand you a few forms to fill out, and move right on in. Say hello to your own personal one ton gorilla with a gun. It will sleep anywhere it wants to.

Government is inherently a bad thing! The founders knew this and provided ways out as well as lots of limitations on government, limitations that we know longer hold the government too.  The second ammendment (along with most of the bill of rights) are intended as protections AGAINST the government.  The constitution itself is all about limiting the government not expanding it...people have forgot this and allowed (begged for) the government in their everyday lives! This (the above) is the result, CONGRATULATIONS!

Now, let me tell you, this agent is not cheap. As you become successful it will seize about 40% of everything you earn. And no, I'm sorry, there just isn't any way you can fire this agent of plunder, and you can't decrease it's share of your income. That power rests with him, not you.

So, here I am saying negative things to you about government. Well, be clear on this: It is not wrong to distrust government. It is not wrong to fear government. In certain cases it is not even wrong to despise government for government is inherently evil. Oh yes, I know it's a necessary evil, but it is dangerous nonetheless ... somewhat like a drug. Just as a drug that in the proper dosage can save your life, an overdose of government can be fatal.

Now – let's address a few things that have been crammed into your minds at this university. There are some ideas you need to expunge as soon as possible. These ideas may work well in academic environment, but they fail miserably out there in the real world.

First – that favorite buzz word of the media, government and academia: Diversity!

You have been taught that the real value of any group of people - be it a social group, an employee group, a management group, whatever - is based on diversity. This is a favored liberal ideal because diversity is based not on an individual's abilities or character, but on a person's identity and status as a member of a group. Yes – it's that liberal group identity thing again.

Within the great diversity movement group identification - be it racial, gender based, or some other minority status - means more than the individual's integrity, character or other qualifications.

Brace yourself. You are about to move from this academic atmosphere where diversity rules, to a workplace and a culture where individual achievement and excellence actually count. No matter what your professors have taught you over the last four years, you are about to learn that diversity is absolutely no replacement for excellence, ability, and individual hard work.

If only this was true, the introduction of Affirmative Action in so many places has changed the emphasis right to groups instead of personal worth. The fact that you are a minority or have faced some sort of personal challenge is begining to mean more than hard work, superior intellect and personal worth.  All Men are CREATED equal...the truth is they don't stay that way, we all make choices everyday to increase/decrease our value to society.  Those with low social value hate this fact and love to call those with high social value all sorts of names and accuse them of hate.  Why can't we just face the facts of life?

From this day on every single time you hear the word "diversity" you can rest assured that there is someone close by who is determined to rob you of every vestige of individuality you possess.

We also need to address this thing you seem to have about "rights." We have witnessed an obscene explosion of so-called "rights" in the last few decades, usually emanating from college campuses.

You know the mantra: You have the right to a job. The right to a place to live. The right to a living wage. The right to health care. The right to an education. You probably even have your own pet right - the right to a Beemer, for instance, or the right to have someone else provide for that child you plan on downloading in a year or so.

Forget it. Forget those rights! I'll tell you what your rights are! You have a right to live free, and to whatever wealth you are able to produce with your labor. I'll also tell you have no right to any portion of the life or labor of another.

You may think, for instance, that you have a right to health care. After all, Hillary said so, didn't she? But you cannot receive health care unless some doctor or health practitioner surrenders some of his time - his life - to you. He may be willing to do this for compensation, but that's his choice. You have no "right" to his time or property. You have no right to his or any other person's life or to any portion thereof.

You may also think you have some "right" to a job; a job with a living wage, whatever that is. Do you mean to tell me that you have a right to force your services on another person, and then the right to demand that this person compensate you with their money? I can't wait for you to point that one out for me in our Constitution. I sure would like to be a fly on the wall when some urban outdoorsmen (that would be "homeless person" for those of you who don't want to give these less fortunate people a romantic and adventurous title) came to you and demanded his job and your money.

Nobody would go for Bob the hobo walking into your home and demanding work, $7.00/hr, and health benefits! Nobody! This is EXACTLY what minimum wage and other job related legislation demands! If you wan to work then develop a skill and expect to be paid the MARKET VALUE of that skill.  I'm (not) sorry that flipping a burger at McDs doesn't provide the same value as say the guy that runs in and drags your butt out of your burning home, but thats just the way it is (or should be).

The people who have been telling you about all the rights you have are simply exercising one of theirs - the right to be imbeciles. Their being imbeciles didn't cost anyone else either property or time. It's their right, and they exercise it brilliantly.

By the way, did you catch my use of the phrase "less fortunate" a bit ago when I was talking about the urban outdoorsmen? That phrase is a favorite of the Left. Think about it, and you'll understand why.

To imply that one person is homeless, destitute, dirty, drunk, spaced out on drugs, unemployable, and generally miserable because he is "less fortunate" is to imply that a successful person - one with a job, a home and a future - is in that position because he or she was "fortunate." The dictionary says that fortunate means "having derived good from an unexpected place." There is nothing unexpected about deriving good from hard work. There is also nothing unexpected about deriving misery from choosing drugs, alcohol, and the street instead of education and personal responsibility.

There SHOULD BE nothing unexpected about acting like a loser and then becoming a loser, but somehow it is! Of course we all know druggies had no choice but to become druggies and homeless bums had no other choice because all the greedy white rich people took all the money and wouldn't give them a job where they could sit back, smoke crack, whack off to a nice porno, eat a fat greasy burger and go home to repeat the cycle...I know life is so freaking unfair eh?

If the Left can create the common perception that success and failure are simple matters of "fortune" or "luck," then it is easy to promote and justify their various income redistribution schemes. After all, we are just evening out the odds a little bit, aren't we?

This "success equals luck" idea the liberals like to push is seen everywhere. Democratic presidential candidate Richard Gephardt refers to high-achievers as "people who have won life's lottery." He wants you to believe they are making the big bucks because they are lucky; all they did was buy the right lottery ticket. What an insult this is to the man or woman who works that 60 hour week to provide for a family.

It's not luck, my friends. It's choice. One of the greatest lessons I ever learned was in a book by Og Mandino, entitled "The Greatest Secret in the World." The lesson? Very simple: "Use wisely your power of choice."

That bum sitting on a heating grate, smelling like a wharf rat? He's there by choice. He is there because of the sum total of the choices he has made in his life. This truism is absolutely the hardest thing for some people to accept, especially those who consider themselves to be victims of something or other - victims of discrimination, bad luck, the system, capitalism, whatever. After all, nobody really wants to accept the blame for his or her position in life. Not when it is so much easier to point and say, "Look! He did this to me!" than it is to look into a mirror and say, "You S.O.B.! You did this to me!"

The key to accepting responsibility for your life is to accept the fact that your choices, every one of them, are leading you inexorably to either success or failure, however you define those terms.

This is why people think conservatives are evil hateful people...how uncaring and unfeeling that we blame the homeless guy for being homeless or the drug dealer in LA for being a drug dealer.  He was born into that bad situation and he didn't have a choice! The truth is he did have a choice, his parents did have a choice and he continues to have a choice. He is the only one holding himself back, making excuses for himself.  Worse than that thought is that YOU and YOUR government are standing there holding his hand and allowing him to continue his (currently) worthless lifestyle.  Again, congratulations!

Some of the choices are obvious: Whether or not to stay in school. Whether or not to get pregnant. Whether or not to hit the bottle. Whether or not to keep this job you hate until you get another better-paying job. Whether or not to save some of your money, or saddle yourself with huge payments for that new car.

Some of the choices are seemingly insignificant: Whom to go to the movies with. Whose car to ride home in. Whether to watch the tube tonight, or read a book on investing. But, and you can be sure of this, each choice counts. Each choice is a building block - some large, some small. But each one is a part of the structure of your life. If you make the right choices, or if you make more right choices than wrong ones, something absolutely terrible may happen to you. Something unthinkable. You, my friend, could become one of the hated, the evil, the ugly, the feared, the filthy, the successful, the rich.

Quite a few people have followed that tragic path.

The rich basically serve two purposes in this country. First, they provide the investments, the investment capital, and the brains for the formation of new businesses. Businesses that hire people. Businesses that send millions of paychecks home each week to the un-rich.

Second, the rich are a wonderful object of ridicule, distrust, and hatred. Few things are more valuable to a politician than the envy most Americans feel for the evil rich.

Envy is a powerful emotion. Even more powerful than the emotional minefield that surrounded Bill Clinton when he reviewed his last batch of White House interns. Politicians use envy to get votes and power. And they keep that power by promising the envious that the envied will be punished: "The rich will pay their fair share of taxes if I have anything to do with it.'

The truth is that the top 10% of income earners in this country pays almost 50% of all income taxes collected. I shudder to think what these job producers would be paying if our tax system were any more "fair."

Please read that again...and after that one more time...and then please stop whining about being a "tax-paying American" more than likely if you're reading my blog you're not much of a taxpayer...I know i'm not (yet)

You have heard, no doubt, that in America the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Interestingly enough, our government's own numbers show that many of the poor actually get richer, and that quite a few of the rich actually get poorer. But for the rich who do actually get richer, and the poor who remain poor ... there's an explanation -- a reason. The rich, you see, keep doing the things that make them rich; while the poor keep doing the things that make them poor.

The rich keep doing the things that make them rich, and the poor the things that make them poor...imagine that....

Speaking of the poor, during your adult life you are going to hear an endless string of politicians bemoaning the plight of the poor in America. So, you need to know that under our government's definition of "poor" you can have a $5 million net worth, a $300,000 home and a new $90,000 Mercedes, all completely paid for. You can also have a maid, cook, and valet, and $1 million in your checking account, and you can still be officially defined by our government as "living in poverty." Now there's something you haven't seen on the evening news.

How does the government pull this one off? Very simple, really. To determine whether or not some poor soul is "living in poverty," the government measures one thing -- just one thing. Income. It doesn't matter one bit how much you have, how much you own, how many cars you drive or how big they are, whether or not your pool is heated, whether you winter in Aspen and spend the summers in the Bahamas, or how much is in your savings account. It only matters how much income you claim in that particular year. This means that if you take a one-year leave of absence from your high-paying job and decide to live off the money in your savings and checking accounts while you write the next great American novel, the government says you are 'living in poverty."

This isn't exactly what you had in mind when you heard these gloomy statistics, is it?

Of course it isn't, the entire point of statisitics used by most politicians is to confuse you and make themselves look smart.  People love to hear numbers and figures and almost nobody checks out the factual basis for the numbers...and of course we all know what being poor means right?

Do you need more convincing? Try this. The government's own statistics show that people who are said to be "living in poverty" spend more than $1.50 for each dollar of income they claim. Something is a bit fishy here. just remember all this the next time Peter Jennings puffs up and tells you about some hideous new poverty statistics.

Poof the entire reason I believe in a consumption tax rather than a production (income) tax.  The people who make America are the producers, the worst consumers (largely) are poor idiots who don't have a clue how to save and (temporarily) wealthy actors who provide nothing! Tax that consumption ALL OF IT...that'll pay for all your governments pet projects!

And please remember this: The average person in this country described as "poor" has a higher standard of living than the average European. Not the average "poor" European, the average European.

Why has the government concocted this phony poverty scam? Because the government needs an excuse to grow and to expand its social welfare programs, which translates into an expansion of its power. If the government can convince you, in all your compassion,that the number of "poor" is increasing, it will have all the excuse it needs to sway an electorate suffering from the advanced stages of Obsessive-Compulsive Compassion Disorder.

Well, it looks like I'm about to be given the hook. The faculty looks a little angry. I'll bet they've already changed their minds about that honorary degree I was going to get.That's OK, though. I still have my Ph.D. in Insensitivity from the Neal Boortz Institute for Insensitivity Training. I learned that, in short, sensitivity sucks. It's a trap. Think about it - the truth knows no sensitivity. Life can be insensitive. Wallow too much in sensitivity and you'll be unable to deal with life, or the truth. So, get over it.

Now, before the dean has me shackled and hauled off, I have a few random thoughts.

You need to register to vote, unless you are on welfare. If you are living off the efforts of others, please do us the favor of sitting down and shutting up until you are on your own again. To the welfare class I say that we're taking care of you we would appreciate if if you would just stay out of our way so we can get the job done.

Exactly! You want to be a worthless slob thats fine, but please don't show up on that cold morning in November to counter my vote. I promise I know whats best and we'll make sure you're well cared for.

When you do vote, your votes for the House and the Senate are more important than your vote for president. The House controls the purse strings, so concentrate your awareness there.

Are you paying attention? The president doesn't have much to do with the laws...read the constitution for more information...or read it just because!

Liars cannot be trusted, even when the liar is the president of the United States. If someone can't deal honestly with you, send them packing.

Don't bow to the temptation to use the government as an instrument of plunder. If it is wrong for you to take money from someone else who earned it -- to take their money by force for your own needs -- then it is certainly just as wrong for you to demand that the government step forward and do this dirty work for you.

Don't look in other people's pockets. You have no business there. What they earn is theirs. What your earn is yours. Keep it that way. Nobody owes you anything, except to respect your privacy and your rights, and leave you the hell alone.

Speaking of earning, the revered 40-hour workweek is for losers. Forty hours should be considered the minimum, not the maximum. You don't see highly successful people clocking out of the office every afternoon at five. The losers are the ones caught up in that afternoon rush hour. The winners drive home in the dark.

Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection.

Finally (and aren't you glad to hear that word), as Og Mandino wrote,

1. Proclaim your rarity. Each of you is a rare and unique human being.

2. Use wisely your power of choice.

3. Go the extra mile ... drive home in the dark.

Oh, and put off buying a television set as long as you can.

Now, if you have any idea at all what's good for you, you will get the hell out of here and never come back.

Class dismissed.

I shortened my comments at the end as my time here in my box is fading...please forward this to everyone you can think of. Post it in your blogs, bulleteins or other forums you visit. This is terribly important!

On the Issues - Ethics/Civil Rights

Greetings again! This blog series promises to be quite lenghty so please bear with me. I will create a seperate entry for each of the issues we will cover. The issues are The Economy, Energy Policy, National Security/Immigration, Foreign policy/Iraq, Healthcare, Education, Ethics/Civil Rights.The following information in bold is take directly from the candidates web pages. I have elected not to name the candidates until a seperate blog to be presented after all of the others, not that the enlightened among us won't be able to figure it out. All that said lets begin with the issues, Ethics/Civil Rights:

Candidate 1: Allowing governments, at any level, to confiscate property without a compelling justification represents a serious attack on fundamental liberty. Government's most basic duty is to protect individual rights, including that of private property ownership, not to diminish them.n blood, deserve our support both during their time of duty and thereafter.

Fundamental right to Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happyness (AKA property). Do you know why they struck out property there? They didn't want the slave owners to claim a fundamental right to their "property" (slaves). Darn hateful folks huh?

The Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal. Government should make no law that discriminates based on race, religion, sexuality or any other personal characteristic. Government laws should respect each person as an individual and treat them equally as such.

ALL men are CREATED equal emphasis needed, we are indeed created equal it's what we choose to do with that, that makes all the difference in the world. Government laws should be completely blind to all the prejudices that we hold be they based upon personal morality, religion, tradition or practice.

Regardless of whether one supports or opposes same sex marriage, the decision to recognize such unions ought to be made by each state rather than imposed as a one-size-fits-all mandate by the federal government. Any federal laws that prevent states from determining their own standards for marriage should be repealed; the federal government should not define marriage, whether by statute or constitutional amendment.

The federal gov't was never given power over marriage, this is Gods realm and His union. That being said you don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it and you don't have to live it...but they have the right to if that is what their morality compels them to do and you have no right to tell them otherwise.

Candidate 2: There is no more fundamental American right than the right to vote. Before the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act, barriers such as literacy tests, poll taxes and property requirements disenfranchised many Americans, especially minorities. More than 40 years later, there are still numerous obstacles to ensuring that every citizen has the ability to vote.

The right to vote is so fundamental to BO because its the uneducated, poor masses who hold the majority in America votership and they are the ones who will get him elected. My thoughts? Simple make the ballot write-in only! Only legible and correctly spelled names are acceptable FIRST AND LAST. That'll eliminate a surprising number of idiots! Not every citizen has the ability to vote, many of them have not excercised their brain muscle enough to deserve it.

Throughout his political career, Barack Obama has been a leader in fighting for open and honest government. As a U.S. Senator, he has spearheaded the effort to clean up Washington in the wake of the Jack Abramoff scandal. In a politically charged election year, Obama acknowledged that corruption was a problem that plagued both political parties. He subsequently enlisted the help of Republican allies to limit lobbyist influence, shine sunlight into the earmarks process and promote open government.

Isn't he so Speshal?


In June of 2006, Senator Obama delivered what was called the most important speech on religion and politics in 40 years. Speaking before an evangelical audience, Senator Obama candidly discussed his own religious conversion and doubts, and the need for a deeper, more substantive discussion about the role of faith in American life.

What was called the most important speech on religion and politics in 40 years? Ok i'm not a kook but this is where those people who claim BO as Antichrist start to make sense. Who the heck do you think started that claimof the most important speech on religion other than his own campaign. And if the most important religious speech is all about his own conversion and doubts....well that ought to give any reasonable person pause!

Candidate 3: John McCain believes that a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" must remain ever faithful to that noble charge. America needs leadership devoted to the public interest, not the special interest, and a government that fulfills its duties with unfailing integrity, accountability, and common sense. Those who serve in positions of public trust have a patriotic duty to serve the national interest with integrity and accountability, to conduct ourselves in a manner worthy of the people we are privileged to serve.

John McCain unwittingly endorses Bob Barr (candidate 1) here. Of the people, by the people and for the people. Let me try one more here:

...whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the RIGHT of the people to alter or to abolish it and to institute a new government laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer...than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. BUT WHEN A LONG TRAIN OF ABUSES AND USURPATIONS PURSUING INVARIABLY THE SAME OBJECT EVINCES A DESIGN TO REDUCE THEM UNDER ABSOLUTE DEPOTISM IS IS THEIR RIGHT IT IS THEIR DUTY TO THROW OFF SUCH GOVERNMENT AND TO PROVIDE NEW GUARDS FOR THEIR FUTURE SECURITY...

John McCain believes that one of the greatest threats to our liberty and the Constitutional framework that safeguards our freedoms are willful judges who usurp the role of the people and their representatives and legislate from the bench. As President, John McCain will nominate judges who understand that their role is to faithfully apply the law as written, not impose their opinions through judicial fiat.

Indeed and If Only...

During more than five years as a POW in Vietnam, John McCain experienced the worst assaults on human dignity imaginable. Yet each day he also saw in his fellow prisoners the power of human compassion and the will to prevail against unimaginable evil. It is this experience, and a life dedicated to public service, that has imbued in John McCain a fundamental commitment to the protection of human dignity that will shape his presidency.


Take from that, that which you will.

From here the choice is very readily yours. I will be writing more blogs in the future about more issues. My choice for president is Bob Barr the Libertarian candidate for President of the United States of America. I realize he doesn't have a chance but I must vote my conscience as must you. I urge you to read and to learn and to study and to vote informed and knowledgable. I hope this series has been helpful to you and I look forward tohearing from more of you who agree/disagree with me. Until next time!

On the Issues - Education

Greetings again! This blog series promises to be quite lenghty so please bear with me. I will create a seperate entry for each of the issues we will cover. The issues are The Economy, Energy Policy, National Security/Immigration, Foreign policy/Iraq, Healthcare, Education, Ethics/Civil Rights.The following information in bold is take directly from the candidates web pages. I have elected not to name the candidates until a seperate blog to be presented after all of the others, not that the enlightened among us won't be able to figure it out. All that said lets begin with the issues, Education:

Easy cheesy, I predict EVERYONE favors education!

Candidate 1: School reform starts by shifting control over education from government to parents. We must abolish the Department of Education, eliminate federal grants and regulations, and begin moving power back to the states and local communities. States should consider tax credits or deductions for parents who home school or send their children to private schools. Public schools should be managed locally, increasing accountability and parental involvement.

Candidate 2: Throughout America's history, education has been the vehicle for social and economic mobility, giving hope and opportunity to millions of young people. Our schools must prepare students not only to meet the demands of the global economy, but also help students take their place as committed and engaged citizens. It must ensure that all students have a quality education regardless of race, class, or background. He is committed to strengthening our public schools to maximize our country's greatest natural resource - the American people. he believes that we must equip poor and struggling districts, both rural and urban, with the support and resources they need to provide disadvantaged students with an opportunity to reach their full potential. Too often, our leaders present this issue as an either - or debate, divided between giving our schools more funding, or demanding more accountability. He believes that we have to do both, and has offered innovative ideas to break through the political stalemate in Washington.

Candidate 3: Excellence, choice, and competition in American education. he believes American education must be worthy of the promise we make to our children and ourselves. He understands that we are a nation committed to equal opportunity, and there is no equal opportunity without equal access to excellent education.My Thoughts: Candidate 1 wants to move education from the Federal to the State and (more importantly) local level. I'm sure this is no longer a surprise to the readers. This is the only way to move forward on education, let the people who are receiving the SERVICE make the decisions about what it is worth. Pay the providers of the service (teachers) what they are WORTH. The crappy ones get crappy pay, maybe they'll quit and go be burger flippers!

Candidate 2 is annoying and he goes on and on about how he supports education (just like I said). In one breath he makes the claim that everyone needs good education regardless of race, class or background...in the next he says he wants to help (only?) the poor and disadvantaged...what are we going to do about the whole burger flipper thing mr candidate 2?

Candidate 3 is a cop-out who favors education, and equality...

The Bottom Line: The bottom line is i'm growing tired of voting for 3rd party candidates just to make a statement, while being stuffed with the idiot candidates of the masses....if you don't know (by now) who the 3 men are PLEASE DON'T VOTE!

On the Issues - Healthcare

Greetings again! This blog series promises to be quite lenghty so please bear with me. I will create a seperate entry for each of the issues we will cover. The issues are The Economy, Energy Policy, National Security/Immigration, Foreign policy/Iraq, Healthcare, Education, Ethics/Civil Rights.The following information in bold is take directly from the candidates web pages. I have elected not to name the candidates until a seperate blog to be presented after all of the others, not that the enlightened among us won't be able to figure it out. All that said lets begin with the issues, Healthcare:

See my seperate post on healthcare for my personal stance.

Candidate 1: Federal health care programs, most notably Medicare and Medicaid, have become financially unsustainable. These programs need to be transformed to emphasize patient choice, focus on the truly needy, and add cost-saving incentives. Here, too, market principles should be applied to bring better quality health care at less cost.

In general, private charity should be the first resort for anyone in need. In 2007, for example, Americans gave more than $300 billion to charity, an increase over 2006 despite growing economic uncertainty. Government should eliminate regulatory barriers that inhibit private philanthropy, and expand tax deductions to encourage charitable giving.

Candidate 2: "I...believe that every American has the right to affordable health care. I believe that the millions of Americans who can't take their children to a doctor when they get sick have that right...We now face an opportunity - and an obligation - to turn the page on the failed politics of yesterday's health care debates. It's time to bring together businesses, the medical community, and members of both parties around a comprehensive solution to this crisis, and it's time to let the drug and insurance industries know that while they'll get a seat at the table, they don't get to buy every chair."

There are 37 million poor Americans. Most poor Americans are in the workforce, yet still cannot afford to make ends meet. And too many poor Americans are single mothers who are raising children. He has been a lifelong advocate for the poor -- as a young college graduate, he rejected the high salaries of corporate America and moved to work as a community organizer. As an organizer, he worked with churches, residents and local government to set up job training programs for the unemployed and after school programs for kids.

Candidate 3: He is willing to address the fundamental problem: the rapidly rising cost of U.S. health care. Bringing costs under control is the only way to stop the erosion of affordable health insurance, save Medicare and Medicaid, protect private health benefits for retirees, and allow our companies to effectively compete around the world.


My thoughts: First of all I decided to add this bit of poverty/gov't assistance as it seemed to fit. Candidate 3 had no additional information on this, this is becoming a trend.

Candidate 1 is the type of person that everyone thinks is hateful and evil yet he says here that we wants to adjust federal programs like medicare and medicaid to help the "truly needy". This means the people who actual have a NEED, not the silly ones who think to themselves "hey if I don't work and if I don't try, then I can go to the doctor for free!". I know though, thats mean and hateful right? Its not their fault that they're so damn lazy is it? Candidate 1 also makes a call to the free market to solve the cost issues. Of course free market economics don't work, right? No...we need gov't regulation to keep all the evil people from PROFITING!

Candidate 1 wins my vote with this line; "In general, private charity should be the first resort for anyone in need. In 2007, for example, Americans gave more than $300 billion to charity". People are so conviced that conservatives (oops gave that away huh) are hateful mean people because (we) they want to get rid of government assistance. This is the perfect rebuttal. Private charity should always be the first resort for people in need. Yes we have a moral responsibility to assist those in need, the point is the government has NO RIGHT to force that morality on citizens. Those who don't subscribe to that morality have the MORAL REQUIREMENT not to suppor those people. Americans are largely extremely charitable...with the exception of those crazy drunk driving left wing nutcase movies star types....

"I believe that every person has the right to affordable health care" begins candidate 2's speech here. I rebut with "I believe every doctor has the right to profit from their special skill and important service". By demanding affordable healthcare you demand lower prices and by demanding lower prices you demand services at LESS than their market value which is absurd. Candidate 2 lives on these types of speeches (oops gave that away too) he claims that tons of sick kids don't get to go to the doctor even though they easily qualify for gov't programs that are available right now! I dunno what else to say....

Candidate 2 continues his self lauding in his bit on poverty. First he talks about the millions of people who work part-time on less-than-high-school educations and less-than-full-minds that (somehow) can't find employment to pay for their "needs". Firstly the poor are the WORST spender/savers in the economy. Secondarily every occupation in America has a market price...supply and demand...yes there is high demand for McDonalds workers BUT with all the HS students AND the brain deads competeing for the jobs there is an even HIGHER supply. Candidate two then makes me sick by ignoring the fact that he married a woman in a high position (in healthcare - oops) so that he could work "the streets" and get all that first-hand experience. PUHLEASE!

(I think i'm having a bad morning, my apoliogies for letting my personal bias drip in here, if you hate it just read the bold...nobody but El Tom reads these anyway)

Candidate three basically says there's a problem and he's willing to solve it. What he doesn't say is he's just waiting for someone to tell him how.

The Bottom Line: I'm not even going to expand, candidate 1 wins by a mile...or a parsec ;-)....

On the Issues - Foreign Policy/Iraq

We're back again, took a couple days off to visit the local county fair which offered an opporunity to visit local political party booths at the fair, or so I thought. I'll never forget runing around with El Tom in our younger days arguing and debating the various groups...not so anymore. There were the Republican Men of Jackson County, the Republican Women of Jackson County and the Democrats of Jackson County. Nobody was interested and nobody seemed to know the issues...which is why I feel it is imperative to continue this blog today...

Greetings again! This blog series promises to be quite lenghty so please bear with me. I will create a seperate entry for each of the issues we will cover. The issues are The Economy, Energy Policy, National Security/Immigration, Foreign policy/Iraq, Healthcare, Education, Ethics/Civil Rights.The following information in bold is take directly from the candidates web pages. I have elected not to name the candidates until a seperate blog to be presented after all of the others, not that the enlightened among us won't be able to figure it out. All that said lets begin with the issues, Foreign Policy/Iraq:

This is a contentious issue, read at your own risk!

Candidate 1: It is time to reemphasize the word "defense" in national defense. By maintaining a military presence in more than 130 nations around the world in more than 700 installations, with hundreds of thousands of troops deployed overseas, the U.S. spends more to protect the soil of other nations than our own. Bringing these soldiers home would better protect America while saving lives and money.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq were two separate mistakes, which collectively have cost thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars. Every day that the occupation in Iraq continues without a withdrawal plan is a day that more American blood and treasure (some $400 million a day) is needlessly wasted.

Candidate 2: As a member of the Committee, he has fought to strengthen America's position in the world. Reaching across the aisle, he has tackled problems such as preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction and stopping the genocide in Darfur.

Before the war in Iraq ever started, he said that it was wrong in its conception. In 2002, he said Saddam Hussein posed no imminent threat to the United States and that invasion would lead to an occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. Since then, he has laid out a plan on the way forward in Iraq that has largely been affirmed by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group led by James Baker and Lee Hamilton.

Candidate 3: Believes it is strategically and morally essential for the United States to support the Government of Iraq to become capable of governing itself and safeguarding its people. The best way to secure long-term peace and security is to establish a stable, prosperous, and democratic state in Iraq. When Iraqi forces can safeguard their own country, American troops can return home.


My Take: Candidate 1 defines his "foreign policy" in terms of "national defense" which makes me wonder about trade and other items of foreign policy. Based on his previous comments though, i'd bet he welcomes free trade between nations and open lines of communication.Candidate 1 goes on to say we need to bring troops home, a familiar line, but he throws a twist by bringing in the 130 nations we are involved in. Imagine what the United States would do if Russia, Germany, France, and Japan showed up tommorow to setup military installations in America....just imagine it I have no further comment there....

On the Iraq war, Candidate 1 takes the same basic position calling for a "withdrawl plan" citing excessive human and fiscal costs. He refers to the occupation and invasion as "mistakes"...ok...

Candidate 2's opinion on foreign policy is that it has something to do with the genocide in Darfur...i'm not well educated about what is happening there, but genocide certainly isn't a good thing. I'll come right back to this...there's not much else there other than the normal tooting of his horn and repetitive mention of his name.

Candidate 2's opinion on Iraq seems to be "I'm Right and You're Wrong doo dah doo dah" or something like that. 2 is extremely desperate to prove how smart and special he is, member of this and friend of that. He doesn't do very well with predicting undetermined cost, length and consequences...thats the nature of the future its typicaly all undetermined. Thats neither a good thing nor a bad thing. My big point of contention here is Sadaam Hussein posed no risk to the US. Some would say 19 young men with simple razor blades posed no risk to the US, and they did and they were terribly wrong. I'm not privileged enough to have access to Top Secret intelligence (disappointing I know) but those who do (several in the legislature) voted Yea to the war in Iraq, someone thought there was a threat. The question that lingers in my head, based on this mans statement here is how much of a threat does the genocide in Darfur pose to America?

Candidate 3 continues making me proud to be an American, claiming (once again) our Moral high ground in the world. I realize that patriotism and American pride have become no-no's in todays society, but I don't subscribe to those beliefs. I am extremely proud to live under the stars and stripes and I do have a deep seated belief in our innate morality (at the base of who we are). That being said 3 says when the job is done we can come home...or perhaps we screwed it up and we owe it to them to fix it? He'd never say that out loud though.

Interestingly 3 left out any foreign policy information on his website.

The Bottom Line: This one goes to Candidate 3 for one reason, his belief that we as American's must do the right thing as we see fit. Yes, the War in Iraq was a mistake, yes the cost in lives and cash is extreme AND tragic, and yes we certainly can't be there for 100 years (blah blah blah). All of that said this man understands that we need to make the best of the bad situation. If we come home tommorow and Iraq falls back to where it was then those 10's of thousands of deaths and billions of dollars were all in vain. I'm here to see this thing through to its right and moral close. Candidate 1 is close and I like that he wants to get us out of other countries. We demand respect for our soverignty and yet give none, which is absurd and simply must stop. Candidate 2...well hes on a committee and wants to send the US Military to Darfur (I think)....

Candidate 1: Bring everyone home in the interest of homeland security.
Candidate 2: Out of Iraq and into Darfur, oh and i'm really Speshal!
Candidate 3: We screwed up, let me try to fix it.

On the Issues - National Security/Immigration

Greetings again! This blog series promises to be quite lenghty so please bear with me. I will create a seperate entry for each of the issues we will cover. The issues are The Economy, Energy Policy, National Security/Immigration, Foreign policy/Iraq, Healthcare, Education, Ethics/Civil Rights.The following information in bold is take directly from the candidates web pages. I have elected not to name the candidates until a seperate blog to be presented after all of the others, not that the enlightened among us won't be able to figure it out. All that said lets begin with the issues, National Security and Immigration:

Candidate 1:We may not yet be in the nightmare world of George Orwell's classic novel "1984", but time is fast running out for a society that values freedom and liberty. Certainly, the government must be able to confront crime and terrorism, but its powers must be limited to those truly necessary to protect Americans and which are consistent with the Constitution. Also, government officials must always be accountable for their actions.

There is no perfect immigration reform. The government must balance security and sovereignty concerns, which necessitate controlling the border, with the economic benefits of immigration. The best policy would be to stop illegal immigrant flows while accepting more of the world's economically productive who want to come to America.

Candidate 2: Five years after 9/11, our country is still unprepared for a terrorist attack. From improving security for our transit systems and chemical plants, to increasing cargo screening in our airports and seaports, the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission have been underfunded and ignored. The 9/11 Commission gave the government five F's and 12 D's on the implementation of its recommendations. He is a member of a Committee and has supported efforts to base homeland security spending on risk rather than pork-barrel politics. He has also introduced legislation to strengthen chemical plant and drinking water security and to enhance disaster preparedness.

He has played a leading role in crafting comprehensive immigration reform. He believes the immigration issue has been exploited by politicians to divide the nation rather than find real solutions. This divisiveness has allowed the illegal immigration problem to worsen, with borders that are less secure than ever and an economy that depends on millions of workers living in the shadows.

Candidate 3: The most sacred responsibility vested in a president - the commander in chief - is to "preserve and protect" American citizens. He has the necessary vision and unrivaled experience to command the United States armed forces and adapt our nation's defenses to the demands of a changing and dangerous world.

He has always believed that our border must be secure and that the federal government has utterly failed in its responsibility to ensure that it is secure. If we have learned anything from the recent immigration debate, it is that Americans have little trust that their government will honor a pledge to do the things necessary to make the border secure.


My Take: Candidate one is starting to sound like a broken record here isn't he? First he says that the government needs to be able to confront crime and terrorism within the reigns of the constitution and he makes this even worse by claiming that the government officials must be held accountable for their actions. Take a look at On the Issues -The Economy for more information here. Candidate one then claims that there is no perfect solution to the immigration problem (can you say unelectable? gah!) but that border security is important as is allowing a regulated number of migrants in to be PRODUCTIVE members of America. Interesting...

Candidate two invokes 9/11 and says that we are still unprepared for a terrorist attack. This is extremely interesting since this candidate is also the one who always claims EVERYONE ELSE is a fear monger for bringing up terrorism, however, it seems here he is using fear politics. He again mentions how great his leadership is and the commitees he is on. He seems desperate to prove his experience doesn't he? Interestingly he also brings up cutting government spending, unfortunately he uses another hot word "pork spending" and I don't think anyone knows what that means. He also claims he's been working on immigration and quickly blames divisiveness for the problems we have on the border. This was the same candidate who previously divided us into classes you remember...

Candidate three begins my claiming the most important job of the president is to protect and preserve the american people. Umm well the constitutions says protect, preserve and defend THE CONSTITUTION but I guess the constitution isn't voting is it? He also claims he has tons of experience and that politics ruined the border. Candidate 2 and 3 sound a lot alike. Three ends by saying people don't trust the government to get things done, and I think he might be right about that.

The bottom line: Candidate 2 and 3 seem to be appealing to the same people, while candidate 1 seems to be speaking off the top of his head. 2 and 3 think people don't trust the government to get things done, or that the government has messed stuff up yet both want more government intervention.

Candidate 1: National security is important but so is personal liberty. There is no perfect solution to immigration but secure borders AND immigration are important.
Candidate 2: We are going to be attacked by terrorists but I am working hard on that even though we are too divided to do anything about anything.
Candidate 3: The job of the president is to protect the people and I can do that really well. The government messes stuff up and people don't trust us.

This one is (again) an easy win to Candidate 1. Candidate 2 and 3 just might be the same person...who knows?

On the Issues - Energy

Greetings again! This blog series promises to be quite lenghty so please bear with me. I will create a seperate entry for each of the issues we will cover. The issues are The Economy, Energy Policy, National Security/Immigration, Foreign policy/Iraq, Healthcare, Education, Ethics/Civil Rights.The following information in bold is take directly from the candidates web pages. I have elected not to name the candidates until a seperate blog to be presented after all of the others, not that the enlightened among us won't be able to figure it out. All that said lets begin with the issues, Energy Policy:

Candidate 1:Government intervention, whether through more regulations or more subsidies (or both), hurts consumers in the end. The free market, driven by consumer choice and reflecting the real cost of resources, should be the foundation of America's energy policy. The federal government should eliminate restrictions that inhibit energy production, as well as all special privileges for the production of politically-favored fuels, such as ethanol.

Candidate 2: A leader in pushing for a comprehensive national energy policy and has introduced a number of bills to get us closer to the goal of energy independence. By putting aside partisan battles, he has found common ground on CAFE, renewable fuels, and clean coal.

Candidate 3:Our nation's future security and prosperity depends on the next President making the hard choices that will break our nation's strategic dependence on foreign sources of energy and will ensure our economic prosperity by meeting tomorrow's demands for a clean portfolio.

My Take: Candidate one again comes out swinging against the government. He must be a terribly unpatriotic fellow, no? He claims again that the government needs to remove its hands from things it was not granted control over in the constitution. He then makes the bold claim that a free economy would solve the energy problem by allowing consumers to pay what it cost a producer to produce (which includes profit of course). Sound crazy?

Candidate two is impressed with himself and he keeps using his name so I keep having to delete it. He takes the opportunity here to toot his own horn about his great accomplishments and uses hot words like "energy independance" and "renewable energy" whatever it is that those things mean. He doesn't provide much of an idea of a solution, other than his previous invest invest invest strategy.

Candidate three follows his previous suit that America is the rawkest in the world and that we need to maintain our spot as the big dawg on the block. He makes the claim that the president needs to make the "hard choices" to get rid of foreign dependance on energy, and I think I agree with part of that. Lets look again at what the constituion says the President (executives) job is.

Article II Section 2 and 3 of the Constitution of the United States of America

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.


He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.


The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.


Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

END Article

Ok so from I can see the President in the Commander of the military, and he can grant pardons. Everything else he does requires the consent of the legislature. His only job then is to recommend to the legislature a course of action. In this light candidate 3's plan to "make the hard decisions" doesn't make much sense, as those are not his decisions to be making.

The Bottom Line: Candidate 2 and 3 sound very similar here, they both want energy independance somehow and promise lots of new technology and development. Candidate 3 on the other hand says he wants to change the way American government works and pass all of the development and innovation to private citizens without restriction from the government.

Candidate 1: The government needs to step back and let the free economy figure this out.
Candidate 2: I'm at the forefront of legislation and bi-partisanship.
Candidate 3: America is awesome and we need to stay that way.

Candidate 1 wins again, and i'm actualy surprised as he wasn't my horse coming into these blogs...lets see where this goes. National security and Immigration are up next!

On The Issues - The Economy

Greetings again! This blog series promises to be quite lenghty so please bear with me. I will create a seperate entry for each of the issues we will cover. The issues are The Economy, Energy Policy, National Security/Immigration, Foreign policy/Iraq, Healthcare, Education, Ethics/Civil Rights.The following information in bold is take directly from the candidates web pages. I have elected not to name the candidates until a seperate blog to be presented after all of the others, not that the enlightened among us won't be able to figure it out. All that said lets begin with the issues, the economy:

The Economy

Candidate 1: The government cannot continue spending at this rate if America is to remain competitive in the global marketplace. The new administration's number one job will be to drastically reduce spending by limiting federal outlays to only the government's legitimate functions, as provided in the United States Constitution.

Candidate 2: Implement a 21st century economic agenda to help ensure that America can compete in a global economy, and ensure the middle class is thriving and growing. He will increase investments in infrastructure, energy independence, education, and research and development; modernize and simplify our tax code so it provides greater opportunity and relief to more Americans; and implement trade policies that benefit American workers and increase the export of American goods.

Candidate 3: A pro-growth, pro-jobs strategy to get our economy back on track. His strategy includes taking the near-term actions needed to provide immediate help to American families while also taking the longer-term steps necessary to secure America's economic prosperity and leadership in the world.

My Take: Candidate number one immediately jumps to criticism of government and the current administration, this is nothing new. Candidate 1 then states we need to reduce government spending to those things regulated in the constitution. I think it'd be interesting to take a look at what the constitution says they should be spending our money on....

Article I Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States of America

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof

END OF ARTICLE

Ok so just a few notes of things I don't see here. I don't see anything about healthcare, I don't see anything about retirement accounts, I don't see anything about random bridges to nowhere, I think you get my drift. But hey I do see that the consitution gives them the right to declare war, and to spend money on that. I guess they got that part right! Number 1 comes out of the gate requesting that the government take a huge step back and re-evaluate their role. Fair enough yes?

Candidate number 2 steps out quickly by declaring his policy the economy of the 21st century ensuring that America can compete in the "global economy". I dunno about any of you but I think I prefer the idea of participating in the global economy, though I am not so sure about the idea of a competition...competition seems to lead to war and disagreement, which does nothing to save money or promote economic success. Candidate 2 is also the only person to say the name of the "middle class" which means what exactly? I always thought we were all just Americans but no matter I suppoes we are divided into classes in some way or another. He promises growth and prosperity to the middle class but no words for the upper or lower classes. I guess all of the votes are in the middle class, and of course in America majority rules. The next bit talks about investing in research and education and energy. Investment is good but I don't recall anything in the constitution about this except for the rights of patents and copyrights...which of course are not good for the common person and likely unfair so i'm not sure where candidate 2 is going here. Candidate 2 then claims he'll simplify the tax code again so the "masses" can benefit and change trade...for the benefit of many...Candidate 2's economy looks to be one in which the congress passes money to tons of people, but where does all of that money come from? Oh yes...higher taxes!

Number three begins by saying he is pro-growth and pro-jobs...thank goodness. Imagine a candidate that came out and said he was anti-growth and anti-jobs. I don't think that candidate would do too well do you? I like what number 3 has to say from here talking about short-term solutions to solve the problems we have now while focussing on the long-term. Notice a huge difference here between 2 and 3:

2: ensure that America can compete in a global economy

3: secure America's economic prosperity and leadership in the world

Hmmm so 2 thinks we need to compete and 3 thinks that we are world leaders and that we should work to maintain our place on the top....what do you think?

The Bottom Line: Candidate 2 is the only one who talks about taxes, candidate 1 is the only one who talks about cutting government spending, and number 3 seeks to afirm American economic dominance. Heres how I think this shakes down in the end.

Candidate 1: Government must spend less!
Candidate 2: Government must take in less (from some) and spend more!
Candidate 3: Government must (do something) to maintain American dominance.

It is my opinion that Candidate 1 wins this section of On the Issues. Next up is Energy!

Healthcare - Supply and Demand

READ THIS FIRST:
DISCLAIMER:

I probably have made hundreds of grammatical errors as well as spelling problems and I never cite sources. Live with it! All of the information here can be easily confirmed via a simple google search. I don't believe in spoon feeding people, you have to WANT to learn and grow...

THAT SAID PLEASE CONTINUE.....

I've been slacking a lot on my political blogs and I want to get back into that. If you find what you read here interesting please subscribe as there will be many more to come. Notice I didn't say if you agree or disagree just if you find it interesting.

My primary disagreement with a nationalized healthcare system is the fact that socialism makes me feel sick! Passing control of anything to the government's control and imprisoning myself to the power of the men with the big guns also doesn't sit well with me. I will (for this blog) set those feelings aside and attempt to present a more rational argument against the NHS. One of supply and demand.

Basic economics teaches that supply and demand governs a free economy. If demand for a product/service is high the price is correspondingly high, more so if the supply of that product/service is low. Conversely products/services with a low demand (or high supply) generally have a low price. This is a gross oversimplification but it is sufficient for this discussion.

The supply and demand equation also works from the right of the equation. If the price of a product/service (we refer to service from here on out) is low (or Free) and the demand for that service is high the supply of that service is quickly depleted. In a free market situation the price is simply adjusted upwards to recreate an equilibrium balance in the economy. It is here that the logic for a nationalized healthcare system breaks down.

Ask almost any of the 37 million americans living below the poverty line, as well as many million more living close to it what issue number one is for them and they will most likely answer healthcare. Those who dream of the NHS say at least 50 million americans live without healthcare of any kind right now. (I have a couple of problems with that number, firstly about 50% of those qualify for government aid already in place and another 35% are at the age where they are invincible and don't NEED no stinkin' healthcare but we'll stick with that for now). 50 million people who don't have and "want" healthcare (since of course the government knows whats best and EVERYONE must "want" healthcare) creates a pretty significant demand! Combined that with drastically reduced prices (read FREE healthcare) and all of a sudden we are faced with a huge SUPPLY problem!

Try this on for size. As of July 2007 there we approximately 60 million people living in the UK, a "model" of an American NHS. This total population is only slightly higher than the demand presented in the previous paragraph so it will work well for this example. The current waiting list for surgery in the UK stretches to over 800,000 individuals ! Free surgery doesn't do anybody any good if they're dead does it? Doctors simply don't have the resources to fulfill the demand of such a population. The British healthcare system recently promised to reduce the wait for HOSPITAL CARE to FOUR MONTHS!!! Some great promise that is. See the only response when demand and price are fixed is a shift in supply, so thats exactly what the UK did, they FURTHER reduced supply of services they didn't feel were terribly important. The wait time for a dentist is so long that many in the UK take a nice swig of vodka, grab a pair of pliers and yank away! Lovely isn't it?

Ok, so maybe the brits are just stupid right? Lets take a look at Canada. More than 1,000,000 Canadians cannot find a personal healthcare provider. Some towns hold lotteries to get a personal physician and out of thousands of "needy" people, ONE per week gets their wish. Others sit and wait. One patient suffering from a blocked artery that prevented proper digestion of food was forced to fly to (yes) THE UNITED STATES after canada determined her procedure was elective. At the time of her surgery doctors said she had (maybe) a WEEK to live.

Aha I figured it out, see the governments seek to reduce the supply problem by reducing the demand (that means KILLING PEOPLE). Gee isn't socialism wonderful? Oh yeah I said I wouldn't do that huh? Oops....

Okay so thats (most of ) my rational argument. I know I am a hate-mongering, fear-mongering, racist, evil, neo-nazi, neo-con freak but I don't hate people. A more affordable preventative care system here would save many many lives here. The question is whether you want the government to run that system. Keep in mind that this is the government that stole billions of dollars of social security money and spent them on idiot projects running our seniors completely out of their promised retirements! I don't trust them!

One more note on that whole "free" thing. The "government" doesn't (and shouldn't) participate in production of goods or services for a profit. Their money comes from me and you (Ok thats not true either top 10% give the government about 70% of their money, you and I only about 3.5% TOTAL). That means the only way this WONDERFUL NEW NHS will exist is to increase TAXES or decrease SPENDING. Which route do you think they will choose?

Exactly.

Feel free to post questions and comments, so long as they are useful and well-informed. I welcome a debate.

Things are about to change...

I'm going to add a political aspect to this blog by moving some of my MySpace blogs to this space. Just wanted to note that.