Wednesday, January 26, 2011
SOTU Musings
Frankly, I've heard a better speech from a high schooler, and the kid didn't have a teleprompter. Not exciting, not even interesting. Way too long. My better half remarked, "He's taking so long so that people will be tired and want to go to bed without listening to the Republican response." Maybe so.
I will admit to bias, since I think Mr. Obama is actively trying to destroy the US economy. (And as I have said before, if he isn't, how could one tell?)
I won't go into a substantive analysis, as many people smarter and more knowledgeable than I have already done so.
(0) comments
I will admit to bias, since I think Mr. Obama is actively trying to destroy the US economy. (And as I have said before, if he isn't, how could one tell?)
I won't go into a substantive analysis, as many people smarter and more knowledgeable than I have already done so.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Obama in 2001-Radio Interview in Chicago
This interview reveals what President Obama really thinks about the Constitution. It should be listened to every day between now and Election Day 2012, so that people know what they are voting on.
(0) comments
Labels: Chicago, Constitution, Obama
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
Proposed Constitutional Amendments
I would like to go on record as supporting two proposed amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America.
The first, known as the Repeal Amendment, has been introduced in Congress and reads as follows:
This proposed amendment would go a long way toward restoring the balance between the federal government and the state governments, which was thrown out of kilter by the Seventeenth Amendment, which provided for the popular election of US Senators. Under the original design of the Constitution, the House of Representatives, whose members were elected directly by the people, represented the people of the United States as a whole, while the Senate, whose members were chosen by the legislatures of the several states, represented the states as political entities in their own right. The effect of the Seventeenth Amendment was to make the Senate a smaller version of the House, with longer terms so that bad decisions by the voters would be around longer to cause more mischief. One positive effect of adopting the Repeal Amendment might be that unfunded federal mandates on the states would become a thing of the past.
The other proposed amendment has been bouncing around the Internet for a while, and as far as I can tell has no formal title. I'll call it the "Sauce For The Goose Amendment," and it reads:
The purpose and effect of the Sauce For The Goose Amendment are self-evident; Congress has developed a penchant for adopting one set of laws for the citizens generally and a different (and invariably more favorable to the Members and Senators) set for themselves and their staffs. As a result, they don't have to live with the havoc they've created in such areas as, for example, employment law, and have given themselves a gold-plated health plan that is exempt from the Obamacare provisions. Nothing could better guarantee a legislature that is out of touch with the citizens they purportedly represent.
I believe that adoption of these two amendments would go a long way to righting the Ship of State, which has developed an alarming list to port in recent decades.
(0) comments
The first, known as the Repeal Amendment, has been introduced in Congress and reads as follows:
Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed.
This proposed amendment would go a long way toward restoring the balance between the federal government and the state governments, which was thrown out of kilter by the Seventeenth Amendment, which provided for the popular election of US Senators. Under the original design of the Constitution, the House of Representatives, whose members were elected directly by the people, represented the people of the United States as a whole, while the Senate, whose members were chosen by the legislatures of the several states, represented the states as political entities in their own right. The effect of the Seventeenth Amendment was to make the Senate a smaller version of the House, with longer terms so that bad decisions by the voters would be around longer to cause more mischief. One positive effect of adopting the Repeal Amendment might be that unfunded federal mandates on the states would become a thing of the past.
The other proposed amendment has been bouncing around the Internet for a while, and as far as I can tell has no formal title. I'll call it the "Sauce For The Goose Amendment," and it reads:
Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States.
The purpose and effect of the Sauce For The Goose Amendment are self-evident; Congress has developed a penchant for adopting one set of laws for the citizens generally and a different (and invariably more favorable to the Members and Senators) set for themselves and their staffs. As a result, they don't have to live with the havoc they've created in such areas as, for example, employment law, and have given themselves a gold-plated health plan that is exempt from the Obamacare provisions. Nothing could better guarantee a legislature that is out of touch with the citizens they purportedly represent.
I believe that adoption of these two amendments would go a long way to righting the Ship of State, which has developed an alarming list to port in recent decades.
Labels: Congress, Constitution
Saturday, January 01, 2011
The Middle East "Peace Process" ...
Is a failure, and will always be a failure as long as the goal is to keep talking and not to resolve the problems.
The biggest problem is, (and I must credit the unknown person who first expressed this idea) that if the Palestinian Arabs were to lay down their arms, there would be peace. If Israel were to lay down its arms, Israel would cease to exist.
There will be no peace until and unless one of two things happens: either the Palestinian Arabs win and Israel ceases to exist (this being a necessary, but not sufficient condition because of the factions among the Palestinian Arabs), or the Palestinian Arabs accept that the State of Israel has a right to exist and the "right of return" is abandoned.
It's as simple as that, and as difficult as that. Anybody who thinks otherwise is either incredibly naive or has an agenda.
(0) comments
The biggest problem is, (and I must credit the unknown person who first expressed this idea) that if the Palestinian Arabs were to lay down their arms, there would be peace. If Israel were to lay down its arms, Israel would cease to exist.
There will be no peace until and unless one of two things happens: either the Palestinian Arabs win and Israel ceases to exist (this being a necessary, but not sufficient condition because of the factions among the Palestinian Arabs), or the Palestinian Arabs accept that the State of Israel has a right to exist and the "right of return" is abandoned.
It's as simple as that, and as difficult as that. Anybody who thinks otherwise is either incredibly naive or has an agenda.
Labels: Israel, Middle East, Palestinans, Peace Process
