Independence. Freedom. Self-reliance. Rugged individualism. These used to be words that described the American spirit. Nobody expected anything that they didn't earn. All anybody wanted was the chance to make it on their own, and for the government to stay out of their way. This was a central idea in the United States. People just wanted the chance to make it on the basis of their own ideas and talents. And in reality, why should we ask for more.
I said these used to be words that described the American spirit. Now? It is hard to tell. People have decided that it is their RIGHT to have "free" health care provided by the government. It is their RIGHT to have a job secured by the government. It is their RIGHT to have a comfortable lifestyle guaranteed by the government. It is their RIGHT to be able to have the biggest house they want, even if they cannot afford it. Why have we reached this point?
This idea absolutely irritates me. In order for all of these "rights" to be guaranteed, we will have to give the government unprecedented levels of control over our lives, as well as authorize them to spend unprecedented amounts of money. Newsflash: Life has hard times people. It is a part of life. The government cannot stop this. The path we are on now is merely going to create temporary (if at all successful) solutions while creating much bigger problems farther down the road. When the extremely moderate (if not leftist) Senator John McCain is denouncing the recently passed stimulus package as one that is "stealing from our children", it is clear that these so-called solutions are not really solving anything.
Every time President Obama says that the government MUST ACT NOW! because Americans are going through hard times, I ask myself why? Don't get me wrong, I don't like the fact that Americans are losing jobs and having to make difficult decisions. But I also understand that at the moment unemployment is less than a third of what it was during the depression. It isn't even in double digits yet. I can't help but feel the President and the actions of Congress are in fact doing more harm than good. Lets put this in perspective. The Great Depression essentially lasted the entire decade of the 30's, and was only fixed by WWII. There is a very strong argument that the depression would have been much, much shorter if it was not for the "New Deal" policies of the Roosevelt administration. We are heading down the same road. Why don't we as a country face the hard times, scale back a little bit, and endure this crisis based on our own abilities?
So, you ask, what is my solution? We obviously cannot let the economy just go the way it has been. Okay, we are in agreement. The government's current solutions are not the answer. The answer, my friends, will be revealed soon, on this very blog. Probably sometime next week. I am dead serious when I say that I will want to take this idea nationwide. When I reveal it, I will want feedback, but more importantly, I will want ideas about how to spread it, and help spreading it. This idea will return to individuals the ability to control their own destiny again, and rely less upon the government for this help. Be on the lookout, and know that answers are on the way.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Hey! An update!
Well, first of all, let me apologize for failing to update this bad boy for a number of weeks. I have been incredibly busy with class or work. This, however, is no excuse and I hope to be better in the future. Maybe not posting every day, but at least a couple of times a week.
I have been incredibly tempted to rant and rail on the so-called stimulus package. But to what end? Instead, I have been working on my own economy fixing idea that, should I get the support of the proper individuals, I intend to try and get out into the public debate and maybe get the attention of some of our lawmakers. This idea is so unique that I doubt it has occurred to anyone. However, it is also incredibly simple. Look for more on it in the coming week.
So, what is the topic for today? The push by Senator Boxer (D-California) for the U.S. to ratify the U.N. treaty on the Convention on the Rights of the Child. This is a treaty passed in 1989. A link to the original convention can be found here. I read through most of it, and a lot of it sounds good on the surface. However, there is a reason that the U.S.A is alone with Somalia as being the only nations not to ratify the treaty, and pretty much every family rights organization in America is oppossed to its passage. It presents a major threat to two different things: 1.) U.S. sovereignty & 2.) Parent's rights. As per Article VI of the United States Constitution, all treaties entered into by the U.S. government are binding over the laws of the state and federal governments of the country. For example, lets say that the commission decides that corporal punishment is inhumane. This means that parents would not longer be allowed to spank their kids. (When California, one of the most liberal states in the country, could not get legislation passed to ban spanking, it is indicative of the punishment's importance to American parents.) This is a very real possibility. In some cultures, it may not be necessary for spanking. I do not know. What I do know is that I do not want France, or Venezuela, or just Europe in general to be deciding how I will be raising my kids someday.
The fact that Senator Boxer is pushing so hard for us to pass this treaty, which has remained stagnant after former president Bill Clinton signed it but the U.S. Senate refused to pass it, is both the epitome of arrogance and incredibly insulting. "Now, all you have to do is look around the world and see these girls that are having acid thrown in their face"was what she said, which to me implies that she thinks our refusal to ratify this treaty is the cause of the acid in the face problem. I doubt our decision to refuse to ratify the treaty has caused the acid throwers to say "oh, the USA didn't ratify the treaty, it must be alright to throw this acid in this little girl's face." Give me a break.
The other really annoying thing about this is the fact that the United Nations is involved. Why should we ever be signing our sovereignty over to that pitiful organization? Between the rabid anti-American ideology, the Security Council, Kofi Annan (research oil-for-food), and the raping peacekeepers, just to name a few of the MANY U.N. problems, have we not had enough of the United Nations? Why would we give them control over the rights of our parents?
I, for one, do not want the United Nations raising my future kids.
I have been incredibly tempted to rant and rail on the so-called stimulus package. But to what end? Instead, I have been working on my own economy fixing idea that, should I get the support of the proper individuals, I intend to try and get out into the public debate and maybe get the attention of some of our lawmakers. This idea is so unique that I doubt it has occurred to anyone. However, it is also incredibly simple. Look for more on it in the coming week.
So, what is the topic for today? The push by Senator Boxer (D-California) for the U.S. to ratify the U.N. treaty on the Convention on the Rights of the Child. This is a treaty passed in 1989. A link to the original convention can be found here. I read through most of it, and a lot of it sounds good on the surface. However, there is a reason that the U.S.A is alone with Somalia as being the only nations not to ratify the treaty, and pretty much every family rights organization in America is oppossed to its passage. It presents a major threat to two different things: 1.) U.S. sovereignty & 2.) Parent's rights. As per Article VI of the United States Constitution, all treaties entered into by the U.S. government are binding over the laws of the state and federal governments of the country. For example, lets say that the commission decides that corporal punishment is inhumane. This means that parents would not longer be allowed to spank their kids. (When California, one of the most liberal states in the country, could not get legislation passed to ban spanking, it is indicative of the punishment's importance to American parents.) This is a very real possibility. In some cultures, it may not be necessary for spanking. I do not know. What I do know is that I do not want France, or Venezuela, or just Europe in general to be deciding how I will be raising my kids someday.
The fact that Senator Boxer is pushing so hard for us to pass this treaty, which has remained stagnant after former president Bill Clinton signed it but the U.S. Senate refused to pass it, is both the epitome of arrogance and incredibly insulting. "Now, all you have to do is look around the world and see these girls that are having acid thrown in their face"was what she said, which to me implies that she thinks our refusal to ratify this treaty is the cause of the acid in the face problem. I doubt our decision to refuse to ratify the treaty has caused the acid throwers to say "oh, the USA didn't ratify the treaty, it must be alright to throw this acid in this little girl's face." Give me a break.
The other really annoying thing about this is the fact that the United Nations is involved. Why should we ever be signing our sovereignty over to that pitiful organization? Between the rabid anti-American ideology, the Security Council, Kofi Annan (research oil-for-food), and the raping peacekeepers, just to name a few of the MANY U.N. problems, have we not had enough of the United Nations? Why would we give them control over the rights of our parents?
I, for one, do not want the United Nations raising my future kids.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)