Monday, April 30, 2012
It looks like this blog site no longer supports the browser I use - Internet Explorer. So I won't be writing any more blogs for time being, until I either find a new site to blog from or find a new browser I'm comfortable downloading onto my computer. I was perfectly happy using Internet Explorer to load my blog site and post my thoughts on various current events. Unfortunately, it has been decided that users of Internet Explorer, who comprise upwards of 85% of all internet users, are no longer important enough to this blog site. So stay tuned, I'll keep you updated on what is to happen. It's really a shame though, because I feel like I finally have a nice blog up and running, and I hate that I have to make major software changes now just to be able to spread the good word.
Friday, April 20, 2012
United Nations - Global Socialism
When an organization doesn't support American values and laws, the United States ought not to support it. Would we be part of an organization that supported eliminating gun rights, freedom of speech, or democracy? Of course not. Why, then, do we continue to participate in the socialist, anti-American musings of the United Nations?
Not only do we participate, but we are the top financial contributor to the U.N. We are basically hosting a perpetual, socialist organization in New York City, giving them more money than anyone else, and playing ball with their agenda of bringing down the West in the name of global equality. It's socialism on a global scale.
The upcoming United Nations environmental conference on sustainable development in Brazil will formally put forth several initiatives concerned with environmental protection and preservation. It's a thinly veiled plot to impose redistribution of wealth and assets on the entire world, forcing the wealthier nations to give away their wealth and power to the poorer nations, all in the name of saving the planet. It's just another example in a never-ending line of socialist initiatives that do nothing but harm our great nation. When nine out of ten nations are poor, of course they will vote to take the wealth away from number one. Here are some of the policies the U.N. is proposing:
(1) More than $2.1 trillion a year in wealth transfers from rich countries to poorer ones, in the name of fostering “green infrastructure, ” “climate adaptation,” and other “green economy” measures. Redistribution of wealth - the cornerstone of every good socialist agenda.
(2) New carbon taxes for industrialized countries that could cost about $250 billion a year, or 0.6 percent of Gross Domestic Product, by 2020. Other environmental taxes are mentioned, but not specified. Taxing the rich to help the poor.
(3) Further unspecified price hikes that extend beyond fossil fuels to anything derived from agriculture, fisheries, forestry, or other kinds of land and water use, all of which would be radically reorganized. These cost changes would “contribute to a more level playing field between established, 'brown' technologies and newer, greener ones." More equality engineering.
(4) Major global social spending programs, including a "social protection floor" and "social safety nets" for the world's most vulnerable social groups for reasons of “equity.” Global welfare, funded by us.
(5) Even more social benefits for those displaced by the green economy revolution - including those put out of work in undesirable fossil fuel industries. The benefits, called “investments,” would include “access to nutritious food, health services, education, training and retraining, and unemployment benefits." More welfare programs for the poorer nations, again funded by us.
(6) A guarantee that if those sweeping benefits weren’t enough, more would be granted. As one of the U.N. documents puts it: “Any adverse effects of changes in prices of goods and services vital to the welfare of vulnerable groups must be compensated for and new livelihood opportunities provided." There is no doubt the U.N. will have much, much more of this in the future. It's just another in a long line of socialist initiatives the U.N. is well-known for (to those who care to look).
Nearly every initiative the U.N. undertakes is in the name of socialism and levelling the playing field for the poorer, less-developed nations. The United States is expected to ship our wealth off to poorer nations and voluntarily cripple our own economy and society in the name of equality - because it's just not fair that we are well off while other nations are struggling. The U.N. is like a global Obama, plying the rich vs. poor class warfare fire to ignite an agenda of redistribution of wealth. There is nothing in this agenda that is good for our country, and everything that is damaging to it.
We shouldn't be financially supporting the U.N., hosting it at our expense in New York City, or dignifying it's socialist agenda with continuing membership and discourse. If it were up to the U.N., the United States would be just another mundane, non-wealthy nation needing the permission of a centralized global government to leave the dinner table.
Karl Marx (1818-1883) - Fervent socialist and author of The Communist Manifesto, and Capital.
Not only do we participate, but we are the top financial contributor to the U.N. We are basically hosting a perpetual, socialist organization in New York City, giving them more money than anyone else, and playing ball with their agenda of bringing down the West in the name of global equality. It's socialism on a global scale.
The upcoming United Nations environmental conference on sustainable development in Brazil will formally put forth several initiatives concerned with environmental protection and preservation. It's a thinly veiled plot to impose redistribution of wealth and assets on the entire world, forcing the wealthier nations to give away their wealth and power to the poorer nations, all in the name of saving the planet. It's just another example in a never-ending line of socialist initiatives that do nothing but harm our great nation. When nine out of ten nations are poor, of course they will vote to take the wealth away from number one. Here are some of the policies the U.N. is proposing:
(1) More than $2.1 trillion a year in wealth transfers from rich countries to poorer ones, in the name of fostering “green infrastructure, ” “climate adaptation,” and other “green economy” measures. Redistribution of wealth - the cornerstone of every good socialist agenda.
(2) New carbon taxes for industrialized countries that could cost about $250 billion a year, or 0.6 percent of Gross Domestic Product, by 2020. Other environmental taxes are mentioned, but not specified. Taxing the rich to help the poor.
(3) Further unspecified price hikes that extend beyond fossil fuels to anything derived from agriculture, fisheries, forestry, or other kinds of land and water use, all of which would be radically reorganized. These cost changes would “contribute to a more level playing field between established, 'brown' technologies and newer, greener ones." More equality engineering.
(4) Major global social spending programs, including a "social protection floor" and "social safety nets" for the world's most vulnerable social groups for reasons of “equity.” Global welfare, funded by us.
(5) Even more social benefits for those displaced by the green economy revolution - including those put out of work in undesirable fossil fuel industries. The benefits, called “investments,” would include “access to nutritious food, health services, education, training and retraining, and unemployment benefits." More welfare programs for the poorer nations, again funded by us.
(6) A guarantee that if those sweeping benefits weren’t enough, more would be granted. As one of the U.N. documents puts it: “Any adverse effects of changes in prices of goods and services vital to the welfare of vulnerable groups must be compensated for and new livelihood opportunities provided." There is no doubt the U.N. will have much, much more of this in the future. It's just another in a long line of socialist initiatives the U.N. is well-known for (to those who care to look).
Nearly every initiative the U.N. undertakes is in the name of socialism and levelling the playing field for the poorer, less-developed nations. The United States is expected to ship our wealth off to poorer nations and voluntarily cripple our own economy and society in the name of equality - because it's just not fair that we are well off while other nations are struggling. The U.N. is like a global Obama, plying the rich vs. poor class warfare fire to ignite an agenda of redistribution of wealth. There is nothing in this agenda that is good for our country, and everything that is damaging to it.
We shouldn't be financially supporting the U.N., hosting it at our expense in New York City, or dignifying it's socialist agenda with continuing membership and discourse. If it were up to the U.N., the United States would be just another mundane, non-wealthy nation needing the permission of a centralized global government to leave the dinner table.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Update on N.K.
Update, 4/20/12: The rocket blew up shortly after take off and fell into the sea. So the situation is postponed, for now.
North Korea is fueling its rocket now for a probable launch in the next 24 hours. Whether successful or not, this is the most important headline to watch over the next day or two. If the rocket blows up on lift-off, everyone (except Kim Jung-Un) will breathe a sigh of relief for this temporary delay in having to deal with NK antagonism. If the launch is successful, Japan or S. Korea may shoot it down, which NK has said will be considered an act of war. Also, pay attention to how the Obama administration handles this. I suspect our President will threaten more (yawn) sanctions against NK, even threatening to stop sending what little aid we provide at this point. All their food and aid comes from China though, so don't expect any mere verbal action by the President to have any effect whatsoever on NK.
I continue to hope for leadership in Washington that will threaten China with sanctions if it continues to do nothing in the way of assisting on NK matters. China is the key to keeping NK in check. The worst case scenario is a war in that region, so the stakes are high - mere political rhetoric, which has a tendency to sway American voters, is worthless when aimed at NK leadership.
North Korea is fueling its rocket now for a probable launch in the next 24 hours. Whether successful or not, this is the most important headline to watch over the next day or two. If the rocket blows up on lift-off, everyone (except Kim Jung-Un) will breathe a sigh of relief for this temporary delay in having to deal with NK antagonism. If the launch is successful, Japan or S. Korea may shoot it down, which NK has said will be considered an act of war. Also, pay attention to how the Obama administration handles this. I suspect our President will threaten more (yawn) sanctions against NK, even threatening to stop sending what little aid we provide at this point. All their food and aid comes from China though, so don't expect any mere verbal action by the President to have any effect whatsoever on NK.
I continue to hope for leadership in Washington that will threaten China with sanctions if it continues to do nothing in the way of assisting on NK matters. China is the key to keeping NK in check. The worst case scenario is a war in that region, so the stakes are high - mere political rhetoric, which has a tendency to sway American voters, is worthless when aimed at NK leadership.
Voter ID Law Opponents Exposed
I previously wrote about the Obama administration's vigorous attack of Texas for its voter ID law proposal. As I correctly pointed out, the attack is a charade aimed at gaining Latino votes, and has nothing to do with voter access or voter fraud.
My previous post:
http://usalibertyparty.blogspot.com/2012/03/your-papers-are-not-in-order.html
The Heritage Foundation has written a great article about this issue, pointing out that Indiana's voter ID law, which is one of the most strict in the nation, was recently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. Heritage summarizes the Supreme Court's refusal to accept the main claims against the Indiana law. Here's the article, written by Lachlan Markay:
"The Justice Department’s lawsuit against South Carolina has rekindled political war over state voter identification laws. While the merits of the suit will surely be hashed out in the political arena, the Supreme Court has in fact weighed in on the constitutional arguments offered by opponents of voter ID laws, and found them wanting.
In light of the issue’s prevalence, it’s worth revisiting that decision to see what the nation’s highest court had to say about voter ID laws.
Opponents of those laws usually make a pair of arguments against them: they claim the laws impose overly burdensome restrictions on voting, and that they are a solution in search of a problem, given the relatively low incidence of voter fraud. Neither of those arguments stands up to the Supreme Court’s thorough examination of the issue.
In the 2008 case Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, the court upheld an Indiana voter ID law, which the National Conference of State Legislatures classifies as one of the strictest in the nation. The law requires voters to present a photo ID at polling places. Those who can’t may cast a provisional ballot, which will only be counted if the voter affirms the ballot in person – with a photo ID – within 10 days.
The Supreme Court upheld a decision by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, finding that “showing a free photo identification is not a significant increase over the usual voting burdens, and the State’s stated interests are sufficient to sustain that minimal burden.” It’s also worth noting that prior to enacting the voter ID law, Indiana did charge for photo IDs. A provision in the law repealed that fee, presumably to rescind financial barriers to voting. Like Indiana, South Carolina offers free IDs to state residents.
The majority opinion, written by then-Justice John Paul Stevens – no conservative stalwart – examined each of the objections offered to this day in opposition to voter ID laws. Let us review each in turn.
Claim: Voter ID laws are excessively and prohibitively burdensome
Indiana provides a free identification card to any resident who requests one from the state’s Bureau of Motor Vehicles. Traveling to the BMV and requesting one, therefore, is the extent of the restrictions on voting.
Even voters who show up to the polls on election day without an ID, as mentioned above, can cast a provisional ballot, which will be counted as long as the voter visits the election board within 10 days of the election, and produces a photo ID or a valid objection to having one (indigence or religious belief).
The free IDs and provisional ballots mitigate any excessively burdensome voting restrictions, the court ruled. Voters who simply do not have an ID can easily obtain one: “the inconvenience of making a trip to the BMV, gathering the required documents, and posing for a photograph,” Stevens wrote, “surely does not qualify as a substantial burden on the right to vote, or even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.”
For certain classes of voters, however, those requirements may provide additional burdens. Those include the homeless, indigent, or elderly, and those with religious objections to being photographed. The law’s inclusion of provisional ballot exceptions, the court ruled, are ample to mitigate those restrictions. “And even assuming that the burden may not be justified as to a few voters,” Stevens added, “that conclusion is by no means sufficient to establish petitioners’ right to the relief they seek in this litigation” – namely, invalidation of the entire law.
Key to the court’s decision was the fact that the petitioners had not disputed the state’s interest in protecting the integrity of the voting process. Rather, they claimed that the law was a partisan attempt to restrict voters, to the advantage of state Republicans.
But “while the most effective method of preventing election fraud may well be debatable,” the court ruled, “the propriety of doing so is perfectly clear.” If the impetus for the law were partisan in nature – i.e., were unrelated to the electoral process – even the minimal burdens placed on voters would render the law indefensible. But the law was spurred by a legitimate concern – one that even its opponents could not dispute – and “the ‘precise interests’ advanced by the State are therefore sufficient to defeat petitioners’ facial challenge,” the court found.
Claim: Voter ID laws are unnecessary due to the relatively low incidence of voter fraud
The actual incidence of voter fraud in Indiana was only tangentially relevant to the validity of the law, the court ruled. While no evidence of fraud was included in the record by the respondents, “flagrant examples of such fraud in other parts of the country have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists,” including examples in Indiana itself.
It was therefore unnecessary for Indiana to show that the law responded to documented cases of voter fraud that it would attempt to prevent or penalize. The very real possibility that fraud could occur – demonstrated by the fact that it had occurred elsewhere – was sufficient rationale for the law.
A corollary to this line of objections from voter ID opponents is that the documented voter fraud cited by the laws’ proponents would not actually be prevented by a photo ID requirement – absentee ballot voting, for instance. But the court ruled that a 2003 instance of absentee ballot fraud in Indiana demonstrated that voter fraud of any kind “could affect the outcome of a close election,” and therefore supported the state’s case for the law.
Also worthy of consideration, the court noted, is the state’s real interest in protecting the perception of fair elections and voter faith in the integrity of state elections. “Public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process has independent significance,” the court ruled, “because it encourages citizen participation in the democratic process.”
That passage is key, since it establishes a rationale for voter ID laws that does not require that fraud be widespread. Efforts to avoid the perception of fraud or the belief that it could take place – both of which could discourage citizens from voting – are sufficient to merit the voter ID requirement."
Finally, here's a video showing that some of the most vocal opponents of voter ID laws require visitors to their buildings to show photo ID's simply to enter the building. Doesn't seem so overly burdensome or discriminatory after all, does it?
My previous post:
http://usalibertyparty.blogspot.com/2012/03/your-papers-are-not-in-order.html
The Heritage Foundation has written a great article about this issue, pointing out that Indiana's voter ID law, which is one of the most strict in the nation, was recently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. Heritage summarizes the Supreme Court's refusal to accept the main claims against the Indiana law. Here's the article, written by Lachlan Markay:
"The Justice Department’s lawsuit against South Carolina has rekindled political war over state voter identification laws. While the merits of the suit will surely be hashed out in the political arena, the Supreme Court has in fact weighed in on the constitutional arguments offered by opponents of voter ID laws, and found them wanting.
In light of the issue’s prevalence, it’s worth revisiting that decision to see what the nation’s highest court had to say about voter ID laws.
Opponents of those laws usually make a pair of arguments against them: they claim the laws impose overly burdensome restrictions on voting, and that they are a solution in search of a problem, given the relatively low incidence of voter fraud. Neither of those arguments stands up to the Supreme Court’s thorough examination of the issue.
In the 2008 case Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, the court upheld an Indiana voter ID law, which the National Conference of State Legislatures classifies as one of the strictest in the nation. The law requires voters to present a photo ID at polling places. Those who can’t may cast a provisional ballot, which will only be counted if the voter affirms the ballot in person – with a photo ID – within 10 days.
The Supreme Court upheld a decision by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, finding that “showing a free photo identification is not a significant increase over the usual voting burdens, and the State’s stated interests are sufficient to sustain that minimal burden.” It’s also worth noting that prior to enacting the voter ID law, Indiana did charge for photo IDs. A provision in the law repealed that fee, presumably to rescind financial barriers to voting. Like Indiana, South Carolina offers free IDs to state residents.
The majority opinion, written by then-Justice John Paul Stevens – no conservative stalwart – examined each of the objections offered to this day in opposition to voter ID laws. Let us review each in turn.
Claim: Voter ID laws are excessively and prohibitively burdensome
Indiana provides a free identification card to any resident who requests one from the state’s Bureau of Motor Vehicles. Traveling to the BMV and requesting one, therefore, is the extent of the restrictions on voting.
Even voters who show up to the polls on election day without an ID, as mentioned above, can cast a provisional ballot, which will be counted as long as the voter visits the election board within 10 days of the election, and produces a photo ID or a valid objection to having one (indigence or religious belief).
The free IDs and provisional ballots mitigate any excessively burdensome voting restrictions, the court ruled. Voters who simply do not have an ID can easily obtain one: “the inconvenience of making a trip to the BMV, gathering the required documents, and posing for a photograph,” Stevens wrote, “surely does not qualify as a substantial burden on the right to vote, or even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.”
For certain classes of voters, however, those requirements may provide additional burdens. Those include the homeless, indigent, or elderly, and those with religious objections to being photographed. The law’s inclusion of provisional ballot exceptions, the court ruled, are ample to mitigate those restrictions. “And even assuming that the burden may not be justified as to a few voters,” Stevens added, “that conclusion is by no means sufficient to establish petitioners’ right to the relief they seek in this litigation” – namely, invalidation of the entire law.
Key to the court’s decision was the fact that the petitioners had not disputed the state’s interest in protecting the integrity of the voting process. Rather, they claimed that the law was a partisan attempt to restrict voters, to the advantage of state Republicans.
But “while the most effective method of preventing election fraud may well be debatable,” the court ruled, “the propriety of doing so is perfectly clear.” If the impetus for the law were partisan in nature – i.e., were unrelated to the electoral process – even the minimal burdens placed on voters would render the law indefensible. But the law was spurred by a legitimate concern – one that even its opponents could not dispute – and “the ‘precise interests’ advanced by the State are therefore sufficient to defeat petitioners’ facial challenge,” the court found.
Claim: Voter ID laws are unnecessary due to the relatively low incidence of voter fraud
The actual incidence of voter fraud in Indiana was only tangentially relevant to the validity of the law, the court ruled. While no evidence of fraud was included in the record by the respondents, “flagrant examples of such fraud in other parts of the country have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists,” including examples in Indiana itself.
It was therefore unnecessary for Indiana to show that the law responded to documented cases of voter fraud that it would attempt to prevent or penalize. The very real possibility that fraud could occur – demonstrated by the fact that it had occurred elsewhere – was sufficient rationale for the law.
A corollary to this line of objections from voter ID opponents is that the documented voter fraud cited by the laws’ proponents would not actually be prevented by a photo ID requirement – absentee ballot voting, for instance. But the court ruled that a 2003 instance of absentee ballot fraud in Indiana demonstrated that voter fraud of any kind “could affect the outcome of a close election,” and therefore supported the state’s case for the law.
Also worthy of consideration, the court noted, is the state’s real interest in protecting the perception of fair elections and voter faith in the integrity of state elections. “Public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process has independent significance,” the court ruled, “because it encourages citizen participation in the democratic process.”
That passage is key, since it establishes a rationale for voter ID laws that does not require that fraud be widespread. Efforts to avoid the perception of fraud or the belief that it could take place – both of which could discourage citizens from voting – are sufficient to merit the voter ID requirement."
Finally, here's a video showing that some of the most vocal opponents of voter ID laws require visitors to their buildings to show photo ID's simply to enter the building. Doesn't seem so overly burdensome or discriminatory after all, does it?
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Social Security: Efficient, Free of Fraud/Abuse, and Risk-Alleviating
I found this post on a liberal blog both hilariously out of touch and troublingly widely accepted by liberals as true. Characterizing the Social Security Ponzi scheme run by our government as efficient, without fraud or abuse, and having the positive effect of bailing out those who, as a result of of SS, feel free to take unreasonable risks with their future, is so far out of touch with reality that I don't think any responsive comments by me are even needed.
The absurdity of this position speaks for itself. So here are your three paragraphs of complete, blissful ignorance...
"Why our elites and media elites have such sheer contempt and hatred for social security. It’s there for everyone! It’s a solid government program which gives everyone the peace of mind that no matter what, there will be some money available for you to take care of yourself in your most vulnerable years. It’s such a miniscule portion of the taxes we pay, and for the ultra-rich screamers who hate social security the most, it’s a negligible portion of their income, and it’s capped! It’s not money wasted on fraud and abuse, it’s extremely efficient with the kind of overhead any charity or organization in the world would die to achieve, and it’s just an amazing program.
I’d argue that social security also helps innovation and entrepreneurship, because people can take wild risks opening businesses and if everything fails, they still will have the peace of mind to know that some of their most basic needs will be met due to their participation in the program.
There are a lot of things I can understand people getting mad about (I may not agree with them, but I can understand it), but this program simply is not one of them. Yet social security is under constant assault, with ridiculous amounts of hand-wringing and lying about the program. It’s insane."
The absurdity of this position speaks for itself. So here are your three paragraphs of complete, blissful ignorance...
"Why our elites and media elites have such sheer contempt and hatred for social security. It’s there for everyone! It’s a solid government program which gives everyone the peace of mind that no matter what, there will be some money available for you to take care of yourself in your most vulnerable years. It’s such a miniscule portion of the taxes we pay, and for the ultra-rich screamers who hate social security the most, it’s a negligible portion of their income, and it’s capped! It’s not money wasted on fraud and abuse, it’s extremely efficient with the kind of overhead any charity or organization in the world would die to achieve, and it’s just an amazing program.
I’d argue that social security also helps innovation and entrepreneurship, because people can take wild risks opening businesses and if everything fails, they still will have the peace of mind to know that some of their most basic needs will be met due to their participation in the program.
There are a lot of things I can understand people getting mad about (I may not agree with them, but I can understand it), but this program simply is not one of them. Yet social security is under constant assault, with ridiculous amounts of hand-wringing and lying about the program. It’s insane."
N. Korean Rocket Launch this Week
North Korea is scheduled to run a rocket test this week which it says is nothing more than the launch of non-military weather satellite into space. They have stated that they have the right to explore space for peaceful reasons - which is true, but probably not their true intention in this instance.
The U.S. and its international allies are worried that it is instead the testing of a long-range rocket designed to send nuclear payloads long distances, up to 4,000 miles, which means they could even reach some areas in the United States. Based on North Korea's consistent antagonism towards the West, disregard for international agreements, and dedication to its military and the development of new weapons, the rocket launch is a troubling development. Another aspect to consider with a successful long-range rocket system in N. Korea is that it may start selling it to other nations, such as Iran. The ripples from a successful rocket launch will reach every corner of the world.
Both South Korea and Japan have said that if the missile goes over their countries, they will shoot it down. It's not clear if they mean they'll shoot it down if it is going to land in their territories, or if it merely crosses over their countries. Either way, North Korea has said that shooting down the rocket will be regarded as an act of war. The rocket test appears to be an attempt by North Korea's new leader to better cement his leadership position in N. Korea. And although the risk of it veering off course is low, guidance remains its weakest point.
Meanwhile, as usual, China remains silent on the N. Korea situation, and continues to send food and other aid to N. Korea, without which N. Korea would not be able to survive as a nation. N. Korea is severely impoverished, and due to its antagonistic stance toward the international community, the only country willing to assist N. Korea in obtaining necessary food and aid is China. Without China, N. Korea can't survive unless it completely changes its attitude on international relations and military intentions.
The Obama administration has voiced concern over the impending rocket launch and seems intent on continuing to seek various sanctions against a country that has never given any credence to sanctions, and against which very few, if any, sanctions could have much effect, since the nation is already basically cut off from trading with the international community.
U.S. and other nations' intelligence claim that N. Korea has been developing enriched uranium for some time now, and probably has enough fissile material to make 4 to 6 nuclear weapons. If they are successful in developing a long-range rocket capable of carrying a nuclear payload up to 4,000 miles, it will constitute a very real threat to peace, particularly in the East Asian region.
China is intent on dominating the far east Asian region, and its support of N. Korea continues to be a problem. An antagonistic N. Korea is one thing, but a far superior Chinese military is a virtual lock to dominate the region militarily if it so desires - a spark from N. Korea could easily lead to an all-out military campaign in the region which would bring China right into the mix and give it an excuse to flex its muscles. Our allies South Korea and Japan stand to lose the most if a military conflict breaks out. And, of course, the U.S. would necessarily be dragged into yet another military venture, further endangering U.S. military personnel and further stressing an already tapped out government budget.
So what should we do about North Korea's actions? I contend that without getting China to take action to keep N. Korea in check, there is little we can do short of military intervention that will deter N. Korea from continuing to develop long-range rockets, nuclear weapons, and instigating its Asian opponents. So the question is how do we get China to cooperate with us in keeping N. Korea from starting a war?
Well, since China makes untold billions of dollars every month shipping and selling its goods to the U.S., we might start by telling China that until they pressure N. Korea to cool it, we won't let any of their goods into the U.S. - we might hold all shipments of Chinese goods in port, not allowing them into the U.S. marketplace. This would cost China a great deal of money each day their goods sit idle in their containers on ships and at docks in U.S. ports. I have to think China would assist with N. Korea to some degree in order to prevent a shutdown of their trade with the U.S. - we are their number one purchaser of stuff, so China would lose a large portion of its trade profits in such a situation.
This would be a reasonable, non-military action the U.S. could take to gain China's help. It can only help, and there's really no downside as it wouldn't constitute any type of military action or threat and it would probably have the positive side effect of increasing U.S. manufacturers' share of just about every market industry - after all, someone will have to pick up the slack of filling store shelves with the millions of items that would no longer be coming from China.
Imagine if Wal-Mart, which used to be dedicated to selling only made-in-the-USA goods (RIP, Sam Walton), had to start seeking U.S. suppliers for virtually all of its wares in the event that Chinese goods are stranded in port. That one company alone would provide a very large stimulus boost to the U.S. economy, and companies like Target, Home Depot, Office Max, and Sears would also start replacing lost Chinese goods with American-made products. The omnipresent "Made in China" labels we see on everything would start to be replaced with pride-instilling "Made in the USA!" labels.
In any event, the Chinese product-stranding strategy is just one example of an action we could take to garner assistance from China on the N. Korean problem(s). There are a wide array of economic sanctions we could threaten China with that would undoubtedly lead them to keep N. Korea in check. Without China in the picture, there isn't really anything we can do that is non-military to dissuade N. Korea from continuing to antagonize the region and develop long-range weapons. And when it comes down to it, China would suffer far more from trade cessation between the U.S. and China than the U.S. would - after all, there aren't too many "Made in the USA" labels on goods lining Chinese store shelves.
Unfortunately, I suspect our current leadership doesn't have the courage to stand up to China, meaning N. Korea's rocket launch will proceed as planned, and an unpredictable, troubling fallout will result. Hopefully, the next president, whether it be Obama, Romney, or Santorum, will begin to realize that N. Korea cannot be contained without including China in the equation, which requires hitting China where it hurts: their wallet.
If we're lucky, the entire situation will be postponed by another rocket launch failure by N. Korea - their last attempt ended in the accidental explosion of the rocket shortly after lift-off. This will just mean the problem is delayed, not solved. It will need to be addressed at some point.
The U.S. and its international allies are worried that it is instead the testing of a long-range rocket designed to send nuclear payloads long distances, up to 4,000 miles, which means they could even reach some areas in the United States. Based on North Korea's consistent antagonism towards the West, disregard for international agreements, and dedication to its military and the development of new weapons, the rocket launch is a troubling development. Another aspect to consider with a successful long-range rocket system in N. Korea is that it may start selling it to other nations, such as Iran. The ripples from a successful rocket launch will reach every corner of the world.
Both South Korea and Japan have said that if the missile goes over their countries, they will shoot it down. It's not clear if they mean they'll shoot it down if it is going to land in their territories, or if it merely crosses over their countries. Either way, North Korea has said that shooting down the rocket will be regarded as an act of war. The rocket test appears to be an attempt by North Korea's new leader to better cement his leadership position in N. Korea. And although the risk of it veering off course is low, guidance remains its weakest point.
Meanwhile, as usual, China remains silent on the N. Korea situation, and continues to send food and other aid to N. Korea, without which N. Korea would not be able to survive as a nation. N. Korea is severely impoverished, and due to its antagonistic stance toward the international community, the only country willing to assist N. Korea in obtaining necessary food and aid is China. Without China, N. Korea can't survive unless it completely changes its attitude on international relations and military intentions.
The Obama administration has voiced concern over the impending rocket launch and seems intent on continuing to seek various sanctions against a country that has never given any credence to sanctions, and against which very few, if any, sanctions could have much effect, since the nation is already basically cut off from trading with the international community.
U.S. and other nations' intelligence claim that N. Korea has been developing enriched uranium for some time now, and probably has enough fissile material to make 4 to 6 nuclear weapons. If they are successful in developing a long-range rocket capable of carrying a nuclear payload up to 4,000 miles, it will constitute a very real threat to peace, particularly in the East Asian region.
China is intent on dominating the far east Asian region, and its support of N. Korea continues to be a problem. An antagonistic N. Korea is one thing, but a far superior Chinese military is a virtual lock to dominate the region militarily if it so desires - a spark from N. Korea could easily lead to an all-out military campaign in the region which would bring China right into the mix and give it an excuse to flex its muscles. Our allies South Korea and Japan stand to lose the most if a military conflict breaks out. And, of course, the U.S. would necessarily be dragged into yet another military venture, further endangering U.S. military personnel and further stressing an already tapped out government budget.
So what should we do about North Korea's actions? I contend that without getting China to take action to keep N. Korea in check, there is little we can do short of military intervention that will deter N. Korea from continuing to develop long-range rockets, nuclear weapons, and instigating its Asian opponents. So the question is how do we get China to cooperate with us in keeping N. Korea from starting a war?
Well, since China makes untold billions of dollars every month shipping and selling its goods to the U.S., we might start by telling China that until they pressure N. Korea to cool it, we won't let any of their goods into the U.S. - we might hold all shipments of Chinese goods in port, not allowing them into the U.S. marketplace. This would cost China a great deal of money each day their goods sit idle in their containers on ships and at docks in U.S. ports. I have to think China would assist with N. Korea to some degree in order to prevent a shutdown of their trade with the U.S. - we are their number one purchaser of stuff, so China would lose a large portion of its trade profits in such a situation.
This would be a reasonable, non-military action the U.S. could take to gain China's help. It can only help, and there's really no downside as it wouldn't constitute any type of military action or threat and it would probably have the positive side effect of increasing U.S. manufacturers' share of just about every market industry - after all, someone will have to pick up the slack of filling store shelves with the millions of items that would no longer be coming from China.
Imagine if Wal-Mart, which used to be dedicated to selling only made-in-the-USA goods (RIP, Sam Walton), had to start seeking U.S. suppliers for virtually all of its wares in the event that Chinese goods are stranded in port. That one company alone would provide a very large stimulus boost to the U.S. economy, and companies like Target, Home Depot, Office Max, and Sears would also start replacing lost Chinese goods with American-made products. The omnipresent "Made in China" labels we see on everything would start to be replaced with pride-instilling "Made in the USA!" labels.
In any event, the Chinese product-stranding strategy is just one example of an action we could take to garner assistance from China on the N. Korean problem(s). There are a wide array of economic sanctions we could threaten China with that would undoubtedly lead them to keep N. Korea in check. Without China in the picture, there isn't really anything we can do that is non-military to dissuade N. Korea from continuing to antagonize the region and develop long-range weapons. And when it comes down to it, China would suffer far more from trade cessation between the U.S. and China than the U.S. would - after all, there aren't too many "Made in the USA" labels on goods lining Chinese store shelves.
Unfortunately, I suspect our current leadership doesn't have the courage to stand up to China, meaning N. Korea's rocket launch will proceed as planned, and an unpredictable, troubling fallout will result. Hopefully, the next president, whether it be Obama, Romney, or Santorum, will begin to realize that N. Korea cannot be contained without including China in the equation, which requires hitting China where it hurts: their wallet.
If we're lucky, the entire situation will be postponed by another rocket launch failure by N. Korea - their last attempt ended in the accidental explosion of the rocket shortly after lift-off. This will just mean the problem is delayed, not solved. It will need to be addressed at some point.
Friday, April 6, 2012
No Women Allowed
Augusta National Golf Club was established in 1933 as an all-male golf club. It's a private club that doesn't receive government assistance - it operates solely on the dues from its members and the money it makes from the Masters golf tournament every year, which is arguably the most famous golf tournament in the world.
Its all-male membership is causing liberals great consternation again - every year, as the Masters tournament is gearing up, this controversy rears its ugly head and more and more pressure comes to bear on the owners of Augusta to do away with their all-male tradition and start allowing women as members.
This is still a free country, right? I'm not so sure anymore. A private entity should be free to run its organization as it sees fit, as long as it's not infringing on the rights of others. As a private club, they are entitled to whatever rules and regulations they want. If they want to close every year from March through June, so be it. If they want to require their members to wear hats while playing golf, so be it. If they want to allow only men to become members, also, so be it. Anyone is free to start his or her own private golf club that only allows women as members. Also fine would be a private club that wants to allow only seniors as members. I don't hear anyone crying foul that the United Negro College Fund doesn't allow whites. Again, as a private organization that is not being subsidized by public funds, e.g. tax dollars, they are free to provide scholarships to only blacks. If you don't like it, then start your own and provide scholarships to whatever group you want to cater too.
That is what freedom is all about. Part of the greatness of freedom is that we are free to do things that others don't agree with. Augusta is pissing a lot of people off, and it's their right to do so.
Unfortunately, the pressure of the left will eventually be too much for Augusta to resist, and their policy of allowing only male members will be a thing of the past. It's not just verbal clamoring that is taking its toll - money is being funnelled to movements to end this abhorrent policy of this private club running its business as it sees fit without bothering anyone while doing so. And where there's money, there's power - power enough, even, to bring down one of the most storied golf clubs in the world. And once the do-gooders have accomplished their mission, what will they be able to brag about? That they eviscerated the freedom from a private organization in the land of the free and the home of the brave - not an accomplishment I would be proud of. It's not about freedom to the anti-Augustans - it's about having things their way, without regard to the freedom of others. Basically, you are free as long as your choose to exercise your freedom in a manner they approve of.
The President has even taken time out of his busy days of running up the national debt and ridding us of freedoms through Obamacare's personal mandate and the National Defense Authorization Act: "Women should be admitted. It's long past time when women should be excluded from anything." Basically, what he's saying is that it's long past time that people are free to decide who they will invite to be part of their private clubs.
For the sake of all of us who cherish freedom, I hope Augusta National continues to fight this war against liberty. If they do continue the fight but lose, it foreshadows the loss of freedoms across the board. Augusta losing its freedom may not affect you, but it opens the door to the eventual attack on freedoms you hold dear, and this will continue until freedom is a thing of the past, something we will tell our grandchildren about when we tell stories of the once great America where freedom rang from coast to coast.
The 10th fairway and green at Augusta National Golf Club
Its all-male membership is causing liberals great consternation again - every year, as the Masters tournament is gearing up, this controversy rears its ugly head and more and more pressure comes to bear on the owners of Augusta to do away with their all-male tradition and start allowing women as members.
This is still a free country, right? I'm not so sure anymore. A private entity should be free to run its organization as it sees fit, as long as it's not infringing on the rights of others. As a private club, they are entitled to whatever rules and regulations they want. If they want to close every year from March through June, so be it. If they want to require their members to wear hats while playing golf, so be it. If they want to allow only men to become members, also, so be it. Anyone is free to start his or her own private golf club that only allows women as members. Also fine would be a private club that wants to allow only seniors as members. I don't hear anyone crying foul that the United Negro College Fund doesn't allow whites. Again, as a private organization that is not being subsidized by public funds, e.g. tax dollars, they are free to provide scholarships to only blacks. If you don't like it, then start your own and provide scholarships to whatever group you want to cater too.
That is what freedom is all about. Part of the greatness of freedom is that we are free to do things that others don't agree with. Augusta is pissing a lot of people off, and it's their right to do so.
Unfortunately, the pressure of the left will eventually be too much for Augusta to resist, and their policy of allowing only male members will be a thing of the past. It's not just verbal clamoring that is taking its toll - money is being funnelled to movements to end this abhorrent policy of this private club running its business as it sees fit without bothering anyone while doing so. And where there's money, there's power - power enough, even, to bring down one of the most storied golf clubs in the world. And once the do-gooders have accomplished their mission, what will they be able to brag about? That they eviscerated the freedom from a private organization in the land of the free and the home of the brave - not an accomplishment I would be proud of. It's not about freedom to the anti-Augustans - it's about having things their way, without regard to the freedom of others. Basically, you are free as long as your choose to exercise your freedom in a manner they approve of.
The President has even taken time out of his busy days of running up the national debt and ridding us of freedoms through Obamacare's personal mandate and the National Defense Authorization Act: "Women should be admitted. It's long past time when women should be excluded from anything." Basically, what he's saying is that it's long past time that people are free to decide who they will invite to be part of their private clubs.
For the sake of all of us who cherish freedom, I hope Augusta National continues to fight this war against liberty. If they do continue the fight but lose, it foreshadows the loss of freedoms across the board. Augusta losing its freedom may not affect you, but it opens the door to the eventual attack on freedoms you hold dear, and this will continue until freedom is a thing of the past, something we will tell our grandchildren about when we tell stories of the once great America where freedom rang from coast to coast.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
