About a month ago, I stumbled onto Scott Stewart's Facebook wall, where he asked a question about some current topic of interest. Since that time, he has followed that question with several more, and I have avidly read all of the comments posted in answer to his questions. The topics have varied, ranging from the building of a mosque in New York to taxation, health care, term limits, immigration reform, corporations, welfare and government in general.
For the most part, the commentary has been serious and well thought out, and leading in many cases to further questions. People seem to be well aware that the issues are complex,and often interdependent. "If you pick a blade of grass, you move a star." Representing a fairly wide spectrum of opinion, the participants in this dialogue all appear to be serious in their concern for America, and in their willingness to contribute to its well-being.
I have now seen so many questions that I am getting truly confused. I'm asking myself if these questions aren't the trees, and if we aren't overlooking the forest in which they exist.
Is the basic issue that America is no longer what it was, and that ordinary citizens, scientists, engineers, lawyers and the like, are realizing that fact and getting concerned, very concerned, about it?
America used to be a country that could do anything, from evicting the English to becoming an industrial giant, to saving Europe, to putting a man on the moon. Now, we can't build a border fence, plug an oil leak or keep our major companies solvent, not to mention the fact that we can't seem to win a war anymore.
Is it that we have become too immersed in leading our own lives, enjoying the fruit of our labor, and leaving the responsibility of running the country to politicians, with almost no oversight? It wasn't meant to be that way. The founding fathers made it clear that an enlightened and active citizenry was a necessary part of preserving the republic which they worked so hard and risked so much to achieve.
Is it that we are becoming totally frustrated with government, as it exists today? We are no longer a two-party system. We have one party, the Incumbency Party. There is little real difference between Democrats and Republicans. Is Barrack Obama that different from George Bush? Really?
In my opinion, it's not that America has more and bigger problems than in the past, although it does have some major problems. America has always had problems, and it used to bite the bullet and solve them, no matter what it took. It entered World War II from a period of isolationism with almost no military force and no existing capacity to churn out the necessary military hardware to wage a two-front war. It landed a man on the moon in a space capsule that by today's standards was a tin can.
Part of the problem seems to be that our government has totally lost touch with the people that it is supposed to represent. It does as it seems fit, and in many cases what it does is based on personal or political considerations. Have you tried talking to your Congressman? Were you able to? Was he responsive to your concerns? Does he know what people think outside of the Beltway? In my experience, he is most deeply concerned about his re-election, and therefoe more than willing to sacrifice any of his ideals in return for political support from any interest group that will have him.
America has more well-educated and competent people than any country on Earth, yet most of us are like sheep, following questionable leaders into oblivion. Scott's questions are a start. Dialogue between opposing points of view is healthy, and questioning is an absolute necessity. But is that it? Where does it go next?
I think that the first step is to make the government responsive to the wants and needs of the people. They must be told what the people want, and if they won't listen, they must be replaced. You can't do this only from your laptop. Anyone can run for office in America, whether it be for Congress or city councilman. And everyone can vote. Maybe that's the starting point. We are less than two months from Election Day, and maybe it's time for Congress to hear from its constituency.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
If You Build It They Will Come?
Why are so many Americans upset about the building of a mosque in Lower Manhattan, next to the site of the old World Trade Center? This mosque is supposed to be a cultural center and a symbol of the peace-loving nature of the Islamic religion, and nothing more. But is it?
The group proposing the building of this mosque is led by an Imam who refuses to describe Hamas as a terrorist organization. This alone should raise the ire of New York's heavy Jewish population. Hamas is an organization which wreaks terror on the population of Israel on a daily basis.
This same Imam has claimed that American foreign policy made America an accomplice to 9/11. He has a right to this view, and even a right to express it, despite the fact that most Americans would disagree vehemently with him, but does this make him a credible sponsor of a project advertised as bridging the gap between religions? Hardly.
There are questions about the source of funding for this project. Somehow, the U.S. State Department has now managed to 'sponsor' this Imam and pay for his expenses to travel to the Middle East in order to raise funds for the project. Is this insane, or is it not? If American Islamists want to build a mosque, they should raise the money from within their American community, as do the Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Mormons. Maybe there just aren't enough profitable 7/11 convenience stores to do this.
Governor Patterson of New York has proposed an alternative whereby the mosque could be built elsewhere, on state property. Wouldn't this violate the Constitution, which require separation of church and state? Next, they'll be telling us that it will be built with federal stimulus money, because it is shovel-ready.
All of the above arguments notwithstanding, the real issue around this mosque is that it is being built by Islamists on ground which was desecrated by radical Islamists, and that very few Islamists have ever condemned their actions, not right after it happened, and not since. It strikes at the heart of decency, and shows little understanding for the suffering of the victims of 9/11 and their families and friends, and is an affront to the sensibilities of all Americans.
Our current President, Barrack Hussein Obama has now chosen to come out in support of this mosque. I'm not surprised, are you? At almost every opportunity, Obama has chosen to criticize or apologize for America and what it stands for. So I'm not surprised that he has supported the right of a minority religion (in America) to erect a monument to their faith on ground which was desecrated by members of their faith. Obama's support for this project is divisive, but then he himself is divisive, more so than any American president in history. Ask yourself, are race relations better or worse now than they were before he took office?
Back to the issue of the mosque. The one advantage I can see to builing it there is that it may make terrorists think twice before bombing Lower Manhattan again. It would be less costly than installing a missile defense system around New York.
The group proposing the building of this mosque is led by an Imam who refuses to describe Hamas as a terrorist organization. This alone should raise the ire of New York's heavy Jewish population. Hamas is an organization which wreaks terror on the population of Israel on a daily basis.
This same Imam has claimed that American foreign policy made America an accomplice to 9/11. He has a right to this view, and even a right to express it, despite the fact that most Americans would disagree vehemently with him, but does this make him a credible sponsor of a project advertised as bridging the gap between religions? Hardly.
There are questions about the source of funding for this project. Somehow, the U.S. State Department has now managed to 'sponsor' this Imam and pay for his expenses to travel to the Middle East in order to raise funds for the project. Is this insane, or is it not? If American Islamists want to build a mosque, they should raise the money from within their American community, as do the Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Mormons. Maybe there just aren't enough profitable 7/11 convenience stores to do this.
Governor Patterson of New York has proposed an alternative whereby the mosque could be built elsewhere, on state property. Wouldn't this violate the Constitution, which require separation of church and state? Next, they'll be telling us that it will be built with federal stimulus money, because it is shovel-ready.
All of the above arguments notwithstanding, the real issue around this mosque is that it is being built by Islamists on ground which was desecrated by radical Islamists, and that very few Islamists have ever condemned their actions, not right after it happened, and not since. It strikes at the heart of decency, and shows little understanding for the suffering of the victims of 9/11 and their families and friends, and is an affront to the sensibilities of all Americans.
Our current President, Barrack Hussein Obama has now chosen to come out in support of this mosque. I'm not surprised, are you? At almost every opportunity, Obama has chosen to criticize or apologize for America and what it stands for. So I'm not surprised that he has supported the right of a minority religion (in America) to erect a monument to their faith on ground which was desecrated by members of their faith. Obama's support for this project is divisive, but then he himself is divisive, more so than any American president in history. Ask yourself, are race relations better or worse now than they were before he took office?
Back to the issue of the mosque. The one advantage I can see to builing it there is that it may make terrorists think twice before bombing Lower Manhattan again. It would be less costly than installing a missile defense system around New York.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Who was John Galt?
In the 1930's novel "Atlas Shrugged", by Ayn Rand, John Galt was a mysterious character, a creative inventor/engineer, who chose to withhold his talents from a society which he deemed was becoming too progressive and socialistic. He not only withdrew from that society, but took with him all of the secrets of his previous work, depriving society of their benefits. His actions were based on his refusal to allow the government to confiscate the profits of his enterprise, and to distribute them, as it saw fit, to people not able or willing to make similar efforts to succeed.
Retreating to a hidden location in the Rocky Mountains, he and a like-minded group of individuals organized a society where people were free not only to pursue their interests, but more importantly, to reap the financial rewards emanating from their industry.
He and his cohorts also began enticing other like-minded individuals to join them, leaving the society they abhorred with fewer and fewer competent people to run the industries needed to support that society. As the society began to collapse, its leaders, mostly incompetent bureaucrats with no knowledge of industry or experience in production, reacted by imposing more and more government regulations on the remaining producers, driving them away as well.
While written in the 1930's, at a time when the measure of the nation's strength was based on railroads and steel production, and well before the advent of many of the technological innovations which have come about since that time, there are many parallels to the society that we live in today. We have a government far removed from the people it is supposed to represent. A government which spends money it does not have, burdening future generations with trillions of dollars in debt and liabilities. A government which retains its standing by paying tribute to unions and other special interest groups.
Who Is John Calt today?
In today's society, there is one person that is striking fear into the heart of progressives. His name is Glenn Beck.
Almost unknown two years ago, Glenn Beck, a reformed alcoholic and radio talk-show host, gained prominence when he joined the Fox News network in early 2009. Using blackboards and unorthodox props, such as frogs, dead fish, candy and outlandish desserts, he has, on a daily basis, delved into the progressive agenda of both the government and the organizations which are leading the government deeper and deeper into a progressive mindset. As harsh on Republicans as he is on Democrats, Beck is on a mission to return the country to what its Founding Fathers had in mind when they worked so hard to form a government "of the people, by the people and for the people".
Extremely well read and able to make his case, Beck also reaches out for support from guests who are experts in their field, and who are seldom seen in other media venues. When accused by the White House of distorting facts, Beck responded by installing a red telephone to which only the White House has access, and challenging them to call him if and when he said something that was inaccurate. He mockingly waves this telephone whenever he makes a point against the administration. They have yet to respond.
Beck has been named by Time magazine as one of the most influential people in America, despite his constant bashing of the media for its journalistic failures. This must have been difficult to swallow, but they could not ignore him forever.
What makes Glenn Beck so effective is that he uses the tactics of the left against the left. Taking pages from Saul Alinski's radical teachings, Beck goes after the very constituency on which the left relies heavily for support. For example, his series on Black History won him accolades from the black media for making the case that Black history has been marginalized, mostly for political reasons, and to the detriment of the Black community.
Glenn Beck's primary objective is to educate the American people, or rather to help them to educate themselves, on the dangers of progressivism to our way of life. He is succeeding. If he merely mentions a book, it jumps to the top of the bestseller list. An educated populace is anathema to the progressive agenda, and the progressives realize this. They are becoming paranoid about Beck. At a recent progressive convention, almost every speaker addressed the issue of Glenn Beck and the need to shut him down. They have tried ridicule, talked about legislation against conservative media, and have gone after his sponsors. To date, nothing has worked. He is slowly destroying their movement, much as John Galt destroyed the progressive movement in "Atlas Shrugged".
Retreating to a hidden location in the Rocky Mountains, he and a like-minded group of individuals organized a society where people were free not only to pursue their interests, but more importantly, to reap the financial rewards emanating from their industry.
He and his cohorts also began enticing other like-minded individuals to join them, leaving the society they abhorred with fewer and fewer competent people to run the industries needed to support that society. As the society began to collapse, its leaders, mostly incompetent bureaucrats with no knowledge of industry or experience in production, reacted by imposing more and more government regulations on the remaining producers, driving them away as well.
While written in the 1930's, at a time when the measure of the nation's strength was based on railroads and steel production, and well before the advent of many of the technological innovations which have come about since that time, there are many parallels to the society that we live in today. We have a government far removed from the people it is supposed to represent. A government which spends money it does not have, burdening future generations with trillions of dollars in debt and liabilities. A government which retains its standing by paying tribute to unions and other special interest groups.
Who Is John Calt today?
In today's society, there is one person that is striking fear into the heart of progressives. His name is Glenn Beck.
Almost unknown two years ago, Glenn Beck, a reformed alcoholic and radio talk-show host, gained prominence when he joined the Fox News network in early 2009. Using blackboards and unorthodox props, such as frogs, dead fish, candy and outlandish desserts, he has, on a daily basis, delved into the progressive agenda of both the government and the organizations which are leading the government deeper and deeper into a progressive mindset. As harsh on Republicans as he is on Democrats, Beck is on a mission to return the country to what its Founding Fathers had in mind when they worked so hard to form a government "of the people, by the people and for the people".
Extremely well read and able to make his case, Beck also reaches out for support from guests who are experts in their field, and who are seldom seen in other media venues. When accused by the White House of distorting facts, Beck responded by installing a red telephone to which only the White House has access, and challenging them to call him if and when he said something that was inaccurate. He mockingly waves this telephone whenever he makes a point against the administration. They have yet to respond.
Beck has been named by Time magazine as one of the most influential people in America, despite his constant bashing of the media for its journalistic failures. This must have been difficult to swallow, but they could not ignore him forever.
What makes Glenn Beck so effective is that he uses the tactics of the left against the left. Taking pages from Saul Alinski's radical teachings, Beck goes after the very constituency on which the left relies heavily for support. For example, his series on Black History won him accolades from the black media for making the case that Black history has been marginalized, mostly for political reasons, and to the detriment of the Black community.
Glenn Beck's primary objective is to educate the American people, or rather to help them to educate themselves, on the dangers of progressivism to our way of life. He is succeeding. If he merely mentions a book, it jumps to the top of the bestseller list. An educated populace is anathema to the progressive agenda, and the progressives realize this. They are becoming paranoid about Beck. At a recent progressive convention, almost every speaker addressed the issue of Glenn Beck and the need to shut him down. They have tried ridicule, talked about legislation against conservative media, and have gone after his sponsors. To date, nothing has worked. He is slowly destroying their movement, much as John Galt destroyed the progressive movement in "Atlas Shrugged".
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Is BP the Sole Culprit?
The BP oil spill was a disaster. Now that the leak has been mostly contaiined, maybe we can start to look for it's real cause.
First of all, I don't think that anyone feels that BP deliberately blew up its own well. So if it wasn't sabotage, then it was an accident, a horrible accident that took several lives, damaged the environment and incurred billions of dollars in damages, but an accident nevertheless.
When an accident happens, you should first try to minimize the damage and correct the problem. Then you can assesss the incident and try to insure that it won't happen again.
One of the first government responses to this oil spill was not to minimize the damage, but to demonize BP and its executives. They played the blame game. Immediately, there were calls for Congressional hearings and criminal proceedings. It was defined as: "putting our foot on BP's throat".
What a rush to judgement! No Miranda rights. No Fifth Amendment. Just get them into televised hearings in front of Congress to tell us how they screwed up, so that we can punish them. We are more considerate of the terrorists being held in Gitmo.
Admittedly, the BP CEO was an insensitive jerk, but that ia s problem for the BP Board of Directors, not for Congress to deal with. And the BP Board has replaced him.
The spill caused havoc. Fish were affected. Birds and animal life were affected. Globs of oil reached our coastline. Fishermen lost their livelihood. Tourism at shore resorts was impacted.
While this was happening, the government refused help from the Dutch, who have considerable experience in cleaning up oil spills. This was done on the basis of a law which prevents "foreign" ships from operating in the Gulf of Mexico. The law could have been suspended by executive order, like President Bush did after Katrina, but that wasn't done for over 80 days.
There was a brand new American ship sitting nearby that was designed specifically to scoop up massive amounts of spilled oil. It wasn't allowed to be used because the EPA had not completed its paperwork authorizing its use. It took them ten more weeks to do that.
One of the first government actions was to ban all deep sea drilling in the Gulf, throwing thousands of people out of work. This in a climate of 10% unemployment. A federal court overruled this order, but the government is appealing. Many of the rigs have already been moved to foreign waters which have more permissive governments, so a lot of those jobs won't come back.
Accidents happen, and one of the contributing factors in this one was the fact that it was in such deep water. Who is reponsible for the regulations that prevent the drilling of wells in shallower water or in the Anwar region of Alaska? Can we apportion some of the blame here to the government and to the environmental groups which force the oil companies to go deep?
A lot has been made of BP's safety record prior to the spill. Where were OSHA and the EPA in enforcing safety regulations before the spill?
America is paying a huge price for this oil spill, whether or not BP assumes some of the costs of stopping the leak, cleaning up the mess and partially reimbursing people who have lost their jobs because of the spill. Many will not be reimbursed for the damages they suffered. Anyone who holds a mutual fund in their 401k account took a hit when BP share price plummeted, and another hit when the governments non-reaction caused the price of all oil shares to drop.
C'mon America! Wake up! Let's start acting like adults who react to an accident like this by effectively fixing the problem and minimizing the damage. We can worry later about who to blame and taking action to ensure that it won't happen again.
The government response to this accident reminds me of the train/tunnel accident in "Atlas Shrugged." WHO IS JOHN GALT?
First of all, I don't think that anyone feels that BP deliberately blew up its own well. So if it wasn't sabotage, then it was an accident, a horrible accident that took several lives, damaged the environment and incurred billions of dollars in damages, but an accident nevertheless.
When an accident happens, you should first try to minimize the damage and correct the problem. Then you can assesss the incident and try to insure that it won't happen again.
One of the first government responses to this oil spill was not to minimize the damage, but to demonize BP and its executives. They played the blame game. Immediately, there were calls for Congressional hearings and criminal proceedings. It was defined as: "putting our foot on BP's throat".
What a rush to judgement! No Miranda rights. No Fifth Amendment. Just get them into televised hearings in front of Congress to tell us how they screwed up, so that we can punish them. We are more considerate of the terrorists being held in Gitmo.
Admittedly, the BP CEO was an insensitive jerk, but that ia s problem for the BP Board of Directors, not for Congress to deal with. And the BP Board has replaced him.
The spill caused havoc. Fish were affected. Birds and animal life were affected. Globs of oil reached our coastline. Fishermen lost their livelihood. Tourism at shore resorts was impacted.
While this was happening, the government refused help from the Dutch, who have considerable experience in cleaning up oil spills. This was done on the basis of a law which prevents "foreign" ships from operating in the Gulf of Mexico. The law could have been suspended by executive order, like President Bush did after Katrina, but that wasn't done for over 80 days.
There was a brand new American ship sitting nearby that was designed specifically to scoop up massive amounts of spilled oil. It wasn't allowed to be used because the EPA had not completed its paperwork authorizing its use. It took them ten more weeks to do that.
One of the first government actions was to ban all deep sea drilling in the Gulf, throwing thousands of people out of work. This in a climate of 10% unemployment. A federal court overruled this order, but the government is appealing. Many of the rigs have already been moved to foreign waters which have more permissive governments, so a lot of those jobs won't come back.
Accidents happen, and one of the contributing factors in this one was the fact that it was in such deep water. Who is reponsible for the regulations that prevent the drilling of wells in shallower water or in the Anwar region of Alaska? Can we apportion some of the blame here to the government and to the environmental groups which force the oil companies to go deep?
A lot has been made of BP's safety record prior to the spill. Where were OSHA and the EPA in enforcing safety regulations before the spill?
America is paying a huge price for this oil spill, whether or not BP assumes some of the costs of stopping the leak, cleaning up the mess and partially reimbursing people who have lost their jobs because of the spill. Many will not be reimbursed for the damages they suffered. Anyone who holds a mutual fund in their 401k account took a hit when BP share price plummeted, and another hit when the governments non-reaction caused the price of all oil shares to drop.
C'mon America! Wake up! Let's start acting like adults who react to an accident like this by effectively fixing the problem and minimizing the damage. We can worry later about who to blame and taking action to ensure that it won't happen again.
The government response to this accident reminds me of the train/tunnel accident in "Atlas Shrugged." WHO IS JOHN GALT?
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
John Kerry Should Avoid Boats
What is it with Senator John Kerry (D MA) and boats? The Swift Boat controversy almost derailed his presidential campaign. Then there was that ridiculous photo of him on a sailfish wearing flowered Bermuda shots. Almost as bad as the photo of Dukakis riding in a tank. And now he's been caught docking his seven million dollar boat in Newport, Rhode Island to avoid paying Massachusetts sales tax and excise tax.
Now I don't fault Kerry for having a yacht, or for being affluent. That's America. I do, however, have problems with him, of all people, not paying his fair share of taxes. John Kerry has received a federal or state salary, paid by the taxpayers, for most of his adult life. Moreover, as a liberal Democrat, he espouses the cause of the poor and less fortunate, who in the last analysis, rely on government subsidies and entitlements paid for by the taxes of others. Kerry's only contact with the poor and less fortunate seems to be when he gets out of his limousine at Fenway Park and walks to the front of the line (Courtesy of Boston Globe).
Maybe it's the company he keeps in Washington. There's Tim Geitner, the tax cheat, who heads the IRS. Then there's Senator Chris Dodd who got a favorable home loan from Countryside, a company he helped bail out. And on the House side, you've got Charley Rangle, who forgot that he owned property in the Dominiccan Republic when he filed his taxes. Plus former Senator Tom Daschle and any number of others.
It's time to send them a message, folks, and evict them all from their cushy government jobs. November is coming. Vote them out.
We need Senators and Congressman who come from the people, who represent the people, and who retire after a couple of terms. Long-term incumency breeds arrogance and a feeling that they know best what people want and need, forgetting that they have been cloistered in Washington and isolated from America.
Now I don't fault Kerry for having a yacht, or for being affluent. That's America. I do, however, have problems with him, of all people, not paying his fair share of taxes. John Kerry has received a federal or state salary, paid by the taxpayers, for most of his adult life. Moreover, as a liberal Democrat, he espouses the cause of the poor and less fortunate, who in the last analysis, rely on government subsidies and entitlements paid for by the taxes of others. Kerry's only contact with the poor and less fortunate seems to be when he gets out of his limousine at Fenway Park and walks to the front of the line (Courtesy of Boston Globe).
Maybe it's the company he keeps in Washington. There's Tim Geitner, the tax cheat, who heads the IRS. Then there's Senator Chris Dodd who got a favorable home loan from Countryside, a company he helped bail out. And on the House side, you've got Charley Rangle, who forgot that he owned property in the Dominiccan Republic when he filed his taxes. Plus former Senator Tom Daschle and any number of others.
It's time to send them a message, folks, and evict them all from their cushy government jobs. November is coming. Vote them out.
We need Senators and Congressman who come from the people, who represent the people, and who retire after a couple of terms. Long-term incumency breeds arrogance and a feeling that they know best what people want and need, forgetting that they have been cloistered in Washington and isolated from America.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Hope and Change
Are you better off today than you were two years ago?
Is your job as secure as you thought? Has your retirement plan maintained its value? Has the market value of your home appreciated? Is college more affordable for your children's education? Is health care less expensive and more available?
Most Americans would have to answer "no" to the above questions, unless, of course, they happen to be a sitting Congressman, employed by the government, or a member of a strong union.
The reality is that unemployment is high, and it's not getting any better. The stock market, which determines the value of your retirement funds is down. Home prices are down in most parts of the country. College costs are increasing. Health insurance costs keep going up. In addition, the US dollar has dropped with respect to most other currencies, so the price of imported goods is up.
Is this the change we were promised? Are we only to hope that things at least get back to where they were? What's happened to the American dream?
Until the government acts to allow job growth to occur in the private sector, things will only continue as they are, unless, of course, they get worse. In the meantime, the government continues to spend more money. Money which it doesn't have. Money which will have to be repaid by you, your children and your grandchildren. It used to be billions, but now it's trillions.
One thing that the government hasn't taken away from you, at least not yet, is the right to vote. There are less than 100 days until Election Day. That is your chance to send Congress a message that you are concerned, worried, and fed up. Make your vote count.
Is your job as secure as you thought? Has your retirement plan maintained its value? Has the market value of your home appreciated? Is college more affordable for your children's education? Is health care less expensive and more available?
Most Americans would have to answer "no" to the above questions, unless, of course, they happen to be a sitting Congressman, employed by the government, or a member of a strong union.
The reality is that unemployment is high, and it's not getting any better. The stock market, which determines the value of your retirement funds is down. Home prices are down in most parts of the country. College costs are increasing. Health insurance costs keep going up. In addition, the US dollar has dropped with respect to most other currencies, so the price of imported goods is up.
Is this the change we were promised? Are we only to hope that things at least get back to where they were? What's happened to the American dream?
Until the government acts to allow job growth to occur in the private sector, things will only continue as they are, unless, of course, they get worse. In the meantime, the government continues to spend more money. Money which it doesn't have. Money which will have to be repaid by you, your children and your grandchildren. It used to be billions, but now it's trillions.
One thing that the government hasn't taken away from you, at least not yet, is the right to vote. There are less than 100 days until Election Day. That is your chance to send Congress a message that you are concerned, worried, and fed up. Make your vote count.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Introduction
I never imagined that I would become a blogger. Yesterday, I didn't know what a blogger was, and now I is one.
Down Under means that I am living in Australia. Patriot means that I am, and always will be, an American, first and foremost.
I believe that America is the defining influence on the planet we inhabit. You can't escape it. Even here, 12,000 miles away, what happens in America affects us, and the way we live.
To most, America represents something to yearn for. If they cannot physically be there, they can still hope to achieve the freedoms and benefits which they attribute to the American way of life. To others, America is a threat to their way of life, and is something to be feared. Some go so far as to want to destroy it.
The American experiment resulted in a successful but fragile system of government. The unheard of idea that all men were equal and free to govern themselves demolished the idea that men were meant to be ruled by dynasties and ruling classes with inherited titles who could tax their labor at will. It worked, and the energy released by giving freedom to its people resulted in the creation of a superpower unlike any seen before. The Founding Fathers were geniouses? No, they were conscientious, hard-working men with vision. They gave us a Republic and a foundation on which to build a country. It's now up to us to keep it.
Looking at America from afar, I feel that we are in danger of losing what our forefathers worked so hard for to achieve. Will we pass on to our children and grandchildren what we were given? Or will we hand over to them the remnants of a once successful enterprise?
I've driven my family and friends nuts with my e-mails criticizing what is going on in the U.S. today. Most are too involved with day-to-day life to even want to think about such matters. I do, however, think such matters are important, so I will blog them and let people choose whether or not they want to read them.
Thought for the day: "If you're not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem."
Down Under means that I am living in Australia. Patriot means that I am, and always will be, an American, first and foremost.
I believe that America is the defining influence on the planet we inhabit. You can't escape it. Even here, 12,000 miles away, what happens in America affects us, and the way we live.
To most, America represents something to yearn for. If they cannot physically be there, they can still hope to achieve the freedoms and benefits which they attribute to the American way of life. To others, America is a threat to their way of life, and is something to be feared. Some go so far as to want to destroy it.
The American experiment resulted in a successful but fragile system of government. The unheard of idea that all men were equal and free to govern themselves demolished the idea that men were meant to be ruled by dynasties and ruling classes with inherited titles who could tax their labor at will. It worked, and the energy released by giving freedom to its people resulted in the creation of a superpower unlike any seen before. The Founding Fathers were geniouses? No, they were conscientious, hard-working men with vision. They gave us a Republic and a foundation on which to build a country. It's now up to us to keep it.
Looking at America from afar, I feel that we are in danger of losing what our forefathers worked so hard for to achieve. Will we pass on to our children and grandchildren what we were given? Or will we hand over to them the remnants of a once successful enterprise?
I've driven my family and friends nuts with my e-mails criticizing what is going on in the U.S. today. Most are too involved with day-to-day life to even want to think about such matters. I do, however, think such matters are important, so I will blog them and let people choose whether or not they want to read them.
Thought for the day: "If you're not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)