Following the recent death of Justice Scalia, there is a debate about whether or not a new nominee should be put forth by President Obama, or wait until we elect our new president. Some argue tradition says no SCOTUS appointments are made during an election year. There are examples of both waiting and proceeding.
But the hypocrisy is abundant on both sides of the aisle. Both parties want what is to their own advantage, particularly since the court is evenly divided between 4 liberal and 4 conservative justices since the death of Scalia. Examples of Democrat who opposed late term nominees are listed below.
President Barack Obama (Then Senator Obama)
Vice-President Joe Biden (Then Senator Biden)
Senator Charles Schumer
Secrtary of State John Kerry (Then Senator Kerry)
Senator Harry Reid in this article says the now is the time to proceed with the nominee approval process. He was once opposed when a republican president was in office.
It is important to note that Democrats were the first party to draw blood in the SCOTUS nominee wars, when President Reagan nominate Robert Bork in the final year of Reagan's 2nd term in office.
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
Wednesday, February 10, 2016
Political Affiliatiion in News Stories
Nearly everyone has heard the stories from Flint, MI, about their tainted water problems. I want to highlight how the media is not doing their job adequately in one aspect of the reporting on this story. The media is trying very hard not to say the leaders in Flint who made the decisions about water sources and infrastructure are Democrats.
Think Progress is a liberal, left-leading, online publication of news, mostly about politics and current events. A recent article on their site fails to mention that former Flint mayor Dayne Walling is a democrat. They do, however, mention that Gov. Rick Snyder is a republican. You see, Think Progress does not want to explicitly say the former mayor is democrat, thereby associating anyone in the democrat party with a negative story. But they have no such reservations when it comes to a republican governor.
I encourage you to pay attention to future news articles and reports, and take notice of the number of times reporters fail to mention a democrat affiliation in a negative story, compared to the republican affiliations to a negative story. The same is true in reverse in stories that shed positive light on any democrat politician.
For more information about politics in news reporting, visit Pew Research Center website.
Think Progress is a liberal, left-leading, online publication of news, mostly about politics and current events. A recent article on their site fails to mention that former Flint mayor Dayne Walling is a democrat. They do, however, mention that Gov. Rick Snyder is a republican. You see, Think Progress does not want to explicitly say the former mayor is democrat, thereby associating anyone in the democrat party with a negative story. But they have no such reservations when it comes to a republican governor.
I encourage you to pay attention to future news articles and reports, and take notice of the number of times reporters fail to mention a democrat affiliation in a negative story, compared to the republican affiliations to a negative story. The same is true in reverse in stories that shed positive light on any democrat politician.
For more information about politics in news reporting, visit Pew Research Center website.
Thursday, February 4, 2016
Where In The World Indeed?
Where would we be without trains and shipping and a wealthy Vanderbilt?
Where would we be without oil and a wealthy Rockefeller?
Where would we be without steel and a wealthy Carnegie?
Where would we be without banking and a wealthy Morgan?
Where would we be without cars and a wealthy Ford?
Where would we be without computers and a wealthy Gates?
Where would we be without mobile devices and a wealthy Jobs?
Where would we be without all of the marvelous items and services provided by people who took risks and invested greatly in them. Would we give it all back in order that some would not gain wealth? These are but a few of the more famous examples of people who got wealthy making our lives better and more prosperous.
The profit motive is great and leads to great things that make our lives more prosperous, efficient, healthy, and yes, wealthy. Capitalism has raised more people from poverty than any other economic practice. Doubt me? Look at what poverty is in the USA today. Homes with indoor plumbing, heating and air conditioning, cars, refrigerators, microwave ovens, cell phones, cable TV, and much more.
Thomas Sowell, Ph.D. Economist, wrote:
"But would we be better off if people like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs had never created things that widened our access to opportunities and enriched our lives, just because it also enriched theirs?"
Socialism in various forms has led to the deaths of millions of people and many nations. Why would anyone want to go there? What makes America great is freedom to invest and work as you choose with an opportunity to succeed to greater levels.
Where would we be without oil and a wealthy Rockefeller?
Where would we be without steel and a wealthy Carnegie?
Where would we be without banking and a wealthy Morgan?
Where would we be without cars and a wealthy Ford?
Where would we be without computers and a wealthy Gates?
Where would we be without mobile devices and a wealthy Jobs?
Where would we be without all of the marvelous items and services provided by people who took risks and invested greatly in them. Would we give it all back in order that some would not gain wealth? These are but a few of the more famous examples of people who got wealthy making our lives better and more prosperous.
The profit motive is great and leads to great things that make our lives more prosperous, efficient, healthy, and yes, wealthy. Capitalism has raised more people from poverty than any other economic practice. Doubt me? Look at what poverty is in the USA today. Homes with indoor plumbing, heating and air conditioning, cars, refrigerators, microwave ovens, cell phones, cable TV, and much more.
Thomas Sowell, Ph.D. Economist, wrote:
"But would we be better off if people like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs had never created things that widened our access to opportunities and enriched our lives, just because it also enriched theirs?"
Socialism in various forms has led to the deaths of millions of people and many nations. Why would anyone want to go there? What makes America great is freedom to invest and work as you choose with an opportunity to succeed to greater levels.
Wednesday, February 3, 2016
OU professor: Youths' attraction to Sanders shows education failure
This is a reprint of the article written by Professor David Deming of OU, January 30, 2016 in the NewsOK paper.
OU professor: Youths' attraction to Sanders shows education failure
By David Deming | January 30, 2016
It's disheartening that an avowed socialist is a viable candidate for president of the United States. Socialism is a dead end. For hundreds of years, it has failed everywhere it's been adopted. The enthusiasm of our youth for the candidacy of Bernie Sanders is a symptom of our failure to educate them, not only in history, government and economics, but also basic morality.
You don't have to be a student of ancient history to know socialism doesn't work. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989 was an unequivocal demonstration of the moral and economic superiority of capitalism. The misery caused by socialism is unfolding today in Venezuela. Since Venezuela embraced socialism in 1999, poverty, crime and corruption have all increased. Grocery shelves are empty and the annual inflation rate is estimated to be as high as 200 percent.
The United States is a constitutional republic founded on political equality, not equality of income or circumstances. Our system of government was designed to secure the natural rights of its citizens. These rights include not only “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” but the right to acquire and maintain private property. The Founding Fathers considered property rights to be sacred and
paramount.
Under capitalism, goods and services are distributed through private, voluntary exchanges. When people engage in volitional transactions, everyone benefits. If we believe a transaction is in our best interest, we have an incentive to maintain good relations with those with whom we're trading. Thus a society based on freedom and trading promotes good will and civility. Our free-market system has produced the greatest prosperity in human history.
There are no property rights under socialism. Goods and services are distributed by force through political means. Everything you possess is subject to confiscation and redistribution. Industrious and productive people are punished; parasites are rewarded. When people come to believe they have a right to goods and services produced by other people, society disintegrates into squabbling factions. If socialism is allowed to progress to its logical extreme, it culminates in a military dictatorship like North Korea.
What about so-called “crony capitalism”? This is nothing more than socialism that benefits the wealthy and influential. It's just as wrong as any other form of socialism. The cure is to limit government power. Human nature is corruptible. If government has the power to redistribute wealth, it will always act in the interests of the powerful segments of society. What made America great is not progressive government, but the genius and industry of a people freed from arbitrary power by the chains placed upon government by our Constitution.
Socialism isn't so much a legitimate economic system as it is a moral failing. It will always exist because ignorant people will always want something for nothing. If we want to retain our freedom and prosperity, then we must educate our children that the purpose of government is to secure liberty, not provide free lunches.
Deming (ddeming@ou.edu) is a professor of arts and sciences at the University of Oklahoma.
OU professor: Youths' attraction to Sanders shows education failure
By David Deming | January 30, 2016
It's disheartening that an avowed socialist is a viable candidate for president of the United States. Socialism is a dead end. For hundreds of years, it has failed everywhere it's been adopted. The enthusiasm of our youth for the candidacy of Bernie Sanders is a symptom of our failure to educate them, not only in history, government and economics, but also basic morality.
You don't have to be a student of ancient history to know socialism doesn't work. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989 was an unequivocal demonstration of the moral and economic superiority of capitalism. The misery caused by socialism is unfolding today in Venezuela. Since Venezuela embraced socialism in 1999, poverty, crime and corruption have all increased. Grocery shelves are empty and the annual inflation rate is estimated to be as high as 200 percent.
The United States is a constitutional republic founded on political equality, not equality of income or circumstances. Our system of government was designed to secure the natural rights of its citizens. These rights include not only “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” but the right to acquire and maintain private property. The Founding Fathers considered property rights to be sacred and
paramount.
Under capitalism, goods and services are distributed through private, voluntary exchanges. When people engage in volitional transactions, everyone benefits. If we believe a transaction is in our best interest, we have an incentive to maintain good relations with those with whom we're trading. Thus a society based on freedom and trading promotes good will and civility. Our free-market system has produced the greatest prosperity in human history.
There are no property rights under socialism. Goods and services are distributed by force through political means. Everything you possess is subject to confiscation and redistribution. Industrious and productive people are punished; parasites are rewarded. When people come to believe they have a right to goods and services produced by other people, society disintegrates into squabbling factions. If socialism is allowed to progress to its logical extreme, it culminates in a military dictatorship like North Korea.
What about so-called “crony capitalism”? This is nothing more than socialism that benefits the wealthy and influential. It's just as wrong as any other form of socialism. The cure is to limit government power. Human nature is corruptible. If government has the power to redistribute wealth, it will always act in the interests of the powerful segments of society. What made America great is not progressive government, but the genius and industry of a people freed from arbitrary power by the chains placed upon government by our Constitution.
Socialism isn't so much a legitimate economic system as it is a moral failing. It will always exist because ignorant people will always want something for nothing. If we want to retain our freedom and prosperity, then we must educate our children that the purpose of government is to secure liberty, not provide free lunches.
Deming (ddeming@ou.edu) is a professor of arts and sciences at the University of Oklahoma.
Monday, February 1, 2016
Matt Walsh Blog - Provocative, Rational Insight
Matt Walsh Blog
Matt Walsh on Facebook
I recently added a link to Matt Walsh's blog site on my own blog. Matt is a very good writer, and even better thinker. Reading his blog will make you smarter, because Matt is a smart guy. Whether you agree with him or not, you cannot argue his positions are not logical and rational, and his ability to put them into words is lacking in much of what is passes for op/ed writing these days.
Matt Walsh on Facebook
I recently added a link to Matt Walsh's blog site on my own blog. Matt is a very good writer, and even better thinker. Reading his blog will make you smarter, because Matt is a smart guy. Whether you agree with him or not, you cannot argue his positions are not logical and rational, and his ability to put them into words is lacking in much of what is passes for op/ed writing these days.
How Joe Biden Gets Democrat Nomination
I'm going on record with a prediction concerning Hillary Clinton and the Democrat Party.
Given the nature of the FBI investigation on Hillary's email server and classified data in those email messages, I predict the Democrat Party will plan accordingly to ensure they have a viable candidate for the general election for President.
The concerns are that Mrs. Clinton will be indicted, opening the way for Bernie Sanders to win the nomination, followed by the socialist losing the general election. Here is what the Democrats would likely do in my opinion.
The Obama controlled Department of Justice will not proceed with an indictment as long as Hillary appears to be the eventual nominee throughout the primary season. Once Hillary locks up enough delegates to win the nomination, the party will wait until after she is nominated. At that time the indictment will come down, she will be forced to step aside, and the party big shots will place whomever they like in the nominee seat. That person will be Joe Biden.
They cannot interfere with the primary elections according to their own rules. But once the nominee is known, they have the means to replace the nominee with anyone of their choosing. If there is no first ballot nominee, they can also use the delegates they control to choose anyone besides either primary candidate. President Obama would like nothing more than a democrat president succeed him in order to maintain the legacy, and Biden is most likely to protect Obamacare and Obama's executive orders.
They cannot indict Hillary too soon, or she loses the nomination to Sanders, and the party doesn't want that, because they mostly feel he cannot win in November.
Given the nature of the FBI investigation on Hillary's email server and classified data in those email messages, I predict the Democrat Party will plan accordingly to ensure they have a viable candidate for the general election for President.
The concerns are that Mrs. Clinton will be indicted, opening the way for Bernie Sanders to win the nomination, followed by the socialist losing the general election. Here is what the Democrats would likely do in my opinion.
The Obama controlled Department of Justice will not proceed with an indictment as long as Hillary appears to be the eventual nominee throughout the primary season. Once Hillary locks up enough delegates to win the nomination, the party will wait until after she is nominated. At that time the indictment will come down, she will be forced to step aside, and the party big shots will place whomever they like in the nominee seat. That person will be Joe Biden.
They cannot interfere with the primary elections according to their own rules. But once the nominee is known, they have the means to replace the nominee with anyone of their choosing. If there is no first ballot nominee, they can also use the delegates they control to choose anyone besides either primary candidate. President Obama would like nothing more than a democrat president succeed him in order to maintain the legacy, and Biden is most likely to protect Obamacare and Obama's executive orders.
They cannot indict Hillary too soon, or she loses the nomination to Sanders, and the party doesn't want that, because they mostly feel he cannot win in November.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)