America, the Republic... Thankfully

Contrary to popular belief, America is not a Democracy. Thank God for that. Instead we have a Republic, based on a body of law that keeps everyone in check, including our political leaders and popular individuals. Because we are in a Republic, Senator Ted Stevens was indicted. Because we are in a Republic, some of Obama's origial cabinet choices were rejected for not following the law. The law works to restrict the power of government and gaurantee our individual rights.

This video offers a great definition about the American form of government.

The scary thing about this video is the details about the Fall of the Roman Republic. It happened when some of the rulers started disobeying the law for their own, and their constituents', benefit. This eventually led to Mob Rule (Democracy) and eventual Oligarchy.

As Benjamin Franklin stated, we have "A Republic... if you can keep it." Let's hope we can do the work necessary to keep it. This includes being informed voters and letting our elected Representatives know we want less government interference and the rule of law. Let's hope that's enough.

US Corporate Taxes Explained... Obama, are you listening?

In this debate about making sure the U.S. corporations pay their 'fair share,' let's take a look at the current laws and what Obama proposes to change. 

This video quickly and concisely breaks everything down in a logical manner. And as anyone who chooses to use their brain can tell you, doubling taxes on U.S. companies abroad is not going to help our recession anymore than increasing taxes on U.S. citizens will.

This tax dodge myth is one Obama is trying to use to his advantage. As the article's author states, "Obama sacrificed substance for grandstanding." Sounds about par for the Obama course.  

Hat tip - Hot Air

Obama is Not Really Helping the Economy

This video is scary. Not only are we in tough economic straits, but apparently the tax money give away that started with Bush and went rampant with Obama is not really helping things.

One thing that struck me is the accounting rules that changed recently. Oh my gosh! It appears that, instead of trying to acurately report items, banks and financial institutions (with the help of our Federal Government) said, "Let's just change how we report things to mak eour balance sheets look better."

I also agree with Black about the bogus stress tests. It's a FARCE and a SHAM! And we know this based on the real facts, not the revised accounting numbers. How do we know the tests are a sham? Stress test doesn't test for asset quality. And, as Black states, "How can the banks all pass the stress test if they collectively need $2 Trillion in U.S. Taxpayer money?"

Also, the whole idea that we can simply inject capital into the banks to make them solvent is ILLEGAL! Black states, "The prior administration violated that law and the current administration is violating that law."

I love his almost blunt answer to the question, "Tim Geitner's the Treasurey Seceratary. Doesn't he know what he's doing?" He starts to say, "No," but backs off and gives a more politic answer, although going on to offer MOUNDS of evidence detailing how Geitner is not qualified.

Watch the whole thing to understand just how screwed up things are right now.

Friday Funny... Not So Funny, Actually.

A great image for Friday. Very telling.

Can Gun Control Work? Probably Not.

I recently read a blog post a friend forwarded to me. The post text is not nearly as important as the video. In the video, ABC News interviews the author of the book Can Gun Control Work?, Professor James Jacobs from New York University. 

I was very interested in what Prof. Jacobs had to say about gun control. I thought his interview would include more emotion and rhetoric than reasoned discussion. Prof. Jacobs approached the subject rationally, with an open mind when he wrote the book. Of special interest is the fact that he's not a gun owner himself.

His answer to the question? "I think it's not possible to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people." You can tell this is not the answer the hostess wanted to hear. She tries to qualify his answer by talking about "trying" gun control if it will save one life. Prof. Jacobs rightly points out, however, the cost of that law would be more than most of society would be willing to bare. Jacobs states that the number of gun deaths each year (almost 31,000 in 2006*) is the cost we pay for gun ownership.

As an example, Jacobs points to the known statistic of traffic fatalities (over 45,000 in 2006**). If we wanted to save one life, we could definitely enact more traffic laws, or even ban all private cars and make everyone use public transportation. Would these laws save more lives? Yes, undoubtedly. However, whether society would actually be willing to do this is another question. 

This interview happens without even touching on an important point, however, the constitutionality of more gun ownership. The 2nd Amendment gives individuals (i.e., "the people") the right to have guns. Any laws developed have to be balanced against this fundamental right.

*This number includes ALL gun related deaths, including accidents, sucides, homocides and officer involved shootings. Numbers based on information from the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

**As indicated by the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

Understanding the Other Side

This article in the Hot Air Green Room points out some things conservative-thinking people need to keep in mind as they discuss politics with some of their left leaning friends. Of particular note is the descriptive paragraph close to the end of the essay, where the author lists the different types of Liberals and their particular motivation.

Important in all of this is the assumption the conservative "champions both the moral and practical superiority of liberty and individualism." This is opposition to liberals, who support more government "because they need to believe that someone out there knows what they're doing" (emphasis in original) and they want this person to tell them what to do.

Read the whole article.

Controlling the Discussion

As a follow up to Wednesday's discussion about how science is limited by government funding, this video looks at how the Left seeks to silence discussion or opposition to their viewpoints. We call this 'political correctness.'  

When the evidence doesn't support their views, the Left seems to fall back on "Shut up." Anthropogenic global warming in question? Shut up. Obama's bail out program isn't awesome? Shut up. Lower capital gains tax rates will bring in more revenue? Shut up.

Instead of saying shut up, I propose we have a real discussion with real evidence based on real numbers and historical facts.