ThePhalanx.com

Much has been made of corporate America and it’s obscene profits. To rectify this obvious problem we must address the outrageous salaries of today’s corporate executives, employed by privately owned businesses.

Better still we should create a government commission to manage the allocation of wealth and resources. That commission should oversee the disbursement of property, resources and other forms of wealth based on the inherent needs of the applicants (as determined by the commission). Above all, this commission should be staffed by those who lack any knowledge of how to use, produce or develop resources, but with those incapable of doing so…preferably with no understanding of how to manage a budget, meet a payroll or market goods and services. Furthermore, consumers should be restricted from making any personal decision on expenditures or consumption, as only the commission has the capacity to make decisions in our best interest. We must be protected from ourselves, not unlike a slave master vis-a-vis is slaves, or so the master would have us believe.

Because this commission’s charter shall not be rooted in moral right or constitutional legitimacy we needn’t concern ourselves with facts such as the fact that less than 20% of Americans are employed in corporate America, and because the motivations are also rooted in envy we shall exclusively target corporate America, after-all corporate America is far more wealthy than the average citizen or small business we are right to do so, as that wealth is the property of the commission though small businesses shall come under the jurisdiction of the resource commission, once their revenues exceed $200,000 or their staff exceed 100 employees.

Above all we must recognize that all wealth belongs to and flows from the state…

To acclimate future generations to this new world paradigm we must begin in the schools. The resource commission shall instruct all school districts that all academic success belongs to and flows from teachers and administrators. Students shall be forbidden from exceeding the mean grade by more than 15% if so, such excess shall be evenly distributed to those most in need, as determined by the administration.

This weekend’s “March on Washington” as it has been billed was a day of shame to be sure. The rally, led by television’s Glenn Beck, was an opportunity for many tens of thousands of Americans to express their well justified dissatisfaction with the regime of Barack Obama. Beck’s intentions are of no consequence, the reality is that any credibility or shred of honor this man Beck may have had must now be called into question. Rather than focus on the very real dangers of Obama and his neo-fascist regime, Mr. Glenn Beck used the opportunity to attack his religion.

To paraphrase one of Mr. Beck’s contemporaries, Sean Hannity: If Obama says he is  Christian, I take him at his word. What kind of world does Mr. Beck want for America where this type of behavior is considered acceptable, where a person’s faith is the subject of political discourse and debate. Beyond the pale does not begin to express the depravity of such a development. Obama’s religion or lack thereof does not have any baring nor should enter into a national political discussion, and as a true follower of Christ, one can personally attest that it should have no bearing a true Christian, lest we forget the very real warning to shy from judgment in such areas.

Why focus on matters of personal faith when Obama’s very real public failings are so apparent, an arrogant elitist politician with no regard or concern for the will of the public, who’s fiscal irresponsibility and Mussolini inspired legislation knows no bounds. Here we have a president so contempous of the very idea of a president as a public servant, that his cronies acknowledge his desire to “rule.”

Meanwhile our esteemed ruler wastes hundreds of thousands of dollars on elaborate vacations at tax payer expense, even using Air Force one for mindless photo-ops with the New York Skyline. Perhaps instead of deride Obama’s religion Beck could have taken the opportunity to remind the neo-fascist regime that is the Obama administration that the president serves at the behest of the people to manage the affairs of state, not as a monarch nor a tyrant, who regularly dismisses those who have the audacity to exercise their first amendment rights to petition the government for a redress and very real grievances. In keeping with this theme, one need only listen to Obama’s own words when he declared this very Sunday that he paid no attention to Beck’s rally. What does it say about a president, a servant of the people, who ignores hundreds of thousands of his fellow citizens when they come to Washington to express their discontent with his administration? Very telling….

Link:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2012758135_beckfest30.html

Suppose just for the sake of assumption you were tasked with the responsibility of building schools for a large metropolitan district. Suppose you are tasked with building three schools, what do you think it would cost?

Well if it’s the city of Los Angeles, the cost is $1.2 billion. In fact the Robert F Kennedy Community School opening this very week has a price tag of $580 million.

This represents a gross waste of money and resources in a city and state reeling with high unemployment and billions in debt. Perhaps the LA County School Board should spend more time focused on improving it’s 50% dropout rate, rather than spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a building more reminiscent of the Museum of Modern Art than a school.

We’ve heard and seen it before. The esteemed Speaker of the US House of Representatives has once again dismissed those who share a differing political opinion, dismissed their rights and gone that extra yard in calling for a federal investigation. Nancy Pelosi argued recently that those who oppose the construction of the Ground Zero Mosque should be investigated.

So this has what it has come to? those who dare exercise their first amendment guaranteed rights to freedom of speech and a redress of grievances are somehow criminals? Under what grounds does the federal government have any legitimate justification to investigate this supposed crime? Yet daily we here it is the Tea Party and others of like mind who are the fascist in this country, but in reality we witness evidence to the contrary each day. We see government officials who seek extreme measures to silence critiques.

To be true there is no question of the legal right of Muslims to construct a mosque, in keeping with local laws, that right is assured by the 1st, 14th and 5th amendments, from this, however, we cannot deprive other law abiding citizens of their rights as well. The words if Nancy Pelosi, being such a high ranking government official are in-excusable and the Pale. But what can be expected from the the likes of some politicians and their desire to impose their will on others.

Apparently President Obama has stepped into it yet again proving he’s as skilled as a politician as he is managing the affairs of state, which of course is of no great accomplishment. Speaking last Friday, the president declared that Muslims have a right to build a mosque on private property where they please in keeping with local laws. And yes he is of course correct, and that is saying something considering Obama’s knowledge of our semi-defunct Constitution is as lacking as is his prudence with spending tax payer’s money. For weeks we have heard the question asked…what is the president’s position on the Ground Zero Mosque. We have heard outcries over why this imam has selected this sight to build his mosque, but in our rush to question the intentions and prudence of this mosque project, we ignore the very liberties we claim to cherish.

We have heard conservative firebrands and even some leftist ones claim that this is not a 1st Amendment issue and this is of course not true. It is every bit a first amendment issue. The first amendment grants every citizen the right to freely exercise their religion. It doesn’t grant some people that right, it doesn’t grant only Christians and it doesn’t grant that right only to people who won’t offend the majority, indeed the inherent purpose of the Constitution is to protect the rights of minorities. The very same constitution also prohibits the establishment of religion by the state, which also restricts teh state from favoring one religion (or the absence thereof). In showing a clear distinction between Islam and other faiths, those politicians who have opposed this most on emotional grounds ignore the very real fact that this is a nation of laws, and just as we may abhor the words and deeds of nazis and communists and islamo-fascists, we cannot use our personal objections as a barometer for legality or constitutionality. These people have every right to build their religious center on private property if they so desire, or have we also declared war on the right to property and the 5th amendment as well?

Not only are property rights and the freedom of religion in danger, but the very concept of federalism is in jeopardy. Under what authority does the federal government have the right to dictate zoning matters. This is a matter for the people of New York, and neither the president nor the congress has any bearing on this heated argument. The truth hurts, but we cannot ignore the obvious fact that those who have injected politics into this argument are ignoring the constitution and the very principle of basic inalienable rights long cherished by generations of Americans.

All the complaints about the dangers of radical Islam and the emotional wounds of September 11th are entirely valid, but emotion has never been a basis for the law, nor have the feelings of the majority. While we may abhor the barbarism and savagery that is radical Islam and the views that inspired the terrorist attacks, we must not succumb to such beliefs, to defeat them we cannot become them. We cannot justify our prejudices and disregard for the rule of law by asserting that no church or synagogue would be allowed in a predominantly Muslim country in such a prominent location. Granted such arguments are likely correct, but America is not ruled by Sharia law and siting it as a means of opposing it defies both logic and common sense. We must ask ourselves a very serious question, are we a people of principle or have we become the very enemies of freedom we have so valiantly resisted for generations? Two hundred and thirty four years of history demands our answer.

Links:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/16/white-house-says-politics-factor-decision-enter-mosque-debate/

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/08/harry-reid-weighs-in-on-ny-mos.html

Much has been made of the recent ruling upholding gay marriage in California, but what if there were no marriage. The state should have the least amount of involvement possible in the daily lives of its citizens. So long as the actions of one individual do not interfere with the rights and privileges of another, such actions should not fall within the purview of the state.

Nowhere has this unnecessary intrusion been more illustrated than in the ongoing debate over gay marriage, or whether or not states should recognize unions between same-sex couples. Since that debate began to rage we have seen the Congress attempt to usurp the authority of the states to ban homosexual marriage and numerous debates on the state level. In realty, the debate has no place at any level of government. Quite simply…marriage should not be defined one way or the other by the state. Marriage is a personal matter involving a commitment between two individuals. Historically, marriage was viewed as a spiritual matter, long before married couples received favored treatment by the state, marriage was simply a sacrament of the church, not unlike baptism. And just like baptisms, the matter was outside the realm of government bureaucracy. Naturally, Christians, Muslims, Jews and other faiths have and continue hold both similar and contrasting views on matters of marriage.

Over the course of several centuries, two things happened, marriage became secularized and the state became involved in defining marriage. Before long, one could not marry without the blessing of the state, indeed, over the course of many generations, the state sought to forbid certain unions, particularly those involving people of different faiths, ethnicities or race. At this point the state began to usurp the individual rights of free people with free will.

However, unrealistic it may be, the state should divorce itself from the practice of defining marriage, just as the state should divorce itself from all such practices that interfere with an individual’s right to live their lives in the manner they see fit. As a spiritual matter, marriages should be defined by the particular faith of which one practices (or does not practice). Most importantly married couples should not be granted special favors or favored treatment by the state over their single counterparts, no more than people of a certain race or gender should be favored by the state.

If, for legal purposes two people desire to pool their assets, share liabilities or make arrangements for the management of their estate, or for child rearing, the state could recognize a separate contractual partnership, which would protect the assets of both partners and ensure their wishes are carried out in the event of their demise (Similar to France’s Pacte civil de solidarité.) That should be the extent of the state’s interference. As to the matter of gay marriage, once again this would be a matter for the individuals in question, if a church, synagogue, etc…chooses to recognize homosexual unions, that is a matter for that group or organization, not the state. For if we allow the state to define or restrict marriage in any form, are we not opening the door for the state to dictate other aspects of our lives as well? Who we befriend, where we work, how we worship, where we live, how we live, who we live with, etc…
http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=20214

President Obama campaigning for Democratic candidates in Texas today, visited familiar territory in more ways than one. Obama reminded his audience that he inherited a weak economy when he took office two years ago and once again blamed his predecessor for the the continued economic doldrums this nation finds itself in.

It must be comforting to the American left and the nation at large, knowing that we have a president who takes absolutely no responsibility for anything he has done (or failed to do) during his two years in office, but perhaps we should be surprise, after-all Obama has never actually done anything as a state representative, a community organizer or a part-time Senator for three years. Perhaps Obama forgot that his policies have created renewed economic weakness in the economy, that his policies have discouraged business investment, that his policies have limited innovation and perhaps he has also forgotten that the very Democratic politicians in Washington have been in power in this country for the past 4 years, more than enough time to adopt measures to foster economic growth and turn the economic tide of recession, instead they have ushered in new taxes, new deficit spending and no hope whatsoever.

The fact is many presidents have inherited weak economies, but unlike this president, they took action in conjunction with the Congress to forestall further economic ruin, rather than hasten it as this president has. In 1961, JFK inherited a recession and he spurned a major expansion through the adoption of pro-growth economic policies, including a massive across the board tax cut. When Reagan assumed office in 1981, he too “inherited” a poor economy, but again took steps renew growth. George Bush also “inherited” a weak economy, magnified by the crippling effects of September 11th, and took steps to spur growth with major tax cuts, which are set to expire. These men, along with Bush’s predecessor, Bill Clinton, greatly differ from the man who currently is charged with managing the affairs of state. These were individual who understood that leadership did not amount to rationalizing and making excuses for failure and constantly blaming others for his problem, that nonsense may work when someone is running for president but once you assume office its time for positive action, not incompetence and child like finger pointing. What a spectical to be at the helm of the ship of state.

Links:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0910217920100809

It’s not entirely new, we’ve had numerous presidents who saw themselves as more akin to royalty than elected representatives of the people. President’s from Kennedy to Reagan have hob knobbed with the rich and famous staged elaborate parties and so forth, but there are some differences. Kennedy, for example, accepted no presidential salary and the Reagans accepted private donations rather than siphon the tax payer for their elaborate ways.

Sure we’ve had presidents that traveled extensively. Both Clinton and Bush were no strangers to Air Force one, but today is a different story entirely. Neither Clinton nor Bush traveled with such an elaborate and lengthy entourage. A great many of Bush’s travels took him to his home in Crawford, TX.

Here we have an administration so aloof and hypocritical we are sometimes amazed with the audacity of these people. In the midst of a great recession, exacerbated by policies which discourage investment and recovery, in the midst of belt tightening from cost to cost we have an administration downing tax payer money like a teenager with their parent’s credit card. As Shirley Sherrod pointed out in the overlooked portion of that now infamous video, the federal government is hiring and no one is ever fired.

As it turns out, Obama’s policies aren’t limited to 20th century era spending programs, designed to buy votes and little else. It seems the president us perfectly happy to spend his bosses money for personal pleasures as well. How anyone but the most virulent Obama apologist can justify this half million dollar trip to Spain is beyond comprehension. At the very least the presidential families actions are in poor taste, and at worse they are criminal. Under whose authority does the president operate anyway. Can anyone else in America spend their employer’s money with such reckless abandon without being held accountable. Is any objectionable person on Earth surprise that virtually no one in this administration (7%) as any business experience? Is this what the 60 million sheep who voted for this man hoping for when they think of the hope they were promised. Truly we hope it does not get worse. Though this latest vacation (Mane, Florida, Europe) and the frequent golf trips that far exceed Bush or Clinton’s 8 years in office (without a peep from the apologists) are a reflection of Obama’s complete lack of leadership ability, we can take solace in the fact that it has kept him out of Washington for a time. Any president of the last 50 years would be a vast improvement over the collection of stooges who now occupy the White House.

There is a wave of governmental intrusion sweeping the globe in recent weeks. From India to Saudi Arabia to UAE and now Indonesia, several governments have targeted Research in Motion’s popular Blackberry devices. In each case those governments have demanded that RIM relay day traffic to its Blackberry customers through government controlled servers, presumably where data can be scanned, evaluated and recorded without the consent of the user and without any presumed suspicion of a crime having been committed.

To RIM’s credit they have repeated rejected such efforts to their own detriment. Saudi Arabia has order Blackberry service suspended within the next two days, followed by UAE in a matter of weeks, with India and Indonesia maneuvering to do the same in the very near future. Herein lies the true danger of oppressive government and the passion of the few to rule the many. When the state seeks to control its people under the guise of security we must be vary wary. We mustn’t be so foolish as to believe such actions cannot happen hear.

We know of the efforts our own government has engaged in to spy on its citizens using warrant-less wiretapping and so forth. While RIM’s fight against government intrusion in the developing world maybe less than altruistic, the battle is no less significant.

Links:
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/RIM-Resisting-Saudi-Demand-to-Break-BlackBerry-Encryption-478554/

Today a federal judge, Vaughn Walker, who is apparently gay himself issued a ruling on the subject of Gay marriage in the state of California. California, the nation’s poster child for direct democracy (ie, Mob Rule), passed a referendum (Proposition in 2008, which sought to define marriage in the state as being between a man and a woman. Here we have yet another hot button issue dividing the nation’s conservative and liberal factions. The first salvo in a battle likely to reach the supreme court was fired when the aforementioned federal judge, declared the statute to be in violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection provisions. Those on the left have applauded the move, while conservatives vow to appeal the ruling, but in reality both sides are wrong from the standpoint of those who truly cherish freedom.

From an historical standpoint, marriage has been a social contract between a man and woman. Marriages have been endorsed and/or recognized by various governments and religious institutions for over 10,000 years. In various societies and cultures the institution of marriage has varied in both application and formality. In many ancient cultures all that was required for a marriage was the mutual consent of two parties. Even early Christians lacked a formal marriage procedure until the 2nd century and the state did not formally involve itself in western society until the 15th century or later.

Marriage has existed in one form or another in a variety of cultures and regions from Asia to Africa to Europe and the Middle East. Through each of these regions and across the span of history there has been one consistent element: the mutual consent of both parties.

Marriage is a private matter and for many a spiritual matter. It is not a state matter, a government matter or a matter of public policy, anymore than the sexual practices of two parties after a marriage is consummated. The government has no place in defining marriage of any kind, be it a marriage between people of a different race, religion, culture, etc…To this end, the state and the subject of marriage should be completely divorced, so much so that there should be no special favors or recognition afforded people on the basis of marriage. This naturally begs the question: what of matters such as inheritance or the rearing of children?

As the private subject of marriage can have implications on a wider array of issues, such matters should be addressed as any matter between private citizens seeking legal protections for their property or offspring. Parties who consider themselves married should enter into a contractual agreement, binding under force of law to protect their interest. This contractual agreement should not be a requisite act for the existence of marriage but simply a prudent act by those seeking to protect their families and/or property. We must not view the state as a crunch and we must absolve ourselves of the need to validate our actions through the acquiescence of the state. The state exists solely to protect our rights, not to define our behavior. Those who have sought to limit the scope and range of government power must recognize that in calling for government involvement in such private matters we are actually expanding the power of the state in grotesque ways.

Links:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/us/06assess.html