Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Picking Presidential Administration Appointments

When President Reagan first became president he and his staff spent a lot of time discussing appointments to key jobs in the administration. Here are his words about picking them:

As I had done in California, I told the staff I wanted them to look for the best people we could find who were willing to leave their homes and their secure positions to come to Washington and give the country a hand. When I’d approach somebody about taking a job, I’d often say, “We don’t want people who want a job in government, we want people of accomplishment who have to be persuaded to come to work here.”

Source: The Uncommon Wisdom of Ronald Reagan. A Portrait in His Words. (1996) by Bill Adler [editor]

In other words, President Reagan wanted someone who did not dream of working in government. It’s too bad we can’t get people running for Congress or even for president like this. Most want to have power not to serve. If you have a candidate that was reluctant of running but had experience and accomplishment in oh, I don’t know say the private sector (excluding trial lawyers—we have enough of those in Congress thank you) then you  would less likely end up with a career politician addicted to the power and money who think they are part of an elite ruling class.

Or you wouldn’t end up with a POTUS who has daydreams of being a dictator. In previous blogs I joked about calling him an emperor. I guess my jokes weren’t too far off the mark.

Monday, July 18, 2011

Thanks legislators, higher energy bills are on the way

From ConservativeActionAlerts.com (July 15):

Legislators in more than half the states have voted for mandatory renewable energy standards—usually called an RPS for Renewable Portfolio Standards. While the numbers vary state-by-state, an RPS generally requires that an increasing percentage of a state’s electricity come from renewable sources—primarily wind and solar—by set dates. Most of the mandates coincide with the year: 15% by 2015, 20% by 2020, etc. Most states voted in the RPS back when the economy was thriving and “green” energy sounded like a good idea—after all the wind and the sun are “free.” Voting against “renewables” was akin to not liking puppies. Elected officials from both parties have voted for their state’s RPS. But, renewable energy systems have not proven to be free, and most cannot survive without special mandates and subsidies paid for by your tax dollars.

Many different computer models were run to determine the least-cost way to meet the mandates. The results should not be surprising. The least-cost model was based on coal [my italics]—but it does not meet the mandates. The least-cost model that does meet the mandates requires the addition of wind, solar and gas-fueled power plants and shuts down some of the older, existing, fully functional, coal-fueled power plants. The model favored by advocates of “green” energy cuts out coal all together and requires the building of new gas-fueled plants for base load power and to back up the renewables. This third model is the most expensive and therefore is unlikely to be selected by the PRC. But even the mid-range plan will cost state residents more than a billion dollars—and this is just for required CO2 penalties, not the actual power-plant capital costs. That increase will be felt in everything and disproportionately hurts the poor. Not to mention the increased costs to the cities within the state which are trying to balance their budgets while keeping the lights on. [read more]

This is exactly what happens when environmentalism turns into a religion.

I believe it was Obama that said that energy bills are going to go up in the future. Was he forecasting or was he creating the future? You judge.

You can go to the Dept. of Energy’s States with Renewable Portfolio Standards webpage to see if your state is affected by these stupid standards.

Monday, July 11, 2011

The Government-as-God Concept

If you want to understand the Left’s superiority complex--their arrogance then you have to understand how they view gov’t even themselves. First, let’s make well-known assumptions about God:

  1. God is all-knowing (omniscience).
  2. God is all-powerful (omnipotent).
  3. God is everywhere (omnipresent).
  4. God is immortal.
  5. God is totally good.
  6. God is perfect.
  7. You should have faith and trust in God.

If you replace ‘God’ with ‘gov’t’ then you have the Left’s view of the world. Let’s flush this idea out some more.

All totalitarian regimes want to have the first three attributes—hence the word ‘total’ in the totalitarian. Socialists would like to have these attributes when they are doing central planning—like in Obamacare. If you could know or calculate the need/want of every person in a country (omniscience) you could give them (omnipotent) want they need/want.  Of course you would have to be everywhere (omnipresent) to do this. But mankind is none of the omnis so this dream of total control is just a dream.

If God is immortal and gov’t is like God then gov’t (or at least gov’t programs) should be or can be immortal. That’s what the Left believes. So, cutting gov’t programs or agencies that is not mandated in the Constitution is like harming God.  Well, just like people, gov’t is not immortal. The Roman Empire fell along with other gov’ts of the past. America could fall as well if we are not careful with our spending. The gov’t is immortal concept is why the Left justifies why the Federal Reserve can keep printing money without consequences.

The Left also believes that gov’t is totally good. Or can be made good and perfect through societal evolution or just the right kind of people (read: elites) running the country are chosen. Well, mankind will never be totally good and will never will be perfect. Ben Franklin as smart as he was tried to perfect himself. He failed. For every bad habit he got rid of two new ones appeared. So, if mankind is not totally good and perfect then neither can gov’t be either. Since man is not perfect he can be corrupted. And a man with power can increase his chances of being corrupted. The Left thinks that certain men (elites) can handle power without being corrupted. Maybe, a little power but once the power increases so does the corruption. And if the person is arrogant—triple the chances of him being corrupted. Because if he or she thinks they cannot be corrupted.

The Left wants people to have total faith and trust in gov’t. After all the gov’t knows better than you wants good for you. It is perfect, all-knowing, and good.  Just like God. Right? The Left would like people to believe that because they believe it. Most people on the far-Left thought Communism was a good idea but was implemented wrong—or wasn’t given enough time to get the quirks out. This is the same excuse given to all the gov’t programs that have failed. Just give them more money and more time. Well, money doesn’t just pop into existence and more time isn’t going to fix a system that doesn’t make any logical sense.

Taken to the final extreme if gov’t is God then all other religions can be outlawed. Because you cannot have two Gods. This happened in the Soviet Union and is still happening in China.

Monday, July 04, 2011

The Inspiration of the Declaration

Happy birthday America! Below are parts of a speech that President Calvin Coolidge gave July 5, 1926 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania:

We are obliged to conclude that the Declaration of Independence represented the movement of a people. It was not, of course, a movement from the top. Revolutions do not come from that direction. It was not without the support of many of the most respectable people in the Colonies, who were entitled to all the consideration that is given to breeding, education, and possessions. It had the support of another element of great significance and importance to which I shall later refer. But the preponderance of all those who occupied a position which took on the aspect of aristocracy did not approve of the Revolution and held toward it an attitude either of neutrality or open hostility. It was in no sense a rising of the oppressed and downtrodden. It brought no scum to the surface, for the reason that colonial society had developed no scum. The great body of the people were accustomed to privations, but they were free from depravity. If they had poverty, it was not of the hopeless kind that afflicts great cities, but the inspiring kind that marks the spirit of the pioneer. The American Revolution represented the informed and mature convictions of a great mass of independent, liberty-loving, God-fearing people who knew their rights, and possessed the courage to dare to maintain them.

as not because it was proposed to establish a new nation, but because it was proposed to establish a nation on new principles, that July 4, 1776, has come to be regarded as one of the greatest days in history. Great ideas do not burst upon the world unannounced. They are reached by a gradual development over a length of time usually proportionate to their importance. This is especially true of the principles laid down in the Declaration of Independence. Three very definite propositions were set out in its preamble regarding the nature of mankind and therefore of government. These were the doctrine that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights, and that therefore the source of the just powers of government must be derived from the consent of the governed.

It was the fact that our Declaration of Independence containing these immortal truths was the political action of a duly authorized and constituted representative public body in its sovereign capacity, supported by the force of general opinion and by the armies of Washington already in the field, which makes it the most important civil document in the world. It was not only the principles declared, but the fact that therewith a new nation was born which was to be founded upon those principles and which from that time forth in its development has actually maintained those principles, that makes this pronouncement an incomparable event in the history of government. It was an assertion that a people had arisen determined to make every necessary sacrifice for the support of these truths and by their practical application bring the War of Independence to a successful conclusion and adopt the Constitution of the United States with all that it has meant to civilization.

Placing every man on a plane where he acknowledged no superiors, where no one possessed any right to rule over him, he must inevitably choose his own rulers through a system of self-government. This was their theory of democracy. In those days such doctrines would scarcely have been permitted to flourish and spread in any other country. This was the purpose which the fathers cherished. In order that they might have freedom to express these thoughts and opportunity to put them into action, whole congregations with their pastors had migrated to the colonies. These great truths were in the air that our people breathed. Whatever else we may say of it, the Declaration of Independence was profoundly American.

We are too prone to overlook another conclusion. Governments do not make ideals, but ideals make governments. This is both historically and logically true. Of course the government can help to sustain ideals and can create institutions through which they can be the better observed, but their source by their very nature is in the people. The people have to bear their own responsibilities. There is no method by which that burden can be shifted to the government. It is not the enactment, but the observance of laws, that creates the character of a nation.

No other theory is adequate to explain or comprehend the Declaration of Independence. It is the product of the spiritual insight of the people. We live in an age of science and of abounding accumulation of material things. These did not create our Declaration. Our Declaration created them. The things of the spirit come first. Unless we cling to that, all our material prosperity, overwhelming though it may appear, will turn to a barren scepter in our grasp. If we are to maintain the great heritage which has been bequeathed to us, we must be like-minded as the fathers who created it. We must not sink into a pagan materialism. We must cultivate the reverence which they had for the things that are holy. We must follow the spiritual and moral leadership which they showed. We must keep replenished, that they may glow with a more compelling flame, the altar fires before which they worshiped.