What Have You Done?

Posted in Uncategorized on July 10, 2012 by republicanrambler

Hi everyone. If you’re wondering why I’m whispering right now, it’s because I want to let you in on a little secret. This is a secret about conservatives, and if you’re not one yourself (first of all, I’m shocked you’re on this site. Congrats for being open-minded enough to reach it)I sincerely hope you’re sitting down, because what I’m about to say may shock you.

Are you ready? Are you sitting down? I don’t think you’re ready. Okay, I think you’re ready.

Conservatives, believe it or not, are not monsters.

Conservatives are not, by and large, inherently evil.

Conservatives do not hate the poor.

Conservatives do not hate minorities (in fact, some of us are minorities).

Conservatives don’t go to cancer’s Little League games and root for it to hit a walk-off home runs.

Conservatives live on your street. They work at your businesses. They drive on your streets. They’re normal people, with normal lives who believe one simple thing above all:

Individuals can run the world better than big government.

It’s a simple edict, but it’s one which has left conservatives much maligned and vilified by the mainstream media and those unfortunate enough to believe it.

Here’s the simple-minded liberal explanation for why conservatives want to overturn Obamacare is that conservatives don’t want poor people to have health care. Conservatives hate the poor, they hate minorities, they hate the elderly and they hate the sick. That’s the simple way that liberals can avoid having a legitimate debate about the merits of Obamacare. That debate would make them uncomfortable, because it would force them to face unpleasant facts.

The fact of the matter is the government has absolutely no business running our health care system. Furthermore, it has absolutely no business forcing me to pay for other people’s health care. I already do plenty of that by paying taxes for Medicare, I don’t need more responsibility.

Anyone with the unfortunate presence of “@BarackObama” in their twitter feed will see five sob stories a day about the unfortunate people who have been benefited by Obamacare. My heart breaks for them. No one should have to choose between eating and getting their children health care. My heart breaks for them, truly, just as my heart breaks for Corea, a young boy in Kenya who I was blessed enough to meet whose family does not have electricity or enough food to eat. My heart breaks for them all, but it is not the government’s job to rescue them.

Here’s a thought… why don’t we step to the plate? Liberals are no more willing to pay more taxes than any conservative, they’re just more willing to make everyone else do it. Warren Buffett wants the government to take more taxes from the rich; great! Step to the plate and pay for someone’s sick kid yourself. I’m sure Mr. Buffett has tax experts going over every inch of his financial records to make sure he doesn’t pay an extra cent in taxes.

I’m willing to donate to charity. I’ve done it in the past. I want to reform health care as much as everyone else, but Obamacare is not the answer.

My heart does break for the sick and the poor in this country, but it breaks even more for the hypocrites that run this country and tell me Obamacare is the solution.

You call me the devil for saying Obamacare is not the solution. You tell me I hate the poor? Let me ask you this. What have you done? 

Advertisements

SCOTUS Upholds Obamacare, or Why Romney will Win the Presidency

Posted in Uncategorized on June 28, 2012 by republicanrambler

By now, everyone has heard the Supreme Court ruling this morning. In a vote of 5-4, with Chief Justice Roberts siding with the more liberal justices, the Supreme Court of the United States, affectionately known as SCOTUS, ruled that the Affordable Care Act, popularly called “Obamacare,” was upheld as constitutional.

Furthermore, the same vote held that the individual mandate, arguably the most controversial element of the original legislation, was constitutional, though not by the Commerce Clause, but rather as a tax on the American People.

Finally, with a vote of 7-2, with justices Breyer and Kagan being the only voices in decent, the threat of withholding Medicaid and Medicare funding from those states which opposed the legislation was struck down as unconstitutional.

So what is left to the politicians, the analysts, the political pundits, and most importantly the American people, is to decide not the constitutionality of the bill, but what this ruling means for the bill and for the country moving forward; and while there will be many volleys, arguments, and justifications in the coming days, weeks, and months, I want to propose only one. There is one and only one thing which this ruling determines, and it is very simple. It comes in two parts, and it is this:

The SCOTUS ruling on Obamacare means that Mitt Romney will be the next President of the United States, and it means that Obamacare, at least the more controversial parts thereof, will be repealed and replaced by the then entirely Republican controlled Congress.

In 2010, Democrats experienced landslide losses in both the House and the Senate due to the overwhelming unpopularity of Obamacare. The only reason they did not lose control of both the House and Senate was because they had amassed large majorities during the unpopular Bush administration.

Then, knowing that the Bill would be addressed by the Supreme Court, Republicans relaxed somewhat. Tea Party protests died down, and there was a collective breath of relief. Clearly, the wise, conservative controlled SCOTUS would strike down, if nothing else, this obviously unconstitutional individual mandate.

Well they didn’t, and now the rage is back. The anger is back. The passion is back. The tea is back. There can be no doubt that the Supreme Court ruling will have a galvanizing effect for the oft-disorganized GOP. The fact of the matter is that this bill is completely unpopular. Sixty percent of people believe that it impedes on their personal rights as Americans. There will be sweeping losses amongst incumbents in Congress, and those who supported this bill will have to answer not only to their political adversaries, but more importantly to their constituents.

I will write blogs later about the horrors of this ruling. I’ll point out that the tax ruling that SCOTUS allowed gives the federal government nigh unlimited power. That is not the point of this blog, however. This blog is only to point out that today, on the day of what may be the biggest victory of the Obama Administration, he ought to begin preparing for life after the presidency…

Because I guarantee, it’s coming sooner rather than later. 

Michael Bloomberg’s New Name

Posted in Uncategorized on June 15, 2012 by republicanrambler

Michael Bloomberg needs a new name.

                Clearly, Bloomberg is a name far too American, far too constitutional, far too conservative for this jaded shell of a former entrepreneur.  In a country where a name can so define your place in society, whether you be a Busch in St. Louis, a Wrigley in Chicago, or a Rockefeller in New York, someone who has sunk as low as Michael Bloomberg clearly no longer deserves a name as distinguished as Bloomberg. Bloomberg is a name now synonymous with wealth and power, and it clearly shouldn’t belong to a man whose political stance has gone as far down the rabbit hole as has Michael Bloomberg’s.

                I am referring of course to the now infamous New York City “soda ban.” I’m sure I needn’t rehash the details of the ban, but the short story is that restaurants are now no longer legally allowed to sell sodas any greater in size than twenty ounces; else they face a minimum fine of $200.

                When asked about the constitutionality of this new concept, Bloomberg responded: “what constitution?”

                I am, of course, joking with the above statement, but the joke is a bit sardonic.  Clearly, the idea of banning sodas of more than 20 ounces is ludicrously unconstitutional, and if I do say so myself, un-American.

                To make matters worse, Bloomberg’s defense of the legality of the ban is, apparently, that anyone could, if they were so inclined, purchase two sixteen ounce sodas.

                THEN WHAT, EXACTLY, IS THE POINT OF THE BAN? I can at least understand the admittedly flawed logic that if we remove the large, sugared sodas, we remove some of the cause of the obesity problem, but if I can still get thirty-two, forty-eight, or sixty-four ounces of soda by just buying more than one sixty ounce, WHAT IS THE POINT?

                Clearly, Mayor Bloomberg is off his proverbial rocker. No sane person would think that this ban was acceptable, nor support it with the incredibly flawed logic which Bloomberg uses.

                So Mike needs a new name. Here’s what I’m thinking. In Germany, cities often end with the word Berg (or in their case, Burg) as in Hamburg, Nuremburg, and Duisburg. But Mayor Bloomberg’s actions are now nothing like the economically forward-thinking Germany. In fact, his removal of citizens’ rights and complete lack of governmental logic is much more reminiscent of Soviet Russia.

                So I’m going to start calling him Mayor Michael Bloomgrad. I encourage those of you with parody, humor, and America in your heart to do the same. 

A good showing for Akin in MO GOP Senate Debate

Posted in Uncategorized on June 12, 2012 by republicanrambler

90 minutes ago, a Republican debate began for the Missouri Senate seat. An opportunity to run for Claire McCaskill’s senate seat was up for grabs, and there was no real frontrunner to be had.

                Now, anyone who watched the debate and was honest with themselves has a clear front-runner in mind: Todd Akin.

                In the interest of full disclosure, I want to state right now that I am an intern in Mr. Akin’s Congressional office (completely separate from the Senate campaign) and his constituent. That said, I do my absolute best to be as un-biased, and I am completely certain that any of the three candidates (Congressman Todd Akin, MO 2nd, Treasurer Sarah Steelman, and local businessman John Brunner) are a better alternative to Mrs. McCaskill. With that said, Mr. Akin won this debate, and, in my opinion, did so easily.

                The three candidates had similar opinions on many of the issues. They were all openly against Obamacare (or, as Mr. Brunner inventively called it, ObamaClaire, a shot at his potential general election opponent). They all spoke out against Eric Holder’s abuses of his role as Attorney General. They all argued for a change in financial attitudes in the Federal Government. With that said, no candidate did so with as much clarity, honesty, and swiftness as Congressman Akin.

                Let me quickly give each candidate a grade:

                Treasurer Steelman: D: She stammered. She stumbled. She dodged questions. She said nothing original. She had little crowd reaction and little refrain. She was, in this case, an ineffective debater, and as the polling front-runner right now, she could have done significant damage to her campaign, assuming the voters were watching.

                Mr. Brunner: C+/B-: Mr. Brunner did a fantastic job of sticking to his talking points, but they were, after a while, shallow and repetitive. He argues that he will be a “citizen senator,” opposing the insider mentality of the two “career politicians” (never-mind that Steelman spent some of her life as a bureaucrat and educator and Akin spent much of his career as a member of the armed services and an engineer with IBM) he was running against. Still, as Mr. Akin argued, it’s a lot easier to say you’ll vote the right way when you’re not facing it, not denying the request of the President of your own party (as Mr. Akin did several times under President Bush). Still, credit goes to Brunner for sticking to his points and answering questions aptly and swiftly.

                Congressman Akin: A: Congressman Akin was running as “the most conservative member of the Missouri Congressional delegation,” and in this debate, he showed it. He pounded Obamacare, asking “What part of socialism do you like? Answer: none.” He demanded that spending be slashed, and argued that many bureaucracies (though, to his discredit, he did not specifically label any) should be completely abolished. He was anti-big government, pro-religion, and most importantly, he was passionate and smooth.

 I truly believe that this election, not just in this state, but nationwide, will be decided by who promises to oppose the current direction. Especially in Republican primaries, I believe that the establishment will be taken out, and that true Conservatives will be brought in. Spending should be slashed, Obamacare eliminated, and the budget balanced. These steps are of utmost importance to the voters, I believe. And for this reason, I think Congressman Todd Akin was the clear winner of the Missouri GOP Senate Debate.

“Occupy” This

Posted in Uncategorized on November 11, 2011 by republicanrambler

Hey there. Just wanted to do a quick bit of ranting as I watch the St. Louis Blues hopefully mount a comeback against the Toronto Maple Leafs.

As I may have explained on here before, I attend a Liberal Arts University in a very rural town in Northeastern Missouri (Truman State University; Kirksville, MO). This school is in a county which is more than fifty percent below the poverty rate. Let me tell you, nothing screams capitalist greed like Kirksville, MO. (In case the sarcasm didn’t come through to well, let me be clear, I’M BEING SARCASTIC!!)

A few days ago, they held an “Occupy Kirksville” event on the campus quad. I didn’t care much, other than my amusement at their thinking Kirksville was a city deserving of Occupation, and my incredible amusement at the rainy, cold night they decided to do it on. Then I walked past their “campsite” the morning after and saw a sign that read thus:

“If you think education is expensive, you should try ignorance.”

I was stunned. I was shocked. I was brought to laughter by the incredible hypocrisy. As I understand it, one of the few things many Occupants have been clear about wanting is free higher education. After all, they’ve done nothing productive in their life, so why shouldn’t the government they’ve never paid taxes to take money from the rich to give them free college? And then I read this sign and thought to myself: “how could they be so hypocritical.”

Yes, education is expensive. Even at a notoriously inexpensive state university, I wish I paid less for college. But that’s just the thing… I still pay for it. College isn’t a right. It’s a privilege. For the same reason someone who got a twelve on their ACT shouldn’t get into Harvard, no one should go to college for free unless they deserve it through merit. Ignorance is not more expensive than education, actually, it’s absolutely free. I should know, because these Occupants were full of it. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t have that sign in front of their tents, and they wouldn’t be Occupying a city with more people who wear overalls to work than business suits.

This is my basic problem with Occupy movements. They’ve got all these problems, and no answers. America has plenty of problems right now, we don’t need ignorant citizens adding more. Perhaps the rich don’t pay enough taxes, but should they be punished for success in a capitalist system? I understand that in the eyes of the Occupants, they should, but it’s a ludicrous proposition. If you want to raise taxes (which I’m not condoning) raise them on everyone. Don’t punish the rich because they have been successful. This is America. We wouldn’t be the great nation we are without the influence of capitalism and entrepreneurship.

We need answers. We don’t need more complaints. If ignorance is so expensive, you should have no qualms paying for your education, but that’s just the thing about Occupants, their entitled to everything without having to work for anything. The ignorance of these Occupants is overwhelming, and it far outweighs that of the so-called “1%.” At least they had to work for what they’ve got in life.

Misusing the “N” Word (And it’s not the one you think)

Posted in Uncategorized on August 18, 2011 by republicanrambler

Preamble: Let me state quickly that I originally wrote this post to tackle both sides use of this word, and I just got carried away with my emotions and focused on Glenn Beck. I apologize for this. Liberals are just as guilty of using this word in reference to things like the Arizona Immigration Law as conservatives are of using it to describe policy. Please keep this disclaimer in mind as you read

We’ve all heard somebody say it. Somewhere, maybe on the playground at school when you were a kid, maybe discussing politics with your friends, maybe from a popular talk show host, we’ve all heard the word thrown around. Often, it is associated with the inferiority of minority races, but it can be extrapolated to represent a more major form of classism, or even a government structure leaning towards profiling for purposes of its own gain, but anyway we use it, the word is inappropriate. The word I am talking about, of course, is “Nazi.”

Oh sure, everyone’s said it. Sometimes, we shoot it off as a joke. Maybe your friend told you a new rule and you call him a Nazi for his overbearing behavior. I’m not saying I’m saintly here, either. I’ve done it before. I’ve even laughed at it before. But the idea that we can even begin to imply that states of affairs or occurrences in this country come anywhere close to the horrors of Nazi Germany is not only ludicrous, but insulting beyond my ability to describe it.

Glenn Beck, I’m looking at you.

Now, as the name of this blog implies, I consider myself strongly conservative. That said, I try to be the very first in line to call one of our own on his or her mistake. As a political policy, I feel it makes one look stronger to be able to distinguish those who rightly agree with him from those who wrongly agree with him. Not to mention, I’ve no small disdain for most conservative talk show hosts (and I’ve made note of that historically on this blog). That said, I’m sure the earlier linked video blew things out of proportion. The fact that Beck has used the word “Nazi” to refer to the Obama administration is abhorrent, though, and I feel it is a trend, not just among Beck, which must be extinguished.

Let me paint you a picture. Imagine you are on a train car, stuffed shoulder to shoulder with hundreds of other men and women, no heat save each others’ bodies to protect you from the blistering cold outside. You’re filled far beyond capacity, hungry, tired, and scared. You’ve been separated from your family, and rumor has it that you’re being shipped to your death. At best case, however, you’ll be sent to a camp to be starved and overworked, isolated and possibly tortured, all because you possess certain features or belief that one man believes is not part of his “master race.”

I bet you can’t do it. I certainly can’t. I can’t even imagine what it felt like to be a German Jew in the Holocaust. My mother, of entirely German ancestry, was born in America. She is not Jewish, nor is anyone in her family Jewish. She was born in 1948, after Hitler’s atrocities had been stopped. Mention the Holocaust to her, however, and she twinges with guilt. That’s right, guilt. She feels the atrocities of the Nazi’s were so strong that she, in even sharing a bloodline with their race, is somehow remotely responsible. Jews (and other so-called “lesser human beings” in Hitler’s eyes) were isolated, punished, and slain in the millions for the slanted utopian philosophies of one crazed dictator. The word “Nazi” is synonymous with this man’s policies. Is this really a word we ought to be using to describe the policies of Barack Obama.

Let me make this real simple for you: no. The word “Nazi” should not be taken lightly. Dropping it in the political arena should be akin to shouting “bomb” in an airport. Anyone linking someone’s policies to those of the Nazi’s (given of course that said figure is not racially profiling by the millions, and slaying those he isolates) ought to be completely stripped of their credibility. I am not lending my support to President Obama with this argument. I certainly believe he has some questionable, even down-right wrong policies, but President Obama is not a Nazi.

Glenn Beck has every right to speak his mind. He has a First Amendment right to go on live television and adduce Barack Obama’s “Nazi” policies. He is absolutely entitled to this right, and I do not wish to take it away from me. All I can do is use my right not to listen, and hope others start to do the same.

That’s all for now, folks. Good night, and have a great rest of the week.

“Right to Work”: A Right We All Deserve

Posted in Uncategorized on August 16, 2011 by republicanrambler

Do me a favor. The next time you’re driving down the highway for, let’s say, more than ten minutes, make sure you examine the bumpers of the cars around you. Then, take a mental note of how many of those bumpers have stickers defaming “Right to Work” legislation. If you count less than five, I’ll buy you a soda*. Now perhaps my vision is skewed. Living in Missouri, a state that currently has Right to Work legislation being discussed in its senate, I’m sure I see an inflated percentage of people lobbying against the legislation as it is a hot topic right now. Or do I? After all, “Right to Work” is legislation which steps on the toes of labor unions, and if there is one thing labor unions are good at, and you’ve got to give the devils their due on this one, it’s, well, uniting. In the interest of full disclosure, I myself have been a member of a union for four plus years. As a grocery worker, I was forced (spoiler alert: because my state did not have Right to Work legislation) to join the UFCW, conditional to my employment. I never participated in any event, nor did I ever attend a meeting (at the cost of a $50 refund on initial union dues to myself). I did, however, pay a certain amount of union dues which escapes me at the moment, which were subtracted weekly from my paycheck without any more permission from me than that I continued to work there. It is my belief that Right to Work legislation would disallow this sort of situation, and thus would be a fair and appropriate step in labor fairness legislation.

Let me first state one thing. As a conservative, I am fairly thoroughly against the concept of labor unions in the modern day, but that is not to say that they did not at one point serve a purpose. Certainly, during the Industrial Revolution and the horrifically poor working conditions that came with it, there was a definite need for workers to band together to ensure not only a decent work environment, but their own safety. If you don’t believe (and I know many hardnosed conservatives may not) take a moment to read about the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire. My argument here, however, is not as to whether labor unions once served a purpose, nor is it to even argue their purpose now. I simply aim to examine Right to Work legislation and its validity and usefulness to the labor worker.

For those unfamiliar with Right to Work legislation, allow me to give a very short, admittedly oversimplified definition. Right to Work is a type of law along a line of legislation some fifty or sixty years in the works which calls for the forced involvement of laborers in labor unions to be abolished. Currently, fewer than half of the states of the Union have Right to Work type legislation. Just to clarify, that’s the big “U” Union. Now arguments both in favor and against right to work legislation are many, and I cannot begin to document them all here, but for a good argument for the laws, look here, and an equally valid argument against here. These are each just one argument, but they are solid arguments, now let me give mine.

Conditional of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, modern businesses have little option but to negotiate with unions, and while there may once have been many unions fighting for the rights of the same body of laborers, given the very nature of unions, there is now generally one per field. This is because once a union has established itself, and has majority support, it is very unlikely that another will overthrow it. As mentioned in the argument for Right to Work laws I linked to earlier, laws about the formation, continuance, and existence of unions have been federally created. This gives states little power over unions or how they treat members. Therefore, my argument is largely one of federalism. I believe states ought to be allowed to govern many things, particularly commerce within their own borders. Right to Work legislation gives them some power to regulate unions, and it is a power they need.

Beyond that, however, I believe that each individual has the right to choose what groups he joins, who he associates with, etc. As someone who has been forced to join a labor union, particularly as a conservative, I know the frustrations of being forced into association with a group with which you do not agree, and being the minority voice in that party. I ask you to think of another situation where that is the case? Where else in this great country can someone be forced to join in with a group that does not share his political beliefs, and then be part of so distinct a minority that he has no voice whatsoever? Then, on top of that, this person with no voice is forced, I reiterate, forced to pay dues to this union which will then use his money to support causes against his political beliefs. This is another major problem with unions in the modern age. They are now equal parts labor federations and political lobbies, and if you disagree with their political causes, yet are forced to pay them dues, you are forced transitively to support political causes against your leanings. That is completely and utterly un-American. I know for a fact that the union I was a member of donated to the campaign of Barack Obama for President in 2008, a campaign I was staunchly opposed to, and I gave them money, through no choice of my own, so that they could afford that support. That does not sit well with me, nor does it sit well with the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Finally, I realize that this is a divisive issue. I realize that for every union member that disagrees with their politics, there are probably five or six members that agree. It should be their right to associate with the union just as much as it should be anyone else’s right to disassociate with the union, and while I realize that they would argue this creates free-riders, they themselves would have the choice to not join the union. And we also cannot argue that those that don’t wish to join a union can simply get another job. First of all, with unemployment hovering around %9, no one can afford to just “get another job,” and secondly, I can hardly think of a blue collar level field which does not have a major union it associates with. Many people cannot get jobs that don’t go with unions, and some cannot afford to join those unions. Unions, once the voice of the voiceless, an army for the individual to join and protect his rights, now force involvement and stamp out the minority just as viciously as employers once did. Right to Work can help destroy this trend in American labor, and I hope for all those voiceless blue collar workers that it does just that.

That’s all for now, folks. Have a wonderful week.