Monday, September 7, 2009

Re: Nick's comment on my "Just to Clarify" post

This is a lengthy response and I think it makes some important points (although partially unrelated to the original topic). So, I have made it a new post.

I would absolutely agree that, for the most part, undocumented immigrants don't compete with Americans for jobs - for the most part (there are some shady employers who hire illegals for jobs other than those suggested). They do, however, compete for taxpayer funded services/entitlements.

The problem is, when you ignore that the workers in the fields are illegals, you are basically condoning indentured servitude. Let's face it, these people aren't being paid according to the law - they are afraid of being deported. Thus, employers take advantage of them. They work long and hard for very little and in terrible conditions. They are afforded no workers' rights and are victims of unreported crimes. There is a fundamental problem with this that is ignored by the so-called compassionate liberals. This is no way to live.

Politicians that pretend to be concerned for these people by allowing illegal immigration to continue are lying. They are either ok with the near slavery of these people or they are incompetent. Either way, why would we allow them to represent us in public office? This is a very important point because it is also often true of "liberal" policies that appear to help people with entitlements.

Upon close inspection, you will find that entitlements create a class of people dependent on government for their very survival. They are often unable to lift themselves from poverty because success is never encouraged nor is success allowed. Instead, recipients are forced into a cycle of dependence on the system. When you throw people crumbs, you create slaves to the system who must beg for those crumbs. It is terribly sad that in 2009, we still allow our government to treat citizens as if they are not worthy of success.

Look at Social Security disability - if you are injured, you can either not work at all and collect a pittance from the government or you can try to work and eventually lose that monthly check - even if you are incapable of earning a living. If you are on medicare due to disability, you are not even allowed to purchase your own private health care plan. There is no room for people who still want to try to contribute - even if they can do less than they could before they were injured. There is no partial disability. It is an all or nothing proposition.

It is an illusion that these programs ever actually help people. The end result is that recipients are inclined to vote for the politicians who are in favor of entitlements due to dependence and fear. Thus, Democrats CREATE voters for themselves with entitlements and keep voters by reinforcing fear.

Republicans are equally guilty here. They allow this illusion to be perpetuated by not offering any reasonable alternatives and they gain power by touting smaller government with little regard for the existing entitlement recipients. They do not challenge democrats on these entitlements in a reasonable way and live in political fear of being labeled "insensitive" or "heartless". They fail to have a message of resolution to these issues because they allow their opponents to play on fear and age old party labels.

We definitely need smaller government - on that, I agree with Republicans. However, we now have a system full of people (generations of people in some cases) trapped by the very entitlements that should be helping them. We cannot just ignore these people and their needs/fears, which we have created with our votes.

I believe that, if Republicans can't find a way to address these issues in a meaningful way, we need a new political party willing to see that we can do better. Further, a new party would be a fresh start - free of the labels now afflicting conservative Republicans.

We cannot ignore that people sometimes need help. However, we can also no longer ignore the fact that all entitlements trend toward socialism. We need new, creative ideas that help people by allowing reasonable "safety net" entitlements that lift people up by rewarding initiative and success. We need programs that educate people back to work - not pay for no work. Of course, there are going to be some citizens who have legitimate issues preventing them from working and we must care for them as a society. However, the majority of the people must be weaned off of "the system" and into personal success. My personal feeling is that this can be done through careful planning and education. Further, we can reduce costs by requiring public sector work to repay the generosity of the American taxpayers.

The problem? This would require Americans to break from their political parties and actually vote to get something real accomplished rather than the same old party bickering. Honestly, I don't know if that is possible, but it is worth a try - America is worth a try.

Unreported Administration

I still see some people saying "Obama is doing a good job considering what he inherited" and "change can't happen in 200 days, but change will happen" and it just amazes me that people I respect can be so blind as to what is actually happening behind the scenes in this administration. Yes, change is coming, but I don't think it is the kind of change for which they voted. Republican, democrat, or independent, most Americans are good people who mean well - not communist sympathizers or people who want our freedoms taken away. Yet, they are either unable or unwilling to see the dangers of this administration.

First, what Obama inherited was a deficit that is now 4x what it was when he inherited it. So, in 6 months, he has quadrupled the problem. How exactly is this a good job & who would ever get away with this running a real business?

Second, the big, scary problem - we have a president who has appointed over 30 "czars" so far in his administration while he has failed to fill legitimate seats within his cabinet. Why do we think this is? Could it be that the types of people Obama has appointed could never pass REAL congressional hearings - so this is the only way to get then into executive positions in his administration? Why doesn't the prospect of this failure in the checks and balances system scare more people? Could it be that most people are unaware of this? Even Senator Byrd of WV, a Democrat, has written of the dangers of these appointments. Let's talk a little about these appointees.

As part of this administration of unelected, largely unconfirmed officials we have Green Jobs Czar, Van Jones. Excerpt from a Nov. 2005 interview in the East Bay Express: Jones had planned to move to Washington, DC, and had already landed a job and an apartment there. But in jail, he said, "I met all these young radical people of color -- I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, 'This is what I need to be a part of.'" Although he already had a plane ticket, he decided to stay in San Francisco. "I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary." In the months that followed, he let go of any lingering thoughts that he might fit in with the status quo. "I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th," he said. "By August, I was a communist." In 1994, the young activists formed a socialist collective, Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement, or STORM, which held study groups on the theories of Marx and Lenin and dreamed of a multiracial socialist utopia. Recently, Jones signed a petition backing 9/11 truthers and also said "The white polluters and the white environmentalists are essentially steering poison into the people of color communities." Yes, this is what he believes and he was chosen as an advisor to the president. Van Jones recently resigned his position when these things were brought to light. Of course, despite the Obama administration's promise of unparalleled transparency, Jones' resignation came at night during a holiday weekend - why do this thing out in the open when you can hide it from the news cycle?

Next, we have Cass Sunstein - Obama's appointee for Regulatory Czar. Mr. Sunstein has argued in favor of OUTLAWING sport hunting and meat-eating, and written that animals should be allowed to file lawsuits "with human beings as their representatives." All of you out there who like an occasional steak should worry about Mr. Sunstein. In his world, if you ate a steak, the cow's family may sue you for wrongful death.

Then, we have John Holdren - Obama appointee for Science Czar. Holdren is probably the most despicable in this list of Obama's appointees. Does this guy really represent the president's views? If so, we are all in big trouble. If not, then why would Obama choose him for this position. It was Obama himself who said that we should judge him by the people he surrounds himself with. In 1977, he co-authored a book entitled "Ecoscience" with Paul and Anne Ehrlich. This book advocated the following:
  • Page 837: Compulsory abortions would be legal - so, the governement could force you to have an abortion in order to control overpopulation. The book concluded that such steps would be sustained under the US Constitution.
  • Page 786: Single mothers should have their babies taken away by the government; or they could be forced to have abortions.
  • Page 787-8: Mass sterilization of humans though drugs in the water supply is OK as long as it doesn't harm livestock.
  • Page 786-7: The government could control women's reproduction by either sterilizing them or implanting mandatory long-term birth control.
  • Page 838: The kind of people who cause "social deterioration" can be compelled to not have children.
  • Page 838: Nothing is wrong or illegal about the government dictating family size.
  • Page 942-3: A "Planetary Regime" should control the global economy and dictate by force the number of children allowed to be born.
  • Page 917: We will need to surrender national sovereignty to an armed international police force.
  • Page 749: Pro-family and pro-birth attitudes are caused by ethnic chauvinism.
  • Page 944: As of 1977, we are facing a global overpopulation catastrophe that must be resolved at all costs by the year 2000.
I won't even try to explain why Mr. Holdren scares me. If these positions don't scare you, there is nothing I will be able to do to convince you.

Finally, we have Mark Lloyd, FCC Diversity Czar. In a 2008 conference on media reform, he spoke of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez's ``incredible revolution, a democratic revolution," and of the ``property owners and the folks who then controlled the media in Venezuela" who ``rebelled" and who ``worked to oust him." Still, said Lloyd, Chavez ``came back with another revolution, and then ... began to take very seriously the media in his country." His plan is to stifle free speech against the administration by forcing dissenting media to pay an additional 100% of their operating costs toward a government run media (Yes, I said 100% - so, they would have to pay their own costs PLUS another 100% of their costs). Now, what business do you know that can spend double what they are spending now and still stay in business? This is an obvious ploy to prevent dissenting opinions and fund a propaganda machine.

Now, don't take my word for any of this. PLEASE look it up - do your homework - and then decide how you feel about this administration and the change that is about to come. I would hope that, regardless of party affiliation, you are not in favor of these sorts of policies. I don't believe that the view of these czars are what most Democrats believe. So, why then are you ok with how Obama is handling the presidency? Please, please, please learn all you can about what is actually happening. Don't trust the rhetoric. Stand up for your country. Don't let them separate us with party affiliation. We are all Americans.