Rebate or Welfare?

A rebate, as defined by Dictionary.com, is "a return of part of the original payment for some service or merchandise; partial refund." President Bush and Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi have negotiated an economic stimulus package designed to stave-off a recession. The economic package has often been cited as a tax "rebate" by politicians and the media, but it is clear that this stimulus does not fit the definition of a rebate.

America's central government has already spent its citizenry's tax dollars. In fact, all of the taxes the government has collected did not meet the government's spending needs. So where does the money for this "rebate" come from? The government will have to borrow, tax, and or print more money to come up with the funds for this stimulus package.

All of these options first hinder the economy before stimulating it, and never mind the fact that it does not come close to the dictionary definition of a rebate. An actual rebate of taxes paid would be fantastic, but because that is impossible this really is just another government spending program. It is in essence welfare for all, except those the government deems to be unworthy. Its referred to as a rebate because many Americans, especially those with any knowledge of the principles of the Constitution, my object otherwise.

Yet virtually everyone will take their government checks and cash them without a second thought. Who can resist a free hand-out; especially cash? Be forewarned, the politicians in Washington (both Republican and Democrat) will in the near future call on you to "sacrifice" and absorb a tax increase to pay for this exercise in true Socialism.

An Oath to Reaganism or the Constitution?

While the Republicans worry about upholding the principles of former President Ronald Reagan, the principles of the Constitution continue to take a beating. The hot topic of the most recent Republican presidential debate was Ronald Reagan and whether the candidates believe his principals were still being practiced by today's Republicans. In fact, other than Ron Paul, not one candidate mentioned the Constitution during the debate. It is apparent that dedication to Reagan and his principles takes precedent over the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution for today's neoconservatives.

Reagan's foreign policy is one of essentially imperialistic pursuits, or at least that is how it is carried out by today's Republican leaders. Neoconservatives feel there are no limitations to where or in what circumstances the United States should use its power and influence so long as it is in the best interest of the country. Yet, the purpose of the Constitution is to limit the power of the central government thereby ensuring each individual enjoys life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It is in the best interest of the country that all three branches of government make good on their oaths to the Constitution, which clearly states that only Congress can declare war. Presently, even government agencies like the C.I.A. and F.B.I. conduct covert military actions in foreign countries, and most Americans think nothing of these gross violations. The politicians in the legislative branch are too worried about being re-elected to truly make a decision on whether or not to officially declare war. Instead, they insulate themselves from repercussions by granting the executive branch broad authorities for military actions such as the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution or the Iraq Resolution (America has not been in an officially declared war since World War II).

President Bush has taken his kingly war powers to the next level by adopting a policy of preemptive war. Of course, this preemption should be based on knowledge of factual evidence of impending harm to the United States. It was Thomas Jefferson who said, "how much pain they have cost us, the evils which have never happened." Jefferson, unlike Reagan or Bush, was one of the writers of the Constitution.

Ron Paul Excluded Part 2

The word is Fox has excluded Ron Paul from the New Hampshire debate because they do not have enough room in the debate facility. Anchors on Fox have also openly stated that Paul will not be President and have said the network simply wants to spend more time on the issues by narrowing the participants. They report, you decide? I think not. It has become apparent the true reason Ron Paul is not invited to the debate is because the executives at Fox do not agree with his policies.

It is impossible to overstate the dangerous precedent this sets for the future of elections in this country. The media already has a far too powerful influence on our election process. Fox's exclusion of Paul robs him of an opportunity that every other Republican candidate will enjoy; an opportunity to explain his views and illustrate the difference between himself and the other candidates. It is no coincidence that this stolen opportunity will take place in a state that Paul could conceivable finish in the top three: New Hampshire.

It is not a question of having more time to focus on the issues. This assertion is completely disingenuous, and is really an assertion of dollars over credibility. Fox need only to increase the length of the debate to spend more time on the issues. Of course, this would require the network to put the importance of the presidential election over the importance of advertising revenue for one night. I am sure Fox would counter that people will not watch a four-hour debate. However true this might be, it is irrelevant. The onus is on Fox to do its job. Remember, "We report, you decide."

The Republican National Committee has withdrawn as a partner in the debates because of Fox's exclusions. It is reassuring that the network's actions have not gone unnoticed by the Republican Party leadership. We can only hope that media also appreciates the magnitude of this precedent and lambastes both Fox and ABC.

Ron Paul Excluded by Fox

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has surpassed the expectations of many. He has gone from a relatively unknown candidate to one who attracts hordes of enthusiastic supporters at every one of his speaking engagements. Paul apparently leads all Republican candidates in fundraising for the fourth quarter of 2007 and finished with 10% of the vote in the Iowa caucus. Paul finished ahead of Rudy Giuliani in Iowa and his performance is even more impressive when you consider his Libertarian views against the evangelical Christians who carried Mike Huckabee to victory in the state. Paul easily passes any test of a credible candidate for President, but Fox News has excluded him from their next presidential debate just prior to the New Hampshire primary.

Fred Thompson has been invited to the Fox News debate; Ron Paul leads Thompson in most New Hampshire polls. Although one must respect Fox News' rights as a private organization hosting a private debate, one can hardly consider the debates, or now Fox News' coverage of the presidential race, as credible. There really is no justification for not inviting Paul to the debate other than the top executives at Fox deciding they don't want him there. This is hardly "fair" or "balanced." The network is essentially signaling their viewers that Ron Paul should not be considered as a viable candidate for President.

Fox News is therefore influencing the presidential race. Their decision to exclude Paul shows no impartiality. In addition, it appears that ABC news has also chosen to limit the participants of its upcoming debate. These decisions by two major news agencies are dangerous because they set a precedent of the media selecting who is worthy of the public's attention. Had the media taken such actions earlier in the year, Mike Huckabee might not have been the winner in Iowa.

It is possible that in the future the list of candidates will be narrowed by opinions in the boardroom rather than naturally by candidates voluntarily dropping out of the race. The smart candidates will make an issue of this situation, or they may find themselves on the outside looking in. As for myself, I will no longer rely on Fox or ABC for any news on the election.

Shouldn't Teachers Know the Rules?

Recently a British teacher named Gillian Gibbons was arrested in Sudan for "insulting religion" and "inciting hatred." Gibbons apparently allowed her second grade class to name a Teddy Bear Muhammad. Muhammad is a common name among Muslim men, but giving the prophet's name to an animal is viewed as an insult. Gibbons faced a harsh penalty for her ignorance and there were crowds at her trial demanding she be executed. Instead, Gibbons was sentenced to fifteen days in prison and deportation. She was eventually freed and sent back to England when that country issued two diplomats to negotiate her release. There has been tremendous outrage, and rightfully so, over the Sudanese reaction to the whole "crime," but what about Gibbon's duties as a teacher?

Teachers are responsible for a child's education, and that entails teaching children about the culture of which they are a part. Gibbons decided that she wanted to teach in the largely Muslim country of Sudan, which means she should have some knowledge of Islam and of Sudanese culture. The controversy surrounding Gibbons indicates that perhaps she did not understand as much as she thought. Insulting Muhammad is probably the last thing you want to do as a visitor in a Muslim country, and as a teacher Gibbons should have taught her pupils that naming an animal (Teddy Bears included) after the prophet is not kosher. Gibbons later commented that she went to Sudan for an "adventure." Well, mission accomplished.

Heed Hugo Chavez's Warning

Recently Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez asserted that if the United States covertly worked to destabilize Venezuela, or more specifically Chavez's authority, he would cut off his country's supply of oil to the U.S. The U.S. should take Chavez's assertion seriously because there is little doubt that the longer he remains in power the more unstable Venezuela will become. Although the U.S. has become notorious for its foreign intervention, Venezuela's destabilization will arise from Chavez's own socialist policies.

Chavez's abhorrence of capitalism and U.S. policymakers is well documented, so it is no great leap to deduce that he will blame the impending economic catastrophe in Venezuela on U.S. meddling. Chavez has instituted price controls and grabbed private property and businesses. His assault on the free-market has led to food shortages and inflation. Chavez's response to these predictable consequences has been to blame capitalists and individualists (read the United States) rather than to examine his own economic policies.

Chavez's apparent lack of comprehension of basic economics will, in the not too distant future, lead to a economically weaker Venezuela. The United States should therefore prepare for the day when Chavez cuts off oil deliveries in a vain attempt to win back support from the Venezuelan populace, who will no doubt demand an explanation for the turmoil he will have brought upon them.

Many may argue that Venezuela needs American dollars too much to cut-off their supply of oil to the United States. There are two problems with this point. First, it rests on the assumption that Chavez will be grounded by logic. Chavez has repeatedly shown that the only logic he follows is that of a tyrant. Second, it does not take into account the growing demand for oil from China, which is at the moment experiencing nationwide fuel shortages. Granted, the logistical complications of transferring Venezuelan oil supply from the U.S. to China are substantial; but one can never underestimate a motivated tyrant trying to hold on to power.

The United States currently receives about 11% of its oil from Venezuela. Any significant change in the supply of oil from Venezuela means the U.S. would either need to rely more heavily on other suppliers or find alternative energy sources. The prospects of either option becoming a desirable and feasible substitute to Venezuelan oil over a short period of time are not good. The U.S. economy would feel the effects over the loss. The CIA may be wiretapping Chavez's phone calls as we speak.

The Baggy Pants Crusade

Several cities across the country are discussing plans to ban baggy pants. Apparently, some people find baggy pants offensive, so offensive that those that wear them should be considered criminals. It seems that for most it's more about the exposed underwear underneath the baggy pants than the baggy pants itself. The contention is that the fashion is indecent, but this is one of the most ridiculous, absurd, and unenforceable laws in recent memory.

Aside from defining exactly what is considered "baggy," there are several practical reason why this is a complete waste of time and tax-payer money. In addition to defining "baggy" the law would also have to define "underwear," or I could simply wear shorts or bathing suit bottoms under my baggy pants to skirt the law. What about topless joggers? I am regularly offended my men jogging with no shirts on, and even men who aren't jogging with no shirts on. I propose that all men should have to wear shirts in public. Then we would have to stop people who wear baggy clothes for work, like painters or basketball players. The law must be enforced equally.

Why stop at baggy pants? Lets ban long dark trench coats, ear muffs, bow ties, and those waist pouches. I find these fashions outdated, offensive and or weird, and I'm sure several other people do also. In fact, why don't we require everyone to wear blacks slacks and white collared shirts. Then we won't have to worry about spending our time and money on these very important fashion laws. I feel safer and less offended already.