Give me your best shot,  tell me why Bain where Romney worked is an evil corporate raider that sacrificed jobs for profit. Because you got Boxwood blood on your hands. That’s right, you heard me General Motors Boxwood Road plant in New Castle county Delaware. The most populous county in Joe Biden’s home state lost it’s biggest employer. The closure of that plant was personally directed by none other then the great, the magnificent, the omnipotent self appointed bankruptcy jurist in chief, self anointed savior of the auto industry, Barack Obama! The devastating effect on the people in New Castle county is matched only by the war on organized union coal miners.  Boxwood blood everywhere and the longer it festers the more it stinks.

You say Bain is evil because they sacrificed some jobs to make the companies they bought profitable. Give me numbers. But the Obama Oblivious legions get tingles when they here how you saved a few hundred jobs in Michigan, or Illinois. OK, lets talk apples to apples. You saved thousands of jobs, counting all the subcontractor, vendor, transport and service jobs related to keeping a production line open. But you did it by shutting down a production line, and eliminating an entire industry that has been in Delaware since World War II.  You can’t have it both ways, accusing Bain of cutting jobs without talking about the profitability and employment success of the companies they turned around, and talk only about your success without admitting you personally destroyed the livelihood of thousands upon thousands of people that depended on Boxwood you personally decided had to go. People who voted for you in 2008 from Joe Biden’s home state no less. I do not know how Biden or his family can show their faces in Delaware anymore.

And while we are talking about successful turn around skills, lets compare your investment in Fiskar to Bain’s investment in what ever companies you are trying to use as examples. One hundred ninety-three million dollars later you have funded cars being built in Sweden and reemployed at best a handful of guards to secure the empty boxwood plant. Your skill and breaking up a company and selling it for pieces stinks. You are quick to criticize Bain, but you can’t even give away the pieces, worse you paid someone to take them and they took you for the fool you turn out to be.  Oblivious, self-righteous, obnoxious fool. You have just been schooled, professor flunky.

This ain’t college class and you don’t get to hand out the grades. This is real life, and you can’t lie like you do when you are in front of a lecture hall. Here we get to judge your performance, and money is how the score is kept. You flunked.  That someone in your campaign thinks this fiasco is one of your better points says a lot about how bad you really have performed.  Pointing to Bain as a big evil profit making private equity firm that will lay people off to make a company profit might sound like  a winning strategy. But if that is accurate then that makes you an even bigger, incompetent  tax payer funded equity firm that raids companies, lays off people to restore companies that you restructure to profitability while squandering billions in never to be recouped losses of tax payers funds. And you don’t even get some propaganda out of the deal unless you lie by omission about all the families you destroyed.

Want to go head to head in a debate over Romney’s track record at Bain?. Bring it on Mr Automaker’s savior. Lets see who has the most blood on their hands.

WmCraig

Solvo Reor

Can Romney win? And not just win or loose but by how much. So the choices are win big or narrow, loose big or narrow.

Talk radio’s Hugh Hewett posed that question today, and try as I might I was unable to respond but it got me to thinking. Hugh being a lawyer he immediately challenged  the first caller, after the caller was on the air to defend his position with electoral vote wins

Explain why! And like any good lawyer (and Hugh well tell you he is a great lawyer, you don’t even have to ask him), he wanted details. What states will Obama loose that Obama carried in 2008.
The more I thought about how I would defend that the more I realized that this is an important exercise for the Romney campaign. They need to hear this.

I live in Southern New Jersey, and am an active part of the Philadelphia Metro marketing region.  This includes Northern Delaware, South Eastern Pennsylvania and Southern New Jersey.  The dominant city  is  Philadelphia.

Has anything happened since 2008 that could change voting in Philadelphia? The more I thought about this the more I realized that PA could go for Romney.

• Philadelphia has a black majority population, with big Latino and Asian populations. Sure, the black majority may still want Obama for no other reason, but a few things are obvious. Jobs are harder to come by now then they were four years ago, and the black population has suffered more than most. Enthusiasm may wane.  But there is more.
• Obama is rich, he flaunts his wealth, golfing playing and while most people will defend the mans right to enjoy himself, it still just rubs it in to the average guy, especially the average black guy that Obama isn’t about sharing. He talks about redistributing wealth but it seems that it never gets redistributed to anyone you know. But there is more.
• People are seeing electricity costs soar. PECO electric company is part of the big Obama supporter and “green power” advocate Exelon. They have shut down any remaining coal plants in the Philadelphia region, putting hundreds of people out of work. This is not a coincidence but a direct action to a request by Obama. And of course, this hurts people in Philadelphia which is majority black. But there is more
• There is a very big Muslim presence in Philadelphia.  The black churches are a strong influence. Both groups are undermined by Obama’s embracing Gay marriage. The Muslim community especially since this has to alienate any Muslim run country hurting relations with other mosques through out the world. But there is more
• The Catholic church here has been on both sides of the abortion demand issue, and there are many people who were put off by Obama’s trickery to get this implemented.
• But wait, lets move on to the rest of the region.  Take New Castle county Delaware. This county was really hard hit, I have seen numbers as high as 37% unemployment. That is not surprising. Obama promised to save the auto industry, but hey, NOT in Delaware! Obama through Delaware auto workers under the bus and this was almost the only remaining industry left in that county. The largest employer in the area the former Chrysler plant was shuttered to save Midwestern jobs, and Saturn was scrapped not sold. The Fiscar electric everyman car is a bust, it turns out to be a bad joke. But don’t count just the heads that were laid off from Saturn. For every worker on the assembly line there were dozens or more employed in small contractors, vendors, small manufacturers, service industries, and transportation industries. All these jobs that depended on Saturn plant disappeared over night, on Obama’s say so. Not to mention all the retail business that supported all these workers. The loss was devastating. Taxes of course have gone up, services down and the county is still in trouble.
• But there is more. The Financial reforms hurt Delaware’s only other industry banking, and the lack of new small business growth hurt the cottage industry built around headquartering your corporation in Delaware.
• But there is more. New Castle county (and Wilmington) is only a short ride from South Jersey or Philadelphia. The regions corridors are chuck full of commuters going both ways.  We live, work and play regionally. And one of the big employers here is Boeing. One of the only industries (other than the closed coal plants) still operating along the Industrial highway. They make V22 Ospreys. Didn’t Obama cancel that contract?
• But there is still more. The Obama attack on Oil has hurt refining in the region, job loses, plant closures and of course thousands of support company workers out of a job. The Obama administration policies on oil and coal have continued to crush hope in the region. The attacks on bankers, visceral nasty attacks, have not done anything positive for an important segment of the employers here.

In short there are a lot of reasons that Pennsylvanians will be less than enthusiastic to come out and vote for Obama. And that includes majority black cities like Philadelphia and the surrounding regions.

Now if the Romney campaign were to show up and remind people about these “benefits” of Obama they just might be surprised how much Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware is in play. Sure I know Delaware is not even a blip on the chart of electoral votes, but might I remind you of the political hay available to the Romney campaign if Obama can’t even carry Joe Biden’s home state. Which considering all the things the Obama administration did to Delaware on behalf of other regions in the country, that is a very real possibility. And worth the effort

So Hugh, put me down for a big win for Romney in 2012, and I think he will carry Pennsylvania, Delaware and New Jersey. I don’t have time to go into it but the same logic applies to New York. Yes, I think Romney can win New York, Romney just needs to fight for it, and remind Americans there just how divisive this president has been in the past. Think scared bankers, think multimillion 1% traders, think high taxes, think it could have been Billary!

Now before you ask, yes I keep saying 2012.  Since Obama can run again in 2016, and Obama the ex-president will be far more effective then Obama the president. Even a convicted felon can be more effective than Obama as President, just ask West Virginia. wait, did Obama carry West Virginia in 2008?  You can add that to my list of states Romney can win too.  Yes sir, anyone can be a more effective president, but leader of the shadow government? No, Obama has that hands down and I would not want to be Romney in 2016 or any year in between.

But that is another post.

WmCraig

Solvo Reor

Advocate for Traditionalism.  A belief that government should put the respect for the limit of it’s authority before any other consideration. A central platform idea to repeal the 16th and 17th amendments and restore diversity, self government and liberty to all American’s the way the founders intended it to evolve. Big tent Tea Party friendly ideas to restore America.

Think about this. The Obama administration decides to impose regulations on coal and reduce it’s use. What do you think happens?

- Coal producers increase lobbying Washington to overturn, or block the regulations. People give money to Obama and the democrats

- Global Warming alarmists increase lobbying Washington to impose more restrictions, or more aggressively enforce the current restrictions. People give money to Obama and the democrats.

Obama threatens more regulations People on both sides of the issue send more money to influence, or bribe the administration. If a thug walks into your business and says that someone is going to come along and break all your windows and set fire to your store if you don’t pay for protection, this is extortion. Welcome to the era of the extortionist in chief.

Which brings us to the Hollywood “One-percenters”. They know that it is just about the money, so they threaten to withhold their contributions unless Obama gets off the fence. So Obama comes out with his support, but states right opinion. “Send money if you agree”. Now of course, the Hollywood One Percentrs sent lots of money. But there is the other side. And lots of people who are against this, like some people in some religious organizations. They want to by influence against gay marriage. So they send money.

The result? On nearly every issue Obama has walked a thin line that extorts contributions from both sides of every issue.

What a country!

WinCraig

I am not sure how this is going contribute his “hitting the reset button” with foreign countries but I do hope he bows before another Muslim king or Monarch.  It will be interesting to see if the guards take off his head, since after all there is no penalty in Sharia for executing an abomination insulting to Islam.

Lets be realistic. There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim. But there are fair, and tolerant Muslims. America embracing homosexual marriage will not make their life easier. Of course, America isn’t embracing homosexual marriage, it is being dictated by “The Leader”, who decides that he can accomplish what ever he wants, irregardless of legislative action.

President Obama “The Leader” has determined that America will insult Islamic followers and slap the face of Islamic leaders. I expect that against Christians and Jews, but this goes contrary to his “be nice for good results” mantra. How long before Iran demands the evil Americans be wiped from the face of the earth.

98 years ago an assassin plunged the world into a bloody war, where the then modern weapons produced millions upon millions of casualties. At the center of this was Islamic Imperialism. Today, Barrack Obama has given the Islamic Imperialists the weapon they need to rally all believers against the decadent, evil west. This is a “reset to the reset” and may have destroyed any hope for a peaceful coexistence with the Muslim Arab world.

I understand that Obama collected tremendous amounts of money after coming out for homosexual marriage. I hope it is worth it, because to a world of people, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim he is corrupt, evil and unclean. To the rest of us he is just stupid. He puts all of America at risk to collect a few dollars by saying he embraces something he has no power to make law. And in doing so may have tipped the scale of intolerance. Given that most people seem to feel that if you tolerate the distinction between a heterosexual union called marriage, and a homosexual union by some other name, that there is no reason not to be tolerant. But it is the peak of hypocrisy to demand that a clearly defined legal structure be corrupted to allow self centered people to pretend to be grown mature adults.

Sorry, but marriage is a partnership contract between two consenting adults, of the opposite sex, and an unknown, potential number of interested minor third parties represented by the government. We call these interested minor third parties offspring, and since they have rights that survive the termination of the partnership protecting their interest justifies government involvement in the marriage contract. It is in fact the ONLY thing that justifies involving the government prior to entering into the partnership contract. It invites the government to regulate the partnership for the good of the children at the expense of the adults.

Everything else is just playing house. Part of the reason that failure to produce offspring has always been  grounds for divorce. When two woman or two men can engage inmonogomous intimate relations that result in the creation of offspring without the involvement of a third party, I will support protection for their children too.  Until that day that leave marriage alone.

Get out the vote, send a message to Washington, “The Leader” was not sent there to dictate how we live or what we think. Send him packing with all of his cronies too.

WmCraig

SolvoReor

By the time you read this you should have seen that POTUS is once again acting against American’s duly elected Congressional representatives and has lifted a ban on an aide package of $192 million for the Palestinian Authority. No President has the authority to spend money that Congress specifically freezes. The experience of President Gerald Ford, denied funds by Congress needed to enforce the terms of the peace agreement in 1975 makes that very clear. However wrong headed the Congress may be, as long as the Congress does not allow money to be spent, the President is oath bound to honor that direction. I believe that enough Americans will see this middle of the night authorization as a blatant violation of the President’s oath of office and behavior reminiscent of President Obama’s favorite South American dictators. Remember that the Obama administration was forced to return a significant contribution to his campaign from Palestinian sources in 2008.

How should the Congress react? Well, personally I don’t expect them to do much but play a game “for show” to the tune of Sweet Georgia Brown. But what they should do is ask the judicial committee to authorize a formal inquiry into impeachment. Add to that a general inquiry into other departments such as state, justice, and especially the EPA to determine the extent to which the administration has used department mandates to dictate other action Congress has not authorized.

How does Congress go about this?

1.  First get the impeachment inquiry started.
2.  Next increase congressional investigation into the spending of every major department, into the impact that department policies have had on the cost of food, the cost of gas, the cost of energy, etc.. Focus on the relationship between contributions and government allocations, grants and guaranteed loans.  Look for connections with the end goal the elimination of the departments or freezing spending. Use the publicity from Congressional hearings to highlight actions that undermine trust in Obama’s administration ultimately leading elimination of  the Obama “CZARs” either through legislation, indictment or their resignation.
3. Pay special attention to past statements by Obama and his staff and appointees regarding actions that will result in increased costs to consumers. Make the witnesses defend statements about the natural skyrocketing of energy prices, food prices, unemployment, and any other progessive inspired sacrifice that afflicts the American people. Drill down through to the lower levels of government agencies to uncover links between big business and Wall Street to Obama, and between Obama directives and questionable actions.  Go below the level where the progressives will “sacrifice themselves for the cause” and get the truth about what the administations is doing that is hurting the economy and the country.
4.  Investigate the links between Obama’s actions and donors. Althouth Obama had to return a substantial donation from Palistinians in 2008, it should not be difficult to draw connections between Obama’s need for money and the “timely release” of 192 million dollars.  Congressional hearing into Solyndra and other failed green “investments” has already uncovered “pay to play” links. Pay attention to SEIU, and military adventurism in the Middle East and Africa. Look for new links, new authorizations that are clearly intended to free up money for donations with future promises of pay to play rewards.

The Obama administration and campaign is tainted and we already have lots of evidence in the ACORN, Solyndra, and the Rod Blagojevich scandals.   It is Congress’ job to expose the corruption and to enforce it’s legislation. Boehner needs to demonstrate leadership to make that happen. President Obama has handed the Republican’s a tremendous opportunity to get the truth out.  Boehner also controls the tools to investigate Obama’s foolish, wasteful and corrupt “green investments”. The President needs to understand that outside the lecture hall actions have consequences.   It is “fish or cut bait” time for Speaker of the House John  Boehner.

It should not be left to the Romney campaign to do the heavy lifting needed to bring detailed, accurate and timely reporting of the corrupt and deceitful Obama administration and campaign.

What will it be Mr. Speaker, will you hold the President to his oath to follow the laws you pass, or  should we play Sweet Georgia Brown?

Is it just me or does President Obama remind you of Terrell Owens. No disrespect meant to Terrell who at least was good at his job. Here we go again. The Obama administration wants to “spike the ball” one more time over their only score since the 2008 election at a time when the opposing team is leading by at least 28 points. And threatening to score again, too!

OK, Romney campaign team, pay attention, this is good stuff they are giving you. Get ready though because the questions are coming. Here are some suggestions on how to make the most of this.

- How well is the peace movement going to take this “bragging about Obama’s great military prowess”. Lets turn this into a wedge issue. If Obama wants to claim he is more adventuresome then Romney, let’s help. Obama took three wars and made them into 4-1/2. Lets make him defend his record on peace.

As for what Romney would do where does the President get off making this stuff up, he isn’t a professor anymore. Clearly, as a professor in college you can make stuff up all you want, especially if you teach a subject that isn’t mathmatics such as constitutional law. Who will argue with you? not anyone that passes the class, making it easy to always be right. But in the real world academic theories often prove to be nothing but fantasy and foreign leaders are not interested in how Obama will grade them. If Obama can make up stuff about Romney, so can Romney make stuff up about Romney too. Try this: Romney wouldn’t have had to kill Obama because he wouldn’t have bowed to foriegn leaders, hit the “reset button” on our foreign relations making America look weak and the President look foolish, and dissing our allies. Romney’s knows that Iran isn’t as in love with his voice or care about flunking out. It took Obama3-1/2 years to figure out that foreign leaders are not as in love with him as he thought. Iran couldn’t care one whit about talking to the “Great (delusional) One”. Romney would have focused on maintaining our respect through strength and Pakistan would never have let Obama live next to their military headquarters for fear of the consequences.
So yeah, Romney wouldn’t have had to kill Obama because well, he would not have been forced to do it as his only option.

For the record, given the economy, weak jobs creation, the deficit, continuing high unemployment, the student loan debacle, the embarrassment of the 2010 elections, the inability to formulate a budget, the loss of America’s credit standing, the high price of gas, the high price of food, the high price of electricity,the failure of so many expensive investments in alternative energy that does nothing but enrich the bankruptcy lawyers maybe Obama’s team trails by a lot more then just 4 touchdowns.

Lets get on this guys!

WmCraig
We have to fight the battles with the army we have, so don’t ask if I support Romney as it is irrelevant.

Rules for Radicals Tactical discussion. Fighting fire with fire (or playing by the organizers handbook)
Based on the Saul Alinsky’s rules for radicals the following “rules” are applicable.
RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.”
- Obama’s mistake – He represents the code pink peace movement
RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.”
- Any defense by Obama for his war mongering will naturally lead to divisions in his base, this is a wedge issue.
RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
- He campaigned against “Bushes wars” and added to them, rather then ending them, making them Obama’s wars.
RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
- Spiking the ball when you are behind 11 touchdowns to one, the opposing team is about to score again and the fans are leaving the stands is delusional at best. Make it stick!
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it
- This is a classic wedge issue. Any pressure on the Democrats coalition has the potential to be a force multiplier. Many don’t like this administration, or each other very much and only their hate for Bush kept them together.

Finally on a positive note
RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy”.
- Take my word for it, we ALL will enjoy watching Obama squirm under the attacks of code pink, somebody call Cindy Sheehan please.
- We may not all agree with Romney, but if the Romney campaign team stays on the offensive, and keeps Obama on the defensive, even if Romney isn’t always polite to President Nice Guy, it will be fun to watch, won’t it?

I keep reading stupid commentary from people who are too young to have any clue what the first earth day was about. Born and raised in Philadelphia I was a Senior in High School in 1970. It was a beautiful spring, and April 23 was a beautiful day. Philadelphia was trotting out ideas and celebrations for the up coming bicentennial celebration so “Olde City” was experiencing a revival that included a series of celebrations that drew tens of thousands to the area. Earth day was just one in a series of excuses to go down and play. Listen to the bands, see the sites. But mostly it was about being part of a big party. Not a Woodstock scene but a great time especially for the young but as well for all ages. It was a time to reconnect with the outdoors. Earth Day was a time to celebrate some of the successes over pollution that had previously driven people inside.  It was about fun outdoors.

What people found downtown was just short of amazing. The transition that gave us back out city had begun early in the 1960′s when Philadelphia, like many other cities banned burning coal within the city limits. The bicentennial was an excuse to go out and scrub off two hundred years of accumulated grime, and polish up the city. My friends and I as teenagers started traveling all over Philadelphia by public transportation as early as 1965. At that time the city was a dingy place, with grime that never really went away. You knew what neighborhood you were in by the taste of the air. But slowly that changed and by 1970 when we were old enough to drive we extended our visits beyond the range of the public transit.

We witnessed first hand the changes as they happened, from the air to the water. From the grime on the streets to the gleam on the walls. The whole point of April 1970 was to be outside. To walk along the river, play in the park, enjoy a sunny day and a fife and drum corps parade in our own concrete jungle. We looked at the river banks that had been buried in trash, we visited the factories being restored as commercial and residential oasis surrounded by newly created landscaped space, and we dreamed of a day when the water in the Schuylkill was not only clean looking but would once again be home to wildlife. Maybe even someday be able to eat something you caught from the river if fish ever were able to live there again, we joked.

We traveled all over the region that spring and summer too. It was before the OPEC oil embargo, gas was cheap and plentiful and the green movement hadn’t distorted the purpose of the experience yet. That year we enjoyed sailing “snarks” on the Delaware river and bay, swam in the ocean, glided rafts down the upper Delaware River visited the state and national parks. A nice pair of jeans replaced the mini skirt as the uniform girls in high school and college and it had an impact on what constituted a good weekend date. They wanted enjoy fun outdoor things. Hiking and biking, baseball, visiting the Olde City, the parks and the zoo. Groups of young people, college and high school students filled the streets, the paths and the parks in groups small and large just generally enjoying the outdoors and good company. More then anything else the first earth day was a chance for young people to get out and hang out, play with and meet people of the opposite sex. Period. Earth day was just one more “happening” in a spring overflowing with opportunities to get out and mingle. A time to make memories that included something that wasn’t air conditioned, made out of plastic, or smell like air freshener. It wasn’t about what was wrong with progress, but a celebration of what was being done right. It wasn’t about a static nature but a celebration of an evolving appreciation of nature and the potential for man to do be a better caretaker, whether outside was cultivated, manicured, landscaped, or wild. Cleaner streets and cleaner air, cleaner water and better landscaping, more concern for wildlife and a less destructive cultured life. It was about enjoying the benefits of cleaner world whether you found that on a paved part of the city at the edge of the Delaware river that was once industrial dock wasteland covered in grime, trash and soot or along hiking paths in the Appalachian mountains once at risk from clear cut logging and mining waste. It was about enjoying the outdoors again right in your own backyard or nearby environs.

So, when I read Earth Day: What they won’t sell you by Linsey Howshaw it struck me how far in the wrong direction we have come. And how much of that might actually be due to environmental movements distortions.

Howshaw closes her commentary with these lines, and nothing could be farther from the truth”

If we’re to truly appreciate the earth on Earth Day, we must recall those precious moments that have given us a window into true beauty and proffered us a real connection with nature.

As Alan Weisman, author of The World Without Us, has said:

“Everybody remembers the world when it was just nicer. It doesn’t matter what age you are, because you probably remember a place that if you returned to you’d think god, look what they’ve done to this place.”

If we are to “appreciate the earth on earth day we must recall precious moments” What kind of crazy thinking is this? You don’t recall precious moments when the scare police have made you afraid to leave the air conditioned safety of your car, your home and your work for fear you it might make you sneeze or wheeze. You make precious moments by smelling flowers (pollen, itchy burning eyes, bug bite, skin reactions and all) getting a little dirty and sweaty walking the trails up to Bosun’s tower (bug bites blisters and scratches included), splashing in the river, swimming in a fire hole pond, maybe riding a horse, or bike or even a ATV through a park, down a trail or through a meadow and oh yes, hanging out for a day in Olde City with the street vendors, the garbage can bands, the Ben Franklin tour guides and the fife and drum corps and a bunch of your best friends. You don’t recall memories. you make memories. Otherwise we are confining our “natural environment” to the dark recesses of a virtual museum where only a few experts and the privledged elite can enjoy them.

As for the idea that everyone remembers a world that was nicer that is just plain BS unless you are wet behind the ears. I remember a world that was far uglier. I remember when the Rivers burned, when the green river slime covering the garbage and stuff in the Schuylkill was chemical sludge. I remember when the riparian barrier between the river and city was intended to protect people from the danger of contact with the river, and not the other way around. I remember when coal was burned in every other home, every school and most business long before they had scrubbers or filters. When fires from embers where not uncommon. When burning leaves was legal because the air was so foul that you wouldn’t notice anyway. When rural homes had garbage pits in the back yard where periodically they would reduce everything to ash. I remember when there was little or no air conditioning for the average person, when it was a luxury in the home and car so the air complete with the natural and man made luggage it carried was with you every day every where.

No offense I but I remember a world fifty years ago that was headed towards a common description, reserved today only for the small section of the nearest waste dump that is waiting for a cap of clay to contain it. A putrid, smelly, vile contaminated place that could never come clean. A smelly dirty place over run with refuse.

People who talk about a better time don’t get it. I bet they never spent any time in farming country with the smell of freshly plowed fields, or the air full of the sounds and smells of the harvesters collecting their crops. None of them bought eggs from a chicken farm where they knew the farmer by first name, or hung out with a friend that raised cattle for sale or for milk. And certainly none of them sat in school and watched a load of coal being delivered. They have no idea. If they want to see a better future, and they want people to embrace the sacrifices they ask in the name of a better environment, talking about a time in the past when things were natural and better is flat out stupid. Every generation rejects the idols myths of it’s predecessors and this will be true of these environmental distortions as well some time soon.

Earth day must be about celebrating the progress we made, in spite of any setbacks. It must be about enjoying the beauty that we retain, not wallowing in self pity about the damage we have done. Only a fool believes that turning back the clock will restore a better place. That is not to deny that some patches have been lost, some beauty gone. But to think that somehow restoring what was 50 or 100 or 200 years ago would somehow make the world a better place without first reducing the population the 4 billion that it has grown in that period is to threaten the very progress we have made.

I will take my highly efficient car (that gets 2.5 times the miles per gallon of my 57 Buick LTD) and travel past the zoo that has no displays anymore because it is stressful to the animals, past the river where people fish for food and sport in what was once chemical waste disposal system long since cleaned up, past the restored brown fields that replaced the industrial tracts of my youth that now boast shopping centers and housing and parks, yes, parks where before there was grungy industrial plants, past the river where the industrial wharfs have long been renewed and revived as well, and travel on to a little place by a stream behind a friends house where we can sit and listen to the water bubble across an old rock fall free from the soapy scum that was there in our youth. We will barbecue some hot dogs before that activity is banned, drink some beer and watch the robins and jays play, the squirels skitter around, and the turtles stir from their water domain. We will make happy memories that even at this age, celebrate the joy of being outside. I will be acknowledge the advancement in antihistamine medicines, and be thankful I am not trapped in the sterile environment of this air conditioned world bemoaning the loss of a utopia that never existed.

Happy Earth day to you.

In an article by NBC’s Garrett Haake in FirstRead on MSNBC about off the record commentsmade by Mitt Romney an interesting picture is painted of the candidate.  While there doesn’t appear to be any way to verify this, and I wouldn’t trust anything from MSNBC I think there are some points here worth mentioning. Just in case the Romney campaign is seriously considering them.

“I’m going to take a lot of departments in Washington, and agencies, and combine them. Some eliminate, but I’m probably not going to lay out just exactly which ones are going to go,” Romney said. “Things like Housing and Urban Development, which my dad was head of, that might not be around later. But I’m not going to actually go through these one by one. What I can tell you is, we’ve got far too many bureaucrats. I will send a lot of what happens in Washington back to the states.”

I will send a lot of what happens in Washington back to the states. If only this is true! If we stopped there I am certain that the Romney campaign would win my vote. The article continues

“”The Department of Education: I will either consolidate with another agency, or perhaps make it a heck of a lot smaller. I’m not going to get rid of it entirely,” Romney said, explaining that part of his reasoning behind preserving the agency was to maintain a federal role in pushing back against teachers’ unions.

I want to hear more about how you will use “what is left” to push back against the teacher unions, but I would feel a lot better with a different answer. Give the state control over education, period. You can do this by eliminating funding and mandates from the federal government. You don’t have to eliminate the department if you eliminate it’s power to corrupt. Unfortunately things turn ugly towards the end of the article. And if this is true, I can tell you I will not be voting for anyone for President in the fall.

Predicting that immigration would become a much larger issue in the fall campaign, Romney told his audience, “We have to get Hispanic voters to vote for our party,” warning that recent polling showing Hispanics breaking in huge percentages for President Obama “spells doom for us.” Romney said the GOP must offer its own policies to woo Hispanics, including a “Republican DREAM Act,” referring to the legislative proposal favored by Democrats that would offer illegal immigrants a limited path to citizenship, to give Hispanic voters a real choice between parties.

If you really want to win the hispanic vote start by getting rid of that term. We need the Cuban,  Mexican, Central American and Puerto Rican vote. We want South American vote. But we want that vote from people who are here legally because we also want respect for our immigration laws.

There should be no amnesty, do not even talk about amnesty . This is not just a conservative view point, it is a mandate of the independent voter, and let me remind you, Obama did not pass any laws. Oh he is dictating through policy violations of our sovereignty, but he did not sign anything.  And when the election comes around Obama will run away with the independent vote if they think you are selling out to the foreign invaders who are taking all the good jobs. That is how they will see it. If you want the votes of Mexicans promise Mexicans a return to growth and prosperity and an effective way to allow our honest hard working neighbors to come here temporarily for work. But don’t promise amnesty, or forgiveness for past violations, or anything like that.

If the Romney campaign offers another Republican version of amnesty, which has not in the past bought us wholesale support, I promise you that I will be voting in the fall for every position I can, except for President.  I can live with a house and senate majority but no Republican president if that is the price of  real “difference” between the Democrats and the Republicans on immigration.

Overall my opinion of Romney went up, although I know this is from MSNBC.  But I am worried about some of these things, if any of them are true.

Time will tell.

The largest man made moving object on earth. The peak of technology, luxury and opulence. The Titanic said a lot about the future, a future being defined by great advances of the industrial era. The shocking disaster had a significant and lasting impact on society.  Not unlike the way the Challenger disaster shook confidence in NASA and began the end our faith in the hope for future manned exploration. And in the same way progressives took advantage of the housing bubble and financial crises to call for more government, 100 years ago socialists called for changes that would give more power to a central government to “better manage our future”.

It is no coincidence, in my opinion that people would elect Woodrow Wilson in the fall of 1912. His vision for a strong central government to protect people from the down side of capitalists rang true. Stories abounded, people who worked, were injured, even died, and families left with nothing. But this was a different time, and the price of living was risk, much riskier then anything we see today. It is impossible to imagine, struggling every day with no safety net, unless you were personally wealthy. But what made this time different was the value of labor. Craftsman had their guilds, their apprenticeships, there natural course that provided a measure of safety and predictability. A blacksmith may labor for a decade or more for a master, secure in his job, with knowledge that at some point he would be a master blacksmith himself, with his own forge. But the rail road worker, the coal miner, the machinist, the child or woman working in the garment industry did not have any such protection, and the simple idea that things would improve until all hardship was itself gone sank to the bottom of the ocean 100 years ago today. The who is who of industrialists including those that built the ship  who sailed aboard the Titanic was a shocking wake up call that even those with the best information sadly could not be trusted to be right about technology they and everyone else trusted with their lives.

Woodrow Wilson won the election that fall, and just before his inauguration the states ratified the first of three “socialist” dream amendments. The 16th amendment granting the federal government the right to tax citizens of the states.  Followed shortly by the 17th amendment ending governor appointment of Senators, and the 18th Amendment ushering in the first of the nanny state solutions.

Of course, the 18th amendment undermined government authority, corrupted politicians, lead to increased crime, and went against human nature.   But the same can now be said for the 16th amendment, it just took longer to get past the fog of propaganda.

For the last one hundred years we have suffered with progressive’s “progress” towards a national government of vast centralized power concentrated in the hands of a very few ruling elite individuals and families. A mixture of modern hereditary ruling families an oligarchy of our two party system, and the influence of large NGO’s, purpose driven organizations, industrial interests, business groups, and financial interests. It is apparent that the more power Washington has, the fewer people who actually control the government. The idea of self government was based on states power, with individuals enjoying self government through state and local elections. The federal government was subservient to the states, in all but foreign policy.

The last few elections have demonstrated that Americans are aware that something is wrong. The idea that “the three branches of government” protected the voters from loosing their liberty is a lie of the progressives. The true protection came from the independence of the states. Without a dependable independent  source of revenue like the income tax, the federal government was constrained not by three branches but by the need to get a consensus from the states. The appointment of senators by the governors insured this was the case.  But the progressives eliminated that protection too.

America is ready for change, but the progressives behind President Obama are late to the game. No longer can even the media control the message and hide the truth completely. Like that bad news that the Titanic was not being towed to New York with the survivors aboard, the truth about a future under progressives gets out. The voters  may not fully understand exactly what change they want, but they know the country is headed in the wrong direction and that the problem is Washington.  It is too early yet this year to know if there will be a catastrophe of the magnitude of the titanic sinking, taking down with it the credibility of those leaders of the progressive movement that captured the confidence of the American voters also a century ago.  But already there is a sinking in the making, with prerequisite ambiguity, the competing messages, and the denials by the fabricators, and sponsors.  There will be no death toll, fortunately, because the catastrophe in the making is the declaration that ObamaCare is unconstitutional. But for the authors that conceived and put together this monstrosity, their reputations as “guardians of the truth, protectors of the future, holders of the only true knowledge” it is certain that the overturning of the law will call into question the reliability of the promises for the future that progressivism represents.  Like the people who realized that the industrialists were not infallible, just because there were rich and powerful, the same is true of the progressives. They are not infallible, just because they are rich and powerful.

The question that now must be asked is, if we as voters do not trust the Republicans to act any differently then the Democrats, what is to replace them? Certainly the progressives have an answer, one that Franklin Roosevelt would understand. Get rid of that pesky restriction on how many terms any one person can hold. But are the Republicans really different or are they just a “team to run against” fundamentally committed to big government. Have national elections been reduced to a scripted performance? Is the competition between the parties nothing more than a “exhibition” like those between Harlem Globe Trotters and Generals  basketball teams? Are the Republicans now dancing the part of the Generals to Sweet Georgia Brown?

America wants change. Progressives promise change, and however painful Progressives promise it will be “fair”. But it is pretty obvious that is a lie. The benefits granted by the government of that future will not be spread evenly but exchanged for money just as it is today.  But what change does the Republican party offer? Less of the above? Who believes that Republicans will not take money, or that they will dismantle the system Obama has created? A system set up so that the next time the Democrats get control they can complete the fundamental restructuring of America President Elect Obama promised five days before the inauguration?

The Republicans need a big change, one that can compete with the President for life goal of progressives. Less of the same isn’t enough. Reducing the damage the progressives did to our liberty this time won’t sell either. We need real fundamental change that will appeal across ideological lines and restore liberty. It is time for the Republicans to call a truce in the national tug of war between Conservatives and Liberals over who controls Washington.  It isn’t about which side will best manage the behemoth Washington bureaucracy, it is about restoring liberty and self determination. It is about self government. It is about  tax reform and government reform. The answer to progressives ultimate goal of a president for life, is to repeal the 16th  and 17th amendments. Replace it with a state apportionment program and let the states deal with the funding. Let the states take care of domestic policy free of federal interference and mandates.

Real tax reform will come not from Washington D.C., but from places like Seattle, Harrisburg, Bismarck, Helena, Springfield and forty five other state capitals. It will vary from place to place, reflecting the interests of a majority of the citizens of that place. And overall government spending may grow or shrink from a local perspective depending on the services each state’s citizens are willing to fund, but each state will still have to balance their budget. Washington D.C. just seems to spend money without any real concern about even creating a budget. Let alone a balanced budget.

I don’t expect the Republican candidate Mr. “Not (quite) Obama” to start to care about real change. But then, if we get enough people in the house and senate we don’t need him anyway. The President has no role in the amendment process, regardless of who wins. And if the leadership isn’t t sure how to convince fifty state legislators that ratifying a repeal of the 16th and 17th amendment would benefit them immensely, I can put together a team that represents every political persuasion that could sell it.

Then 100 years from now we can celebrate the sinking of the Progressive political machine that is sailing head long at full steam into disaster, and the saving of the American people from the sinking financial mess that Washington has created, rescued by the fifty lifeboats that are the safe harbors of American democracy.

The states are America’s lifeboats, and we need to emphasize the importance of those states, not keep building a bigger centralized “unsinkable” federal government. That lesson is one we can learn from the decisions that were made leading up to the tragedy of the Titanic, 100 years ago today.

WmCraig

Good for Gov. Christie. There remains hope that there is a place in the Republican party for people of principle. Maybe not in Washington, but that is another discussion. I want to discuss what marriage is and how we can protect it.

I want to approach this from a different point of view. One that doesn’t rely on religious belief. One that is based purely on an analysis of the logic behind why a society allows government involvement in the relations between two consenting adults. From a purely civic point of view marriage is a contract between two consenting adults and the government. What is unique about marriage is that last part, “and the government”.  Lets see what this means.

First we need to understand something about regular legal partnerships. Two consenting adults of any sex can enter into a contract partnership without approval by the government. Two consenting adults can engage in intimate relations without government interference. Two adults can own property in common; they can acquire, benefit from, and dispose of assets held in common; they can exchange powers of attorney, and they can designate each other beneficiary of insurance policies, and in many states they can declare a “life-partner” who will be treated to the same employee benefits extended to a spouse. In short, with proper legal documentation they can create a framework covering all the benefits of marriage without approval from the government. Like all partnerships it ends with the death of one of the partners and the assets become the property of the other partner. Taxes ramification can be offset by insurance.  Further, if the partners decide to end the partnership (for any reason) the government will adjudicate any dispute over distribution of assets and liabilities based on the provisions of the contract.

So in short, the government has a system in place to provide people with the ability to enter into a partnership that provides all the legal protections of a marriage, without the strings and without advanced approval. So what makes “marriage” unique?

Marriage is a contract between two consenting adults of the opposite sex, and the government representing the interests of an unknown number of potential interested minor third parties, interests that survive the termination of the partnership.

We call the interested third parties children.

This is what makes marriage different from any other contract. First, there are potentially interested parties that otherwise do not exist, that might be introduced into the partnership through intimate relations between the partners and standard partnership is not designed for this situation. A standard partnership does not “automatically extend” to additional partners and as minors they do not meet the qualifications to be “consenting adults”. Further, unique to a marriage contract is that the interest of the children survives the termination of the contract. In all partnerships once the partnership is dissolved, there are not further obligations on the partners. But marriage is different because the offspring retain a claim against both partners that continues even after the contract has been dissolved. It is this claim and the rights of these children that brings the government into the agreement in advance. The government is there to protect the interests of the minors, not the interests of the adults.

Same sex couples cannot introduce children into the the partnership through monogamous intimate relations. Therefor there is no risk that a same sex marriage will introduce “interested third parties’ and no reason for the government to go to the expense to “provide protection” for children.

There is the argument that couples can adopt. Any couple can adopt as can single people in many places. But adoption has it’s own legal structure to protect the interests of the minors involved and therefore does not require the unique provisions of the marriage contract. In addition it must be recognized that one or both members of a lesbian partnership can produce children. Not through intimate relations between the partners, but by the introduction of breading material from a third party how ever that may be achieved. The government has a very clear stance on extra-marital relationships that produce offspring. The obligation falls on the biological parents. The government treats any relationship, however brief or transient that results in the birth of an offspring as a contract and gives the offspring rights that survive the termination of the contract.

So, in summary, marriage is a unique legal construct for the express purpose of providing protection to the unborn children that result from a declared partnership that involves an intimate relationship between two people of the opposite sex.

Religion and cultural beliefs distract from the basic legal purpose for government involvement. While they enhance the lives and relationships of the parties involved they only serve as a distraction from the basic debate over the meaning of marriage and laws intended to change the definition of a marriage contract.

Personally I don’t care what relationships two people have, regardless of sex of the partners. But I do not believe it is in the best interest of society to deny the basic premise of marriage as legal protection for offspring produced by the intimate relations between a man and a woman in a monogamous relationship. Even if that does result in an inferior status for any other form of relationship.

SolvoReor