Wednesday, January 19, 2005

George Washington would never have joined the UN

George Wasington was once quoted as saying "a nation can never abandon its fate to anauthority it cannot control," a warning clearly of entangling itself against alliances. What would think of theUnited Nations?

Monday, January 17, 2005

insane article

i can believe this happening around the world, but here in America???

The effects of thinking.

"People do not like to think. If one thinks, one must reach conclusions. Conclusions are not always pleasant." ~Helen Keller

thanks to a friend who pointed this out.
you know who you are.

in reply to "ACLU"

this comes from someone i respect very much, i wanted to show this to everyone because he is right, you cannot lock yourself into an ideological prison.

"Dammit, stephen what are you morphing into? For someone who bitches so loudly at any bias toward the left, you display the most blatant hypocrisy of being biased yourself on the right, just as I’ve seen time and time again in your fellow republican’s lack of tolerance to any other ideas …..so what is your solution to this “problem” of having leftwing judges on the supreme court, having more right wing judges? If it were all Scalias would you be happy then?? I’m not too sure what you’re after, seems to be in my mind that we need people from both sides present to discuss and debate the various issues that come before them
I’m sorry but I do not want to live in a theocracy, if I recall correctly, America was started to get away from that very thing, we left a conservative, radical, religious-state driven gov’t, where people ruled by their interpretations of the bible…..no thanks, I’m glad we left that to come to a place where all ideas are on the table equally for discussion.
If I can quote a hero of mine, I think its really starting to pertain to you (in my humble opinion)

“Let us not suffer from the very clean and very well lit prison of one idea”
- g.k. Chesterton

(meaning, you’ve been to all corners of your idea, you can see all sides of your idea and know your idea well, but nevertheless it is merely ONE idea)
I love your mind Stephen, but please don’t fall prey to focusing on a person, political party, organization, denomination, etc…I think these are the places where progress stops and obstinacy begins….lets stick to ideas and issues….i’d much rather talk about civil liberties than the aclu, much rather discuss morality then the republican or demorcratic party…..all we end up doing is regurgitating the shit we heard from our various sources of information,…fox news, msnbc, drudge report, etc…I don’t think that’s too helpful to either one of us, in fact I think its rather boring and predictable…..we both know the party line retorts.
I guess I’m starting to sound like a universalist or pluralist, I don’t mean to, I believe in absolute truth….i just don’t believe in people, sad isn’t it"
-KG

THANK YOU SO MUCH KG FOR THE HONEST REPLY, WE ALL NEED TO BE BROUGHT BACK DOWN TO EARTH SOMETIMES, AND THE CHESTERTON QUOTE DID THE TRICK. BUT HONESTLY ON THIS PATICULAR ISSUE I MUST SAY THAT THE COURT SYSTEM IS NOT BALANCED! IF WE HAD 1/2 CONSERVATIVES AND 1/2 LIBERALS IN THE COURTS TODAY I WOULD BE SATISFIED, BUT THE COURT IS CLEARLY BIASED AT THIS CURRENT TIME. I WANT BALANCE, AND FEEL THAT CONSERVATIVES ARE GIVEN THE SAME VOICE AS THE LIBERAL COURT.
-ESTABAN

Sunday, January 16, 2005

the ACLU, dripping red with more than just blood.


In a world full of propaganda, political parities and agendas, no matter what political stance one takes, why can we simply be transparent with our agenda’s? I don’t dance around the issue that I am a conservative republican. And though liberals are quick to call out any conservative as “radical right”, “extreme right wing”, or anyone with any sort of faith as “the religious right”, you will be hard pressed to find any democrat to label themselves as “liberal.” (check lexus-nexus if you think I am wrong.) No matter what side you take on any issue call it like it is, because if you don’t then I will.
For instance; THE ACLU (American Civil Liberty’s Union) IS A COMMUNIST ESTABLISHMENT THAT ATTEMPTS TO PROMOTE A SOCIALIST AGENDA. Do you think I am just trying to spread my propaganda of conservative politics? Read on.
Rodger Baldwin established the ACLU in 1917, born in Boston he was a self proclaimed atheist and a World War I draft dodger. Dodging the draft led him to found the organization to help others in their draft evasion process. Baldwin, a Harvard graduate, once wrote in 1935:
“I have been to Europe several times, mostly in connection with international radical activities and have traveled in the United States to areas of conflict over workers rights to strike and organize. My chief aversions is the system of greed, private profit, privilege, and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it to the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemployment. Therefore, I AM FOR SOCIALISM, DISARMAMENT AND ULTIMATELY, FOR THE ABOLISHING OF THE STATE ITSELF. I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. COMMUNISM IS THE GOAL.”
This is from his mouth, the goal of Mr. Rodger Baldwin and his organization is to create a socialistic society here in America. The problem is that the judicial system (namely the Supreme Court) closely aligns themselves with this organization; the U.S. Government knows that the ACLU is a Communist driven organization as established here in this excerpt from the Special House Committee issued report (H.R. Rep. No. 71-2290 *1931)
“The American Civil Liberties Union is closely affiliated with the communist movement in the United States, and fully 90 percent of its efforts are on behalf of communists who have come into conflict with the law. Its claims to stand for free speech, free press, and free assembly; but it is quite apparent that the main function of the ACLU is to attempt to protect the communists in their advocacy of force and violence to overthrow the Government, replacing the American flag with a red flag and erecting a Soviet Government in place of the republican form of government guaranteed to each State by the Federal Constitution. Rodger N. Baldwin, its guiding spirit, makes no attempt to hide his friendship for the communists and their principles.”
The Supreme Court seems to align itself with the ACLU on many issues and why should they not, there are those sitting on the Court who have worked with or for the ACLU in the past. Take for instance Ruth Bader Ginsburg; she was nominated by President Clinton and graduate of Columbia University. She took a seat on the Supreme Court in August 1993, and has a rich history in this communist rooted organization. From 1973-1980 she sat on the ACLU’s general counsel, was on the board of directors from 1974 to 1980, and not surprisingly has mirrored the ACLU’s socialist agenda when casting her votes. She is not alone in pushing a communist agenda as many other of her contemporaries share familiar ties with this organization.
Ask anyone you know connected to or involved with the ACLU and they will deny any ties to a Communist beginnings or agenda, but by simply looking at the voting record of Mrs. Ginsburg and her comrade’s one can see their intentions. But be warned if you confront liberals and call it how it really is you will be labeled “radical,” and not what you truly are… TRUTHFUL.

Friday, January 14, 2005

GET INVOLVED IN POLITICS! here's how

I have never asked you friends to get involved yourselfs in politics, but i am asking you to do something to strengthen our future, and invest in your children.
PLEASE call your congressman and tell you to strengthen social security, that we should have control of our own social security. Tell them to PRIVATIZE SOCIAL SECURITY. if you dont know the condition please check this website or read below.
Why America Needs Social Security Reform.
please check http://www.socialsecurity.org
-stephen christian

by Jagadeesh Gokhale
"Jagadeesh Gokhale is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, Washington, D.C.
With the re-election of President Bush, everyone from Wall Street to Main Street is now wondering about the financial impact of a now more likely Social Security personal accounts reform. Allowing workers to deposit part of their payroll taxes into personal accounts would siphon off revenues currently used to pay retiree benefits -- payments that consequently would require larger federal borrowing. In addition, the government may issue marketable "recognition bonds" to personal account participants reflecting benefits accrued from their earlier payroll taxes. By how much will federal debt held by the public increase and how will financial markets be affected constitute today's $10 trillion questions.

The prospect of a massive increase in U.S. federal debt appears scary. Closer reflection, however, reveals that the concern about a negative impact are overblown. Suppose that half of total payroll tax revenues -- $300 billion in 2005 -- are redirected into private capital markets. The government would then have to borrow only an additional $212 billion to continue paying current retirees their benefits. This is because payroll taxes are projected exceed Social Security outlays in 2005 by $88 billion -- an amount that the government won't have to borrow to meet benefit commitments. Thus, more funds could be injected into private markets through personal accounts than withdrawn through government borrowing. This would remain true until payroll tax surpluses are projected to last -- through the year 2018.

Issuing marketable recognition bonds to personal account participants -- by between $4-$6 trillion depending on how they are calculated -- would also increase federal debt held by the public. However, this increase also won't absorb current saving because the bonds would be awarded, not sold, in acknowledgement of workers' accrued benefits from their past payroll taxes.

The reform-induced addition to outstanding government bonds would tend to depress their prices and increase their yields. The size of this effect will be minimized if the Federal Reserve continues to follow a monetary policy consistent with price stability. Furthermore, if the economy continues to recover, oil prices decline and stabilize, and capital inflows continue unabated, interest rates are unlikely to increase significantly faster than normal during economic recoveries. It is notable that despite an increase of almost $1 trillion in federal debt held by the public between 2001 and today, yields on long-term (20-year) Treasuries have not budged from their 2001 level of just over 5.0 percent.

Future Social Security benefit obligations are not currently shown on official U.S. federal budget reports -- and therein lies the value of such a reform. U.S. policymakers have recently shown a proclivity to amassing unfunded obligations under a shortsighted view of their size -- Medicare prescription drugs, for example. The conversion of unreported obligations into explicit recognition bonds will reveal that federal indebtedness is much larger than is apparent under current accounting conventions. Even if this does not lead to a reduction in projected non-Social Security spending, it may constrain political incentives to further escalate such spending. And any reductions, if they occur, would increase government saving -- ultimately improving the nation's capacity to pay off its obligations.

What about the prices and returns on private securities? Unlike the earlier assumption, participants are not likely to devote their entire personal accounts to purchasing government bonds. Those who are constrained from investing in private markets today and who, post-reform, evaluate market risk premiums to be larger than warranted, would select riskier private securities, pushing up their prices and reducing their yield spreads over government bonds. Again, because small investors tend to be risk averse, this effect is likely to be small.

One important caveat to remember is that the choice of market risk exposures through personal accounts would be affected by the protection offered against investment losses via Social Security benefit guarantees. Although personal accounts investments will likely be restricted to highly diversified stock and bond funds, these securities remain riskier than government bonds -- including at very long horizons as evidenced by their persistent return premiums. Despite personal account regulations, very generous guarantees could induce excessive risk taking in an effort to bolster returns.

The extent to which market risk premiums are reduced and private saving increased will depend primarily on the manner and amount by which other reform features reduce Social Security's future unfunded obligations. The larger the retrenchment achieved by announcing a cut the program's scheduled but unpayable benefits to today's younger workers and future generations, the greater the likely positive impact on private saving -- which would tend to lower interest rates. Several recent studies on Chile's post-reform experience -- that also involved recognition bonds -- suggest a significant increase in saving as a result of the reform.

A significant reduction in unfunded obligations in this manner will also reduce the risk premiums built into private equity returns: Such a reform will resolve early the uncertainty about future tax and benefit changes, thereby instilling greater confidence in the stability of a low-tax and growth oriented fiscal policy environment.

A properly designed Social Security reform that resolves future uncertainties early, provides reasonable regulations against excessive risk taking, and does not replace today's overcommitment of Social Security benefits with a similar overcommitment of retirement income guarantees under personal accounts could boost national saving, improve the operation of capital markets, and increase economic growth. Ill-conceived measures and delays, however, could have the opposite effects."

This article appeared in the Financial Times November 30, 2004.

Tuesday, January 04, 2005

judicial reply

" Is it Constitutional?

Our entire government is based around that question.

The supreme court exists solely to interpret the consitution. This doesn't always please the majority of American people. Look back to the 1950's. Segregated schools were popular, a majority of people liked them that way. A majority wanted to continue the rascism. The constitution, thankfully, stepped in - against the majority - and created a more perfect union.

9=240,000,000, well, yes... we elect the president, who chooses a cabinet, which is approved by congress, who we also elected into office. They are appointed for life by the President and then confirmed by majority vote by the Senate. They know every detail of the constitution inside and out. They are much more impartial than the standard American citizen. Sometimes the majority is wrong, and the supreme court protects us from that. What if we had voted to keep segregation?

The consensus of the majority is not impartial and unbiased, like the justices should be. I don't know much about Cheif Justice Fred Vinson, except that he died around 1950.

As far as Abington vs. Schempp, (I'm quoting About.com here)

"Justice Clark wrote at length in his majority opinion about the history and importance of religion in America, but his conclusion was that the Constitution forbids any establishment of religion, that prayer is a form of religion, and that hence state-sponsored or mandated prayer in public schools cannot be allowed."

The justices don't just run about willy-nilly enforcing their own beliefs, they have constitutional reasons for their descisions.

In a perfect world, with perfect people - our Justices would interpret the constitution free of their own biases. No one can truly get away from all biases, but good justices often go against their own moral views.

The duty of interpreting the constitution is left in the hands of the Judicial branch.
"
Sasha A.-H


sasha, i see your point and your arguments have some validity, my question is what majority wanted to continue segregation? where did you get your statistics. on the contrary many of the elected officials ran on segregation/ non-segragation platforms, and America turned out in droves to ellect the non-segragationist's. America wanted to be united. I believe that we as America are founded on more than just what is or isnt constitutional. I believe its founded on freedom. people want to be free to choose or not to choose an abortion, but those same people dont want Americans to have the freedom to choose whether or not a person can own a firearm for personal protection. They dont want people to have the choice to pray before their meal at a school lunch (even privatly). They dont want them to have a choice to bring a bible to school for their own personal use. They dont want America to have the choice to put criminals to death when they have murdered. Its about freedom, and the courts have turned it into the courts will, and not the will of the people.
-stephen