Monthly Archives: June 2015

Congratulations Polygamists, Pederasts, Oedipalists, et al.: Your Case is Made, the Precedent is Set! Call the Wedding Planner!

By Gary P Jackson

In what is certainly the most egregious example of judicial overreach in our nation’s history, the Supreme Court created a “right” that has never before existed. [every state in the USA, and most countries, have put numerous restrictions on who may, or may not marry, and for good reason] By declaring marriage a “right,” The Court opened the door, not only for gay marriage, but for any and all unions that were heretofore unthinkable, and totally unacceptable.

Not since Dred Scott, which essentially said Negroes were not human, but mere property …. farm implements if you will …. and thus, had no constitutional rights whatsoever, and Roe v Wade, which was ACTUALLY about the right to privacy, but was interpreted as creating a “right” to slaughter an innocent child and call it a “choice” [which has led to the slaughter of at least 80 MILLION innocent children, including over 20 MILLION black babies, since 1973] has The Court got it so wrong, and the potential damage to civilized society so great.

As it did in Thursday’s ObamaCare [SCOTUScare?] ruling, The Court has essentially rendered the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution, and the concept of state’s rights, null and void.

Full disclosure before we go any further. While I’m not exactly what you’d call an “enthusiastic supporter” of gay marriage, I have absolutely ZERO problem with allowing gays to marry IF it had been done legally, and with the blessing of the American people, not through judicial fiat and activism. In other words, a constitutional amendment that would forever define marriage.

Look for an upcoming post outlining a constitutional amendment that could, and would, satisfy most Americans and ease their legitimate fears of being persecuted for their religious beliefs, while still allowing gay marriage.

In the headline I mention polygamy, the act of marrying more than one person at the same time, and living in a plural relationship, not to be confused with bigamy, being married to more than one person, usually without the other participants’ knowledge of that fact. [though laws against this may be voided as well] I also mention pedophilia, and incestuous relationships. Many will scoff, but the fact is, the happy-happy, rainbows and unicorns, let’s all sing Kumbaya wording in Justice Kennedy’s majority ruling opens up marriage to include any paring, or combination of parings, one can think up. Wanna marry your pet goat? OK. How about your color TV or your toaster? Sure, why not! [you can thank Frank Zappa and Joe’s Garage for that imagery!]

Don’t laugh, in other countries, run by lunatics, people have been allowed to marry trees, cars, and other random things. Nothing like the government indulging the mentally ill!

And yes, the United States is run by lunatics too. The inmates have taken over the asylum!

Here’s the thing, the arguments used to claim gay marriage was a “right,” based on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, can be used by ANYONE in a relationship that, until now, has been illegal, or otherwise forbidden by civilized societies.

Don’t laugh! People seem to want to laugh at and ridicule those who talk about “slippery slopes” and the “law of unintended consequences ,” but in most cases, we are usually right on the money. Sometimes it takes years to be proven right, other times we see it almost immediately!

For example …. Friday, while the Court ruling was still sinking in for most people, the left wing website Politico published an opinion piece by Fredrik Deboer entitled: It’s Time to Legalize Polygamy Why group marriage is the next horizon of social liberalism.

Welcome to the exciting new world of the slippery slope. With the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling this Friday legalizing same sex marriage in all 50 states, social liberalism has achieved one of its central goals. A right seemingly unthinkable two decades ago has now been broadly applied to a whole new class of citizens. Following on the rejection of interracial marriage bans in the 20th Century, the Supreme Court decision clearly shows that marriage should be a broadly applicable right—one that forces the government to recognize, as Friday’s decision said, a private couple’s “love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family.

The question presents itself: Where does the next advance come? The answer is going to make nearly everyone uncomfortable: Now that we’ve defined that love and devotion and family isn’t driven by gender alone, why should it be limited to just two individuals? The most natural advance next for marriage lies in legalized polygamy—yet many of the same people who pressed for marriage equality for gay couples oppose it.

This is not an abstract issue. In Chief Justice John Roberts’ dissenting opinion, he remarks, “It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.” As is often the case with critics of polygamy, he neglects to mention why this is a fate to be feared. Polygamy today stands as a taboo just as strong as same-sex marriage was several decades ago—it’s effectively only discussed as outdated jokes about Utah and Mormons, who banned the practice over 120 years ago.

Yet the moral reasoning behind society’s rejection of polygamy remains just as uncomfortable and legally weak as same-sex marriage opposition was until recently.

That’s one reason why progressives who reject the case for legal polygamy often don’t really appear to have their hearts in it. They seem uncomfortable voicing their objections, clearly unused to being in the position of rejecting the appeals of those who would codify non-traditional relationships in law. They are, without exception, accepting of the right of consenting adults to engage in whatever sexual and romantic relationships they choose, but oppose the formal, legal recognition of those relationships. They’re trapped, I suspect, in prior opposition that they voiced from a standpoint of political pragmatism in order to advance the cause of gay marriage.

In doing so, they do real harm to real people. Marriage is not just a formal codification of informal relationships. It’s also a defensive system designed to protect the interests of people whose material, economic and emotional security depends on the marriage in question. If my liberal friends recognize the legitimacy of free people who choose to form romantic partnerships with multiple partners, how can they deny them the right to the legal protections marriage affords?
Polyamory is a fact. People are living in group relationships today. The question is not whether they will continue on in those relationships. The question is whether we will grant to them the same basic recognition we grant to other adults: that love makes marriage, and that the right to marry is exactly that, a right.

Why the opposition, from those who have no interest in preserving “traditional marriage” or forbidding polyamorous relationships? I think the answer has to do with political momentum, with a kind of ad hoc-rejection of polygamy as necessary political concession. And in time, I think it will change.

The marriage equality movement has been both the best and worst thing that could happen for legally sanctioned polygamy. The best, because that movement has required a sustained and effective assault on “traditional marriage” arguments that reflected no particular point of view other than that marriage should stay the same because it’s always been the same. In particular, the notion that procreation and child-rearing are the natural justification for marriage has been dealt a terminal injury. We don’t, after all, ban marriage for those who can’t conceive, or annul marriages that don’t result in children, or make couples pinkie swear that they’ll have kids not too long after they get married. We have insisted instead that the institution exists to enshrine in law a special kind of long-term commitment, and to extend certain essential logistical and legal benefits to those who make that commitment. And rightly so.

But the marriage equality movement has been curiously hostile to polygamy, and for a particularly unsatisfying reason: short-term political need. Many conservative opponents of marriage equality have made the slippery slope argument, insisting that same-sex marriages would lead inevitably to further redefinition of what marriage is and means. See, for example, Rick Santorum’s infamous “man on dog” comments, in which he equated the desire of two adult men or women to be married with bestiality. Polygamy has frequently been a part of these slippery slope arguments. Typical of such arguments, the reasons why marriage between more than two partners would be destructive were taken as a given. Many proponents of marriage equality, I’m sorry to say, went along with this evidence-free indictment of polygamous matrimony. They choose to side-step the issue by insisting that gay marriage wouldn’t lead to polygamy. That legally sanctioned polygamy was a fate worth fearing went without saying.

To be clear: our lack of legal recognition of group marriages is not the fault of the marriage equality movement. Rather, it’s that the tactics of that movement have made getting to serious discussions of legalized polygamy harder. I say that while recognizing the unprecedented and necessary success of those tactics. I understand the political pragmatism in wanting to hold the line—to not be perceived to be slipping down the slope. To advocate for polygamy during the marriage equality fight may have seemed to confirm the socially conservative narrative, that gay marriage augured a wholesale collapse in traditional values. But times have changed; while work remains to be done, the immediate danger to marriage equality has passed. In 2005, a denial of the right to group marriage stemming from political pragmatism made at least some sense. In 2015, after this ruling, it no longer does.

While important legal and practical questions remain unresolved, with the Supreme Court’s ruling and broad public support, marriage equality is here to stay. Soon, it will be time to turn the attention of social liberalism to the next horizon. Given that many of us have argued, to great effect, that deference to tradition is not a legitimate reason to restrict marriage rights to groups that want them, the next step seems clear. We should turn our efforts towards the legal recognition of marriages between more than two partners. It’s time to legalize polygamy.

***

Conventional arguments against polygamy fall apart with even a little examination. Appeals to traditional marriage, and the notion that child rearing is the only legitimate justification of legal marriage, have now, I hope, been exposed and discarded by all progressive people. What’s left is a series of jerry-rigged arguments that reflect no coherent moral vision of what marriage is for, and which frequently function as criticisms of traditional marriage as well.

This is, sad to say, an incredibly well thought out argument, and one that can be made without the necessity of another court battle. Again, the precedent is set, not only for polygamy, but absolutely ANY relationship and union that has formerly been considered taboo and forbidden. Welcome to the brave new world where court rulings are based on feelings, rather than the Constitution, and common sense!

Let’s visit what Chief Justice Roberts wrote in dissent of the ruling, that strongly warns the ruling opens the door for polygamy: [emphasis mine]

Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one.

It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage. If “[t]here is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices,” ante, at 13, why would there be any less dignity in the bond between three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry? If a same-sex couple has the constitutional right to marry because their children would otherwise “suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser,” ante, at 15, why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a family of three or more persons raising children? If not having the opportunity to marry “serves to disrespect and subordinate” gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same “imposition of this disability,” ante, at 22, serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships? See Bennett, Polyamory: The Next Sexual Revolution? Newsweek, July 28, 2009 (estimating 500,000 polyamorous families in the United States); Li, Married Lesbian “Throuple” Expecting First Child, N. Y. Post, Apr. 23, 2014; Otter, Three May Not Be a Crowd: The Case for a Constitutional Right to Plural Marriage, 64 Emory L. J. 1977 (2015).

I do not mean to equate marriage between same-sex couples with plural marriages in all respects. There may well be relevant differences that compel different legal analysis. But if there are, petitioners have not pointed to any. When asked about a plural marital union at oral argument, petitioners asserted that a State “doesn’t have such an institution.” Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 2, p. 6. But that is exactly the point: the States at issue here do not have an institution of same-sex marriage, either.

Think this is no big deal?

In September of 2014 a German ethics committee ruled that INCEST is a “fundamental right“: [emphasis mine]

Incest a ‘fundamental right‘, German committee says

Anti-incest laws in Germany could be scrapped after a government-backed group said relationships between brothers and sisters should be legal

Laws banning incest between brothers and sisters in Germany could be scrapped after a government ethics committee said the they were an unacceptable intrusion into the right to sexual self-determination.

Criminal law is not the appropriate means to preserve a social taboo,” the German Ethics Council said in a statement. “The fundamental right of adult siblings to sexual self-determination is to be weighed more heavily than the abstract idea of protection of the family.

Their intervention follows a notorious case in which a brother and sister living as partners in Saxony had four children together. The couple had been raised separately and only met when the brother, identified only as Patrick S, was an adult, and his sister Susan K was 16.

Patrick S was sentenced to more than three years in prison for incest and the couple have since failed in their bid to have the guilty verdict overturned by the European Court of Human Rights.

The family was forced to live apart after the courts ruled that there was a duty to protect their children from the consequences of their relationship.

Two of the couple’s children are disabled, and it is believed that incest carries a higher risk of resulting in children with genetic abnormalities.

But the Ethics Council dismissed that argument, on the basis that other genetically affected couples are not banned from having children.

The Council said it based its recommendation on extensive research, in which it found many incestuous couples are forced to live in secret.

In one case, it found a woman was being blackmailed by her father and ex-husband, who threatened to depive her of access to her children unless she ended a new relationship with her half-brother.

Incest remains illegal in the UK and most European countries, although France abolished its incest laws under Napoleon I and there has been growing debate over the taboo in Germany.

Around two to four per cent of Germans have had “incestuous experiences”, according to an estimate by the Max Planck Institute.

But a spokeswoman for Angela Merkel’s ruling Christian Democrats indicated the government was unlikely to adopt the Ethics Council’s recommendations.

The abolition of the offense of incest between siblings would be the wrong signal,” said Elisabeth Winkelmeier-Becker, legal policy spokeswoman for the party’s group in parliament.

Eliminating the threat of punishment against incestuous acts within families would run counter to the protection of undisturbed development for children.

It’s not speculation that incestuous sexual relationships can lead to disability and abnormalities among children. Not just physical deformities, but mental deformities as well. Inbreeding was once the “in thing” among European royalty. Study up on the Hapsburg family. Aggressive inbreeding among this royal family led to a distinctive deformity of both the lips and jaws of their offspring, that still exist today. Inbreeding has effected the British Royals as well.

Included in the above article are links to these equally disturbing articles:

Marriage between uncle and niece is ruled legal by New York Court
29 Oct 2014

Australian judge says incest may no longer be a taboo

10 Jul 2014

Father wanted over Australia’s worst incest case ‘hiding in UK’
30 Jun 2014

Switzerland considers repealing incest laws
13 Dec 2010

For those of you of the more libertarian bent, who are wondering why such a fuss, study up on the fall of ancient Greece and ancient Rome. Two civilizations that gave the world many great things and concepts, that crashed and burned because of their “if it feels good, do it” attitudes. These two great civilizations were destroyed by liberalism, of the sort America, and civilization, battles today.

Civilized societies have certain rules, norms, and taboos for a reason. These aren’t concepts that are willy-nilly and created on a whim. The need for these rules has been proven valid through thousands of years of human history.

America is the greatest civilization the world has ever known, but I’m afraid it is no match for the evil that is liberalism.

The slope is well greased, and we are about to slip down it at warp speed.

The American Experiment …. it was fun while it lasted.

Advertisements

12 Comments

Filed under In The News, Politics

New Video Poll: Too Bold or Just Right?

By Isabel Matos

This is an important message that needs to be sent loud and clear: the Spanish Media is like the Lame Stream Media. Its bias is just not getting the attention it should. Language is not the barrier in programming we should worry about, agenda is. This video is captioned and narrated in Spanish and in English to get our conservative message out.  Vote (or add to) your opinion in the poll below.

7 Comments

Filed under In The News, Politics, sarah palin, Uncategorized

As We Honor the Heroes of D-Day, Watch Ronald Reagan’s Iconic 1984 Speech at Point-du-Hoc

D-Day-4

By Gary P Jackson

June 6, 1944,

Allied Forces stormed the beaches of Normandy, France. It was the largest amphibious invasion ever attempted. Many brave men died on this day, but those who lived went on to liberate Europe from the evils of Nazism.

Many great movies have been made, memorializing these heroes, with The Longest Day being my personal favorite. Not many movies have John Wayne and Sir Richard Burton as bit players! Like the invasion itself, the movie was a major undertaking with a huge cast of players. Shot in black and white, it’s one of those, if you haven’t seen, you simply must.

One of the groups portrayed in the movie is the “Boys of Point-du-Hoc,” United States Army Rangers. These brave men scaled a sheer cliff, that was occupied, at the top, by Germans. It was an amazing act of bravery and determination, as they fought for every inch they moved up those cliffs.

In 1984, on the 40th Anniversary of the D-Day invasion, President Ronald Reagan was on the beaches of Normandy and gave a beautiful tribute to the “Boys of Point-du-Hoc.” 31 years later, this speech, reportedly crafted with Peggy Noonan, will still give you chills.

As we honor the heroes of D-Day, and honor men who literally freed the world from tyranny and oppression, lets listen to President Ronald Reagan honor them, as only he could:

President Reagan’s continued push for peace in the world, as he speaks to Soviet aggression, is a very noteworthy part of this speech as well. Ronald Reagan was an amazing champion of Liberty and Freedom. A true hero. Lord we miss him so.

* Video courtesy The Reagan Foundation at The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library

2 Comments

Filed under In The News, Ronald Reagan

Palin Plan de Cinco Puntos Para Restaurar América 3/9/2011

By Isabel Matos

On October 5th, 2011, Sarah Palin announced she was not seeking the GOP nomination for president. Her last public speech was on September 3rd, 2011, before that announcement. In her speech, Sarah criticizes President Obama’s job plan. She contrasts her plan, which is based on reality to his which is based on fantasy, consisting of payoffs for his friends and supporters,  increasing the debt and taking hard-earned money from citizens to give it to special interests. She shares her plan, a real working-man’s plan which offers solutions that work in the real world, resulting in jobs for Americans. Below is the introduction and excerpt of the Five Point Plan translated from the original SarahPac transcript.

i1 (1)

Introducción: En octubre 5 del 2011, Sarah Palin anuncio que no iba a solicitar la nominación para presidente del partido republicano. El extracto más importante de su discurso del 3 de septiembre fue el plan de cinco puntos para restaurar América. Este fue su último discurso público antes de ese anuncio.  En su discurso Sarah critica el plan de empleos del presidente Obama donde las soluciones están basadas en fantasía, consistiendo de recompensa para sus amigos y partididarios, aumentando la deuda y tomando el dinero trabajado por los ciudadanos, dándoselo a los intereses creados. Ella ofrece su plan, un plan que favorece verdaderamente al trabajador, con soluciones que funcionan en el mundo real, resultando en empleo para Americanos.

Gobernadora Palin: En un plazo de cinco dias nuestro presidente nos premierá con un discurso más. En su próximo discurso él va a revelar su último nuevo super gran-plan de empleos. Tendrá más objetivos “nobles” y retórica más florida, más fantasías económicas ilógicas, y más culpas echadas y acusaciones continuadas, pero escuchen bien lo que dice. Todas sus soluciones van a girar en torno a más de lo mismo: más recompensas para sus amistades y partidarios. Su plan es el mismo de siempre: crecer más al gobierno,aumentar más la deuda, tomar y darle más de su dinero bien ganado a los intereses creados. Y es un gran problema; pero Uds saben cuáles son los problemas causados por el “status quo” en Washington. Podríamos continuar el día entero … El “status quo” para mi significa en latín “más del mismo lío en el cuál estamos metidos”. Ese “status quo” ya no funcionará más. Podríamos hablar el día entero de los problemas porque los viven a diario. Entonces hablemos de verdaderas soluciones. Quiero decirles cuál es mi plan.

Mi Plan

Mi plan consiste del empoderamiento de nuestros estados, el empoderamiento de nuestros empresarios, y más importantemente el empoderamiento de ustedes – nuestros invididuos trabajadores – porque tengo fe en ustedes, les tengo confianza y los respeto. El camino adelante no puede continuar a ser la política de siempre. Tenemos que parar la expansión de un gobierno fuera de control y desconectado del pueblo.

Primero. Todo el poder no especificamente delegado al gobierno federal por la Constitución está reservado a los estados y a nosotros, el pueblo.  Entonces, vamos a cumplir con la décima enmienda  y pasarle los poderes al gobierno local donde los fundadores intentaron que estuvieran.

Segundo.  ¿Qué pasó con todas esas promesas de quedar comprometidos a la derogación de la madre de todos los mandatos de gran gobierno no fundados? ¡Tenemos que revocar Obamacare! y mantener control estricto sobre las reglamentaciones onerosas que son una bota a nuestro cuello, echar a un lado el gobierno, y dejar que el sector privado respire y crezca. Esto le permitirá a los negocios la confianza necesaria para expandir y contratar a más personas.

Tercero. No más deuda excesiva. Tenemos que priorizar y reducir, cancelar fondos del estímulo no usados y tener ese momento sincero donde nosotros nos hacemos dueños de la deuda y del desafío que es la reforma de ayuda social. Miren. La realidad es que vamos a tener reforma de ayuda social.  Es solamente una cuestión de cómo lo vamos a lograr. O lo hacemos nosotros, o los mercados de capitales del mundo la meterán hasta la garganta, y la unica opción será de reformar nuestros programas de ayuda social. El “status quo” ya no es una opción.  La reforma de ayuda social es nuestro deber ahora. Tiene que hacerse de manera que honre nuestro compromiso a nuestros estimados ancianos hoy, mientras manteniendo fe con futuras generaciones.

Yo les voy a decir algo.  Yo no creo que nada ma haya molestado mas que esta bobería desde la Casa Blanca que a lo mejor no le van mandar los cheques a nuestros seniors. El dinero es de ellos!  Ellos han pagado su seguro social a través de su vida de trabajo, y para que el presidente diga, “Ah, a lo mejor no podemos hacerles sus cheques.” ¿Ah, bueno, y entonces donde se fué su dinero, políticos? Es como si el comandante en jefe estuviera dispuesto a embarcar a nuestro ejército, amenazándoles que sus cheques a lo mejor no van a llegar, pero los políticos seguirán recibiendo sus cheques y sus retiros asegurados, y el presidente seguirá recibiendo sus vacaciones extravagantes. ¿No están hartos ya de todas esas prioridades torcidas? Está todo al revés! A nuestros seniors, y a nuestros hombres y mujeres valientes en uniforme, los están usando como peones. Yo digo que es vergonzoso y basta ya. No más!

4. Cuarto. Ya es hora que América séa la super-potencia de energía. El estímulo verdadero que nosotros hemos estado anticipando es una producción de energía doméstica robusta y responsable. Tenemos los recursos. La energía segura y ecónomica es la clave a una economía próspera y tiene que ser nuestra fundación. Entonces, yo haria lo contrario de lo que esta haciendo Obama, manipulando las provisiones de energía de los Estados Unidos. Perforen aquí, perforen ahora . Que se construyan las refinerías y los oleoductos. No se dobleguen a los países extranjeros y a los dictadores, pidiéndoles que aumenten la producción y la industria para nosotros, prometiéndoles a ellos que seremos su mejor cliente.

No, no cuando tenemos los recursos aquí. Necesitamos aprovechar de nuestros recursos naturales dados por Dios. Yo les prometo que eso traer verdadero crecimiento de empleo, no esos trabajos verdes, falsos, de polvo de adas de los políticos, roceados con deseos y brillo.

No, una política de energía fuerte y comprehensiva que crece este lazo indestructible entre la energía hecha en America y nuestra prosperidad y seguridad. ¿Ustedes saben que hay suficientes projectos grandes, convencionales, de desarrollo de recursos naturales, esperando que el gobierno los apruebe, que podrían potencialmente crear mas de un millón de empleos altamente remunerados a través del país?

Esto es un verdadero estímulo. No le costaría al gobierno ni un real permitirle al sector privado hacerlos. En realidad, estos projectos generarán billones de dólares en ingreso. ¿Se pueden imaginar eso: un projecto de estímulo que nos saque de la deuda en vez de meternos más profundamente en ella? Y estos son los trabajos que pagan bien. Yo sé eso, por experiencia. Por años mi propia familia se mantuvo gracias a un buen trabajo que Todd tuvo en el sector de energía en el Norte de Alaska. La recuperación económica de América empieza con la recuperación de energía de América.

Quinto.  Podemos y haremos de América el país más atractivo del mundo para hacer negocio. Y así es como lo vamos hacer. En este momento tenemos el tipo impositivo de impuesto corporativo federal más alto del mundo industrializado. Ustedes sabían que nuestras tasas impositivas son más altas que las de China y de Cuba comunista?

Esto no genera tanto ingreso como ustedes se imaginarían, porque muchas grandes corporaciones se dan el lujo de evitar impuestos federales porque tienen amigos en D.C. que corrigen las reglas para el resto de nosotros. Esto nos hace menos competitivo y restringe nuestro motor de prosperidad. Contra, hay negocios que pasan más tiempo tratando de calcular cómo esconder sus gananzias que tratando de generar más gananzias para que puedan expandir y emplear a más de nosotros.

Entonces, para hacer de América el lugar mas atractivo y más competitivo para hacer negocio, para instalarse, y para emplear a personas aquí, para atraer el capital de todo el mundo que resultará en una explosión de crecimiento, en vez de caerle atrás a la industria en el exterior, yo  propongo eliminar la taza impositiva de ingreso corporativo federal. Y oiganme bien en esto, así es como nosotros vamos a crear millones de empleos altamente remunerados. Así es como aumentamos la oportunidad y la prosperidad para todos.

Pero aquí esta la mejor parte: para equilibrar cualquier perdida de ingreso federal de esta reducción de impuesto, nosotros eliminamos el bienestar corporativo y todas las lagunas, y eliminamos los recates financieros. Así es como le rompenos la espalda al capitalismo amiguista porque se alimenta del bienestar corporativo que viene siendo socialismo para los muy ricos.

Todo eso lo podemos cambiar. El mensaje entonces a la corporaciones que crean empleos es: Nosotros los desencadenamos del tipo impositivo de ingreso corporativo federal más grande del mundo pero ustedes tendrán que mantenerse de pied o caer como el resto de nosotros.  Miren. Cuando nosotros empoderamos a los creadores de empleo la economía se elevará y los Americanos regresarán a trabajar.

Este plan es un primer paso en una larga marcha hacia la restauración fundamental de una economía fuerte y de libre mercado. Y representa el tipo de reforma que necesitamos. Y amigos, tiene que venir de ustedes. Tiene que venir del pueblo americano. La verdadera esperanza está en ustedes.

Conclusión: Este plan es un primer paso en una larga marcha hacia la restaración fundamental de un mercado económico y libre. Y representa el tipo de reforma que necesitamos. Y amigos, tiene que venir de ustedes. Tiene que venir del pueblo americano. La verdadera esperanza está en ustedes. No es la “esperancita y cambio” que tanto oímos mencionar en el 2008. Esa lección la hemos aprendido todo. La verdadera esperanza no está en un solo individuo ni en un político ciertamente. Esa esperancita y cambio que le inculcaron al individuo cuando Barack Obama fue candidato.. Ella no creó un solo empleo en agosto. ¿No es cierto? Es la primera vez que esto ha ocurrido en los Estados Unidos desde la segunda guerra mundial. La verdadera esperanza viene de ustedes. Y ella viene de la realización que no hace falta un título para hacer una diferencia. Podemos volver a poner a este país en el camino correcto. Podemos lograrlo a través del empoderamiento del pueblo, dándonos cuenta que Dios ha bendecido con abundancia y riqueza natural a esta nación realmente excepcional, y luego hacemos algo al respeto de esa realización.

Copyright © Isabel Matos

In five days time, our President will gift us with yet another speech. In his next speech he’ll reveal his latest new super-duper “jobs plan.” It will have more lofty goals and flowery rhetoric, more illogical economic fantasies and more continued blame and finger-pointing. But listen closely to what he says. All of his “solutions” will revolve around more of the same – more payoffs for his friends and supporters. His “plan” is the same as it’s always been, and that’s grow more government, increase more debt, take and give more of your hard-earned money to special interests. And this is such a problem. But you know what the problems are. We could go on all day about the problems caused by the status quo in Washington. Status quo I think is Latin for “more of the same mess that we’re in.” That status quo won’t work any more. We could go on all day about the problems, but you know them because you live them everyday. So, let’s talk about real solutions. I want to tell you what my plan is. My plan is a bona-fide pro-working man’s plan, and it deals in reality. It deals in the way that the world really works because we must talk about what really works in order to get America back to work.

My plan is about empowerment: empowerment of our states, empowerment of our entrepreneurs, most importantly empowerment of you – our hardworking individuals – because I have faith, I have trust, I have respect for you.

The way forward is no more politics as usual. We must stop expanding an out-of-control and out-of-touch federal government.

This is first: All power not specifically delegated to the federal government by our Constitution is reserved for the states and for we the people. So, let’s enforce the 10th Amendment and devolve powers back locally where the Founders intended them to be.

Second, what happened to all those promises about staying committed to repealing the mother of all big government unfunded mandates? We must repeal Obamacare! And rein in burdensome regulations that are a boot on our neck. Get government out of the way. Let the private sector breathe and grow. This will allow the confidence that businesses need in order to expand and hire more people.

Third, no more run away debt. We must prioritize and cut. Cancel unused stimulus funds, and have that come to Jesus moment where we own up to the debt challenge that is entitlement reform. See, the reality is we will have entitlement reform; it’s just a matter of how we’re going to get there. We either do it ourselves or the world’s capital markets are going to shove it down our throats, and we’ll have no choice but to reform our entitlement programs. The status quo is no longer an option. Entitlement reform is our duty now, and it must be done in a way that honors our commitment to our esteemed elders today, while keeping faith with future generations. I don’t think anything has irked me more than this nonsense coming from the White House about maybe not sending our seniors their checks. It’s their money! They have paid into Social Security all of their working lives; and for the President to say, “ah, we may not be able to cut their checks,” ah, well, where did all their money go, politicians? It’s like the Commander-in-Chief being willing to throw our military under the bus by threatening that their paychecks may not arrive. But the politicians will still get their checks and their secure retirements, and he’ll still get his posh vacations. Aren’t you just sick to death of those skewed priorities? It’s all backwards. Our seniors and our brave men and women in uniform being used as pawns – I say it’s shameful, and enough is enough. No more.

Fourth, it is time for America to become the energy superpower. The real stimulus that we’ve been waiting for is robust and responsible domestic energy production. We have the resources. Affordable and secure energy is the key to any thriving economy, and it must be our foundation. So, I would do the opposite of Obama’s manipulation of U.S. supplies of energy. Drill here, drill now. Let the refineries and the pipelines be built. Stop kowtowing to foreign countries and dictators asking them to ramp up production and industry for us, promising them that we’ll be their greatest customer. No, not when we have the resources here. We need to move on tapping our own God-given natural resources. I promise you that this will bring real job growth, not the politicians’ phony “green jobs” fairy dust sprinkled with wishes and glitter… No, a hardcore all-of-the-above energy policy that builds this indestructible link between made-in-America energy and our prosperity and our security. You know, there are enough large conventional natural resource development projects waiting for government approval that could potentially create more than a million high-paying jobs all across the country. And this is true stimulus. It wouldn’t cost government a dime to allow the private sector to do these. In fact, these projects will generate billions of dollars in revenue. Can you imagine that: a stimulus project that actually helps dig us out of debt instead of digging us further into it! And these are good-paying jobs, and I know that from experience. For years my own family was supported (as Todd worked up on the North Slope) by a good energy sector job. America’s economic revival starts with America’s energy revival.

Fifth, we can and we will make America the most attractive country on earth to do business in. Here’s how we’re going to do this. Right now, we have the highest federal corporate income tax rate in the industrialized world. Did you know our rates are higher than China and communist Cuba? This doesn’t generate as much revenue as you would think, though, because many big corporations skirt federal taxes because they have the friends in D.C. who right the rules for the rest of us. This makes us less competitive and restrains our engine of prosperity. Heck, some businesses spend more time trying to figure out how to hide their profits than they do in generating more profits so that they can expand and hire more of us. So, to make America the most attractive and competitive place to do business, to set up shop here and hire people here, to attract capital from all over the globe that will lead to an explosion of growth, instead of chasing industry offshore, I propose to eliminate all federal corporate income tax. And hear me out on this. This is how we create millions of high-paying jobs. This is how we increase opportunity and prosperity for all.

But here’s the best part: To balance out any loss of federal revenue from this tax cut, we eliminate corporate welfare and all the loopholes and we eliminate bailouts. This is how we break the back of crony capitalism because it feeds off corporate welfare, which is just socialism for the very rich. We can change all of that. The message then to job-creating corporations is: We’ll unshackle you from the world’s highest federal corporate income tax rate, but you will stand or fall on your own, just like all the rest of us out on main street.

See, when we empower the job-creators, our economy will soar; Americans will get back to work.

This plan is a first step in a long march towards fundamental restoration of a strong and free market economy. And it represents the kind of real reform that we need. And, folks, it must come from you. It must come from the American people. Real hope is in you. It’s not that hopey-changey “stuff” that we heard about back in 2008. We’ve all learned that. And real hope isn’t in an individual. It’s not in a politician certainly. And that hopey-changey stuff that was put in an individual back when Barack Obama was a candidate – that hopey-changey stuff didn’t create one job in August, did it? That’s the first time that’s happened in the United States since World War II. Real hope comes from you. Real hope comes from realizing that we the people can make the difference. And you don’t need a title to make a difference. We can get this country back on the right track. We can do it by empowering the people and realizing that God has richly blessed this most exceptional nation, and then we do something about that realization.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics, sarah palin, Uncategorized