WEBCommentary(tm) - WHAT I BELIEVE... AND WHAT MOST POLITICIANS DON'T

WEBCommentary Guest

Author: Edward L. Daley
Date: March 30, 2006

Topic category: Other/General

WHAT I BELIEVE... AND WHAT MOST POLITICIANS DON'T

Here's what I believe to be true regarding some of the most important issues facing America today, and what most politicians apparently don't.

IMMIGRATION LAW ENFORCEMENT

I'm going to be as blunt as I can be with respect to the illegal alien problem in this country, while refraining from using the profane terms that routinely leap to my mind every time I think about our government's unrelenting failure to address this issue in any responsible way. To get right to the point, any person in this country who doesn't support (A) doing whatever is necessary to stop illegals from entering this country, (B) severely punishing individuals and businesses that knowingly hire illegals, and (C) immediately deporting anyone who is found to be in this country illegally, is either an illegal alien himself, an opportunistic politician, or an idiot.

Suffice it to say that if you're having a difficult time understanding the fact that illegal aliens have no business being in the United States, don't expect me to waste my time explaining the relatively simple concepts of right and wrong to you.

While it may be true that we can't possibly hunt down and deport every illegal alien in this country, we sure as hell can kick out the ones that our law enforcement officers stumble upon everyday. The ones we don't catch will eventually come to the conclusion that staying here is no better an option than going back home once we decide to deny them jobs, welfare assistance, and political influence.

Oh, and all this stuff we keep hearing about illegals doing work that Americans refuse to do is a load of crap! The minute that able-bodied Americans are no longer allowed to collect government money for sitting on their backsides, you'll see them taking whatever jobs are available in order to avoid starving to death.

HEALTHCARE

The cost of basic medical coverage to average Americans nowadays is scandalously high, and the primary causes are (A) ever-increasing government manipulation of the healthcare system, and (B) the steadily rising number of bogus malpractice lawsuits being filed by slip-and-fall lawyers like John Edwards. The millions of illegal aliens who exploit our hospitals' policy of never turning sick or injured people away, whether they can afford treatment or not, also contributes to the rising price of medical care to the folks who actually pay for it. That's why anyone who's unable to show some sort of proof that they belong in this country, when the seek medical assistance at one of our hospitals, should be detained and handed over to the authorities once they've received the help they need.

Socialist kneebiters like Hillary Clinton believe that letting the federal government take complete control of the American healthcare system is the answer to all our prayers, but any person who recognizes the truly inept nature of the government, understands the basic principles of supply and demand, and appreciates the positive influence of competition upon virtually every aspect of our lives, knows that her proposal is too ridiculous to even consider.

What we need to do is cut as much government bureaucracy out of the process as is humanly possible, while simultaneously punishing with massive fines anyone (and that includes lawyers) who brings a false malpractice claim against a doctor. We also need to electronically modernize every applicable facet of the medical profession, such as records-keeping and prescription drug dispensing. In essence, let the free market determine the price of healthcare, and make sure that the people who provide us with medical services are able to do so as efficiently as possible.

SOCIAL SECURITY

The social security system is a government-run ponzi scheme, pure and simple, and even the man who created it did not intend for it to become the unsustainable federal monstrosity that it has. As Franklin D. Roosevelt himself put it, "In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, non-contributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps thirty years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."

President Bush's proposal to allow for the creation of voluntarily individual retirement accounts, using a small percentage of funds earmarked for social security, is the only viable plan currently on the table that even attempts to prevent this doomed system from caving in on itself in the coming decades, and the only reason most politicians oppose it is because allowing you to control your own money takes power away from them.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

In February of this year, the President submitted to Congress his $2.77 trillion budget for fiscal year 2007. This is an obscene proposal, and there is absolutely no justification for the federal government spending anywhere near this amount of money. Every federal spending program that is not directly related to fighting the war on terror should be cut by a minimum of ten percent over the course of the next 12 months. And don't let anyone try to con you into thinking that the government won't have enough money to feed and shelter the elderly and the disabled, or educate our children if we make such drastic cuts. Every year we increase spending for these socialist schemes by billions upon billions of dollars, and every year the ranks of the welfare poor swell, and our public school students become more ignorant.

Clearly money is not the reason why practically every domestic federal program in this country is a pathetic failure... incompetence is! Cutting funding to these programs just might, at the very least, force the bureaucratic weasels in charge to use the money they receive wisely instead of pissing it away as if it grew on trees, while simultaneously complaining that they're not getting enough.

TAXATION

Two words... Flat Tax.

PUBLIC EDUCATION

Forcing children to attend government-run schools in this day and age condemns most of them to a life of mind-numbed mediocrity at best, and every time some teachers union lackey tries to tell us that all is well with our public education system, that individual should be dragged kicking and screaming into a public park, locked in a pillory, and then flogged.

If you ask me, half of the tax money we spend on public education should be divided up among working class families so that parents can afford to send their kids to schools that are capable of teaching them how to read and write.

THE SUPREME COURT AND OUR CONSTITUTION

The Constitution of the United States is a contract between the citizens of this country and their government. Like any contract, the terms within it are meant to be concrete and inflexible, unless the parties bound by its terms mutually agree to modify it at a later date. Nobody in their right mind would ever enter into a contract with another party if the terms of that agreement could be changed after the fact by a judge. The whole point of creating a contract is to show that there is a meeting of the minds between the parties who agree to abide by its terms, and whenever there is a dispute between those parties over some aspect of the contract once it's been entered into, a judge is charged with figuring out what the parties actually agreed to in the first place.

Initially the judge does this by reading the contract and considering the literal meaning of the words within it. If he should come across a passage that uses an ambiguous term like "excessive", he then must determine what the parties involved understood the term to mean when the contract was written. He can accomplish this task in several different ways, but what he should never do is simply make up a definition out of whole cloth. This, however, is exactly what activist judges do on a regular basis.

You see, ORIGINALIST judges attempt to figure out what the original intent of the people who created our most important contract was, so that the parties currently bound by it (aka the citizenry and the government) are dealt with fairly and reasonably. Activist judges, on the other hand, seek to change the terms of the original agreement and force upon everyone involved their own personal opinions of what that contract SHOULD say. This practice is grossly unfair, because it forces one of the parties to the contract (whichever one is ruled against at any given time) to accept terms that they did not agree to, and that is precisely why activists should never be allowed to preside over any court which deals with Constitutional issues.

ENERGY PRODUCTION

The policies of nutbag environmentalists have caused the U.S. to become increasingly dependent upon foreign countries (including potential enemies of our nation) for satisfying our energy needs. This situation is not only the primary cause of increased energy costs to American consumers, it's also a direct threat to our national security, which is why every environmental regulation that's been imposed upon the oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear industries over the past two decades should be done away with immediately.

Furthermore, oil exploration, drilling, and refining efforts should be increased by 50 percent as soon as possible, and dozens of new nuclear power plants should be constructed over the course of the next decade.

THE WORLD TRADE CENTER

After four and a half years, ground zero in Manhattan is still a giant, empty hole in the ground, and I for one am outraged by that fact. Since the World Trade Center's original twin towers were constructed in under seven years, I see no reason why it should take a decade to build only one new tower. Now, I understand that it took many months to clear out the rubble after the twin towers fell on 09/11/01, and there are several other structures that have to be built at the location, but we've had at least three full years to start construction on the "Freedom Tower", and so far the only thing the folks responsible for the rebuilding project have managed to do is draw some fancy colored pictures of it.

Can somebody please explain to me why someone like Donald Trump wasn't put in charge of rebuilding the WTC complex back in 2002? I can almost guarantee that if "The Donald" were running the show, the primary structure, or more likely a building of superior design, would be well on its way to completion by now.

THE UNITED NATIONS

The UN is both useless and corrupt. It is a thorn in the side of the United States, and a threat to the sovereignty of every free nation on earth. It should be disbanded at once, and its headquarters in New York converted into a public recreation center for underprivileged children.