Republican Party and People of Color

I am a white male who has never lived in a diverse ethnic environment.  I am also a Republican and a fiscal conservative.  While am am personally a social conservative as well, those issues are not what drive my voting decisions.

The Republican Party was the party that freed the slaves in the 1860's  The Republican Party then worked to protect the rights of those freed slaves from the southern Democrats who tried to deny them those rights.

I do not understand how the party that did that has purportedly become such an enemy of black people and brown people.  I blame the party itself.  But, fortunately we do have notable people in those demographics who are Republicans, conservatives or both.

I call upon leaders such as Marco Rubio, Susana Martinez, Herman Cain, Allen West, Ted Cruz, and others to actively explain why the Republican Party is their party of choice and help others to share that view.

An answer to the question, "who are the moochers on the Federal Government?"

Whether it is big businesses paying Congressmen in order to get tax breaks, or big government bureaucracies that have accomplished their purpose but find new tasks in order to keep hanging onto their public jobs, or, yes, some of those people who simply decide it's easier to take public welfare because they can't find a job "in their field" it seems to always cost money. Right now the government is borrowing a scarily high percentage of the money it spends.

Bribe or Compromise?

I've been struggling for quite a while about how laws are made in the U.S. Congress - specifically the give-and-take necessary to get all the votes needed to pass a law.

I understand the need to compromise.  But I oppose bribery and I think most people do as well.

Consider, a bill is proposed by one party dealing with highway construction.  Overall Congress is pretty evenly split on the issue, but there are just a handful of people in the other party who are wavering and could be persuaded with some compromise.  Suppose those who want the bill then offer $10,000 each in cash to those handful to swing their vote.  I think we would all agree that this scenario is clearly bribery - and wrong.

On the other hand, if the original proponents of the bill wanted to spend $100,000,000,000 over a 3 year period to fund this, but the opponents didn't see how we could afford that and instead want to spend only $50,000,000,000 in those 3 years.  Someone suggests $75,000,000,000 over 4 years and everyone "settles" for that plan.  I think we would all agree that this is clearly a compromise and perfectly legitimate.

Compromises tend to treat everyone in a consistent way.  The compromise above passes that test.  Bribes tend to treat different groups differently.  In the bribery example, only the handful who lined their pockets with the cash benefited with that action.

Historically, we have had major compromises:  the Missouri Compromise, the compromise to select the location for the District of Columbia in exchange for setting up a U.S. Bank, and all the compromising that went into the U.S. Constitution itself.  Most of those compromises seem to have treated everyone, or at least large groups, equally.  

On the other hand, the negotiations in the Affordability Care Act seemed to come much closer to the bribery end of the spectrum (think the so-called Louisiana Purchase as well as others that escape my memory) solely because they give preference to a relatively small number of people rather in exchange for a vote.

I'm sure this has been happening for decades and I'm sure what looks like bribery to me may look like compromise to someone else.  That doesn't make it right and we need to encourage leaders to compromise rather than be bought.

Guideposts for America

The United States is a great country, but we have some serious issues.  What guideposts should we consider to address those issues?  Here are some ideas:

1. The United States of America must be independent.  That is not to say we should legislate isolationism.  But it is inexcusable that economic problems in Greece should have so much impact of the economy of the U.S.  So, filter policy questions with questions such as, "does this make us more dependent or less dependent on other countries?"
   
   This impacts our involvement with the United Nations, NATO, World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund.  It should also be considered when talking about energy policy - we should decrease our dependency on foreign oil by harvesting the energy that we have within our borders and with our allies in North America.
   
   
2. The United States of America must deal with immigration.  I have previously posted concerns that we are being invaded and that is how a young United States annexed the Oregon Territory.  People who immigrate should desire and be required to assimilate within the culture they chose to enter; they should not expect our culture to conform to theirs.  This pertains to language and religion.
   
   Because of the aging of the US population, we need immigrants to provide a younger and vital work force.  This should be permitted only through legal means.  Allowing 25,000 annually from every country, regardless of size is unreasonable.  Ask, "does this policy encourage legal immigration and assimilation into our culture and does it discourage illegal entry?"
   
   
3. The United States of America must consider the prosperity of our North American neighbors.  A healthy economy in Canada contributes to a friendly relationship with the US.  Nothing would improve our relationship with Mexico (and help with the immigration problem on our common border) than a healthy Mexican economy.  This does not mean we just give the Mexican government a lot of money.  It means that we share ideas and help that country and its people improve its own standard of living.
   
   
4. The United States must again encourage self-reliance and personal responsibility.  Ask, "does this policy foster personal responsibility in both the short term and the long term?"  If so, consider it.  If not, and it encourages dependency on any level of government, reject it.
   
   
5. The United States must embrace the moral center that was prevalent in the Founding Fathers.  We need to recognize that there are only certain rights that are endowed by a creator (and neither home ownership nor a college education fit).  While the Founders would not impose a national (like the Church of England) they were not atheists and expected a certain moral center for our grand experiment to work.  Ask, "does this policy support inalienable rights or does it abridge them?"  Or, "does this create a 'right' that was not enumerated in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution?"  Embrace those at support those rights and reject those that purport to create a new one.
   
   Islamist countries do not apologize for being such.  The US need not apologize for being formed with Judeo-Christian principles (or at least the belief that there is a creator  to whom we are accountable upon death).
   
   
6. The United States must address its debt problem.  That could be done by raising taxes, cutting expenditures or a combination of both.  If all we try is raising taxes, we will never solve the problem.  We may delay the time when our debt load exceeds our Gross Domestic Product, but governments tend to spend enough to meet the revenues  generated and never cut back after they have gotten used to the increased spending.
   
   I do see a need for some tax increases.  The most reasonable one to me is the payroll tax (FICA).  I would support removing the ceiling (if you make $1,000,000 you can pay the 9.8% on all that salary - not just on the first $120,000 or so).
   
   
7. The United States should be strong militarily in order to protect itself, but it should use that strength only for defense.  The period of eminent domain ended when we reached from shore to shore.  We are not to be an expanding empire.  If we buy territory through a peaceful treaty (such as we did to acquire Alaska) that's fine.  But we should not militarily occupy other lands.
   
   
8. The United States should consider the "KISS" principle - "Keep It Simple, Stupid."  That pertains most urgently to the Federal Taxation Laws.  It also pertains to other laws - laws should be able to be read and understood by the he average citizen.  They should no longer be the 2,000 page indecipherable laws such as the Affordability Care Act of 2010.

Self Reliance

I have a friend who lives in a nice neighborhood where his house abuts a heavily wooded area. He has wild turkeys that come into his yard. At first, whenever he went outside, they scurried away. Then he started giving them food. They would still run away and wait until he went back into his house before they ate the food. The more often he fed them, the more they watched and learned that he was giving them a hand-out. Eventually they got so friendly he could have grabbed them for Thanksgiving dinner.

It's hard to understand how that same friend can still be a liberal and think it is good for our country and our people to continually receive handouts.

JudgeNap.com | Contact

The Invasion of the United States

US Constitution, Article IV, Section 4:

"The United States shall guarantee to every state in the Union, a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;..."

I don't think Invasion needs to be a formal army. Too many things point to the invasion of illegal immigrants from Mexico as an invasion that can destroy state, if not Federal sovereignty.

Why is our Federal government not following this article of the constitution?

We have lessons from our history. In the early-mid 19th century, how did the United States get the Oregon Territory? Was it by war? No, there was threat of war over an explicit boundary line, but the victory was simply by sending so many American trappers, hunters, farmers, merchants, etc. into the territory that the British knew they had lost it.

Isn't that what is happening now?

Ground Zero mosque

Ground Zero mosque

Like many people, I have opinions on the mosque near Ground Zero.

I, too, believe that they have a U.S. Constitutional right build there mosque. No question.

But there is a significant difference between having the right to do something and whether it is right to do something. Do you agree with the press sticking their microphones in the faces of families who just lost a loved one? Yes, they have the right, but it is not the right thing to do.

There was a time when women wouldn't go to church without wearing a hat, because it wasn't right. There was a time when people would dress up to take an airplane flight because it was the right thing to do.

Final thought, why are we so ready to give permission for this mosque, when St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church that was the only church destroyed in the attack on 9/11 has been trying for 10 years to get permission to rebuild on its site? They have their right to re-build as well.