The Fraud of 'Fairness'

The United States Constitution is the greatest governing document in the history of man. It sets forth the guidelines for a free people to form a more perfect union.

It restricts what the government can do in limiting the individual pursuit of personal happiness.

It strives to guarantee an even start for all of the citizenry as they endeavor to lead their lives as they deem appropriate.

There is not a single paragraph, phrase or word which leads one to believe the Constitution guarantees equal outcome, or even a positive result of an individual pursuit of happiness.

Yet these seems to be a decided slant from the liberal realm and their sycophantic media hacks that continually engages in class warfare, and decries that the “system is not ‘fair’”.

Fairness is applauded as a goal, and if even a single working citizen does not have an equitable result in their labors, then the argument follows that the nation is being unfair.

It is time to call the liberals bluff and put to rest the great lie on fairness.

Consider this proposition.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics has estimated that there are roughly one hundred and thirty million (130,000,000) people employed. Take that number at face value, and without regard to the job or accompanying benefits package.

The stimulus package passed by the Democratic congress under the direction of President Obama totaled close to one trillion dollars.($1,000,000,000,000)The ineffectiveness of it has led to many to explain that it was insufficient, despite the fact it has had little significant effect on the economy. The projected budgets for the foreseeable future include deficits in excess of one trillion dollars per annum.

So again, take the 130,000,000 employed people.

Give them a tax free single payment of twenty five thousand dollars.($25,000)

The total cost would be three point three trillion dollars. ($3,300,000,000,000)

That would surely generate enough income back to the treasury as those 130,000,000 people began ordering goods and services, investing it, paying down bills – whatever they might choose. The effect of the $25,000 would be even greater to the individual, given that it is tax free money.

The question for this exercise would be thus:

If every one had an equal starting point, how many of them would reappear in a year, or less, requiring additional monies? How many would have lost the entire $25,000 and in some cases wound up losing even more in poor financial management?

Lest anyone think it would not happen, consider how many lottery winners have wound up destitute.

Take this example one step further. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates there are approximately two hundred million individuals total for the workforce – not under 18 years olds and not those over 65 years of age.

Given that greater number of people, this nation could only afford to grant $20,000 per person. That would bring the total outlay to four trillion dollars.(4,000,000,000,000)

For proper context:

The estimated national budget for fiscal year 2013 is three point eight trillion. ($3,800,000,000,000)

The estimate is just that, for the United States government has not passed a budget for more than three years.

So consider that given the growth of the debt, deficit and the national budget, surely this nation could absorb a $20,000 payment to each of the work eligible 200 million, right?

Would that not prove we were a fair and just nation?

For those who might actually consider this as a reasonable concept, pleased remember that there is no guaranteed equality of outcome.

What would one do for those who did not properly manage that initial outlay?

Yet this is exactly what America is doing each and every year – redistributing money to many who will simply require additional funds next year.

Note that this is not encompassing the children of this nation, those who are retired or legitimately disabled. This applies to only those the government considers eligible to work.

While the separation of church and state is not contained anywhere within the framework of the Constitution, proper and respectful deference must be made when using a saying attributed to the Chinese philosopher Confucius in a discussion on an issue of constitutionality in American democracy:

“Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.”

This nation must return to this perspective or we will drown in the flood of debt and deficit, which would not be fair to either ourselves or our posterity.

Terrorism in Libya & Egypt

The Obama administration has for the past week been stumbling over itself to demonstrate just how well they are equipped for providing self inflicted diplomatic wounds with the American people and our allies worldwide. They seem to have forgotten the classic guidelines of incompetence: the American people will forgive the mistake; it is the cover-up that does a politician in.

The mass media has for that time been their more than willing sycophantic accomplices.

The September 11^th attacks this year were to even the most marginally intelligent sentient being an orchestrated terrorist attack. Spontaneous mobs upset with an online, little seen video do not protest en masse with grenade launchers  and a detailed plan to capture and assassinate a United States ambassador.

Yet the continual stream of blathering idiocy continues to be that the actions taken in Egypt and Libya were merely Moslems upset with a video.

Secretary of State Clinton this week finally acknowledged the obvious, as did White House press secretary Carney, yet the President continues to assert his belief of the proven fraudulent premise of the video as being the cause of the unrest.

What has gone unacknowledged by the administration and their media sycophants however, is the source of these terrorist attacks.

To wit:

All such acts are committed by anarchists, cowards - in a word, terrorists.

Terrorists are not associated with any normal classification of ethnic, political or religious collectives.

Consider for a moment the reality of particular actions taken around the world in the last fifty years.

The American people must ask and answer these hard questions on certain types of events.

For example, was the September 15, 1963 bombing of Birmingham's Sixteenth Street Baptist Church, which resulted in the death of four innocent black girls, committed by Americans upset with the Civil Rights movement, or were they simply cowardly terrorists that had no connection with America and the American people?

Was the slaughter of the Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics in Munich really carried out by ‘Palestinian’ terrorists, or rather by cold blooded murders intent on only their anarchistic political views?

In the strife of Northern Ireland, was it really Christian’s against Protestants, and vice versa, bombing children, women, to achieve freedom for a group of people? Or was it the acts of hateful ignorant people with no allegiances to the people they professed to want to help?

Do true Christians, Protestants, Catholics really promote the death of innocents? Do any of those religions accept such actions as means to an end, especially a political one?

Do Americans actually allow the premise to perpetuate that true followers of Islam are accepting of the death of 3,000 Americans on September 11^th, 2001?

Do American condone the murders of abortion doctors as merely the acts of Christian extremists, or do Americans consider murder to be murder?

This is one of the dangerous aspects of what are euphemistically labeled as ‘hate crimes’. It attaches connection by presumed thought to a group of people who actually have no belief in the acts of cowardice and terror.

Was the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 the act of a white ex-military Christian who simply had only minor disagreements with governmental policy, or was Tim McVeigh merely an evil murderer?

This nation must cease branding acts of terror as being carried out by ‘Islamic extremists’ or even ‘Islamic terrorists’

Followers of Islam cannot be terrorists any more than Jews or Christians can be terrorists. Adherence to their faiths precludes such acts of terror.

For those who may consider the Koran a document of hate, please consider a literal reading of the Bible would demonstrate the ‘eye for an eye’ philosophy. Most religious people do not take such teachings literally.

This nation must not attribute acts of cowardice and hate as religious acts of zealotry in any context.

Terrorism is terrorism, perpetrated by evil people with no greater intent than to perpetrate evil.

It is just that simple.

9/11/12 - A Commentary

(ed.note – 9-11 is a time to reflect on the true nature of this greatest of nations. Events have obscured that fact this year and thus a personal commentary is appropriate)

September 11^th is a day that transformed America while focusing a bright light on much of what is so uniquely good about this nation.

The Madison Conservative would suggest watching two videos, links posted below, to help remind the citizenry of those facts. The Madison Conservative does not mean to diminish any of the brave Americans and their heroic efforts on that day and on every day since by singling out the firefighters of these videos, but the firefighters will always have a special place in the heart of the Madison Conservative.

343- We must never forget:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHayXNAuD8A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lT6tCQioI9E

The second issue relative to September 11^th this past week has to do with a vile, disgusting and intellectually dishonest op-ed piece written for ‘The New York Times’. The author will not be given acknowledgement by name in this post; such putrid and insipid nonsense merits author identification.

The purveyor of this literary pornography attempted to place blame for the attacks solely on the shoulders of President George W. Bush.

Such outright lies should be discarded on their face, but this op-ed made its way into the presentations and discussions of the mainstream media and so will be refuted here and now, and hopefully for time immemorial.

The first attack on the World Trade Center was in 1993, under the administration of Democratic President William Jefferson Clinton, the convicted perjurer. Our African embassies were bombed in 1996, under the same impeached president. Both cases brought about gravitas statements that the perpetrators, known to be Al Qaeda, would be brought to justice.

The U.S.S. Cole was attacked in 2000, resulting in the murders of 17 active on duty United States servicemen. The cowardly President did nothing, save for more stern proclamations that justice would be brought to bear.

Consider the mindset of a terrorist that just attacked a naval vessel that resulted in no retribution, no measure of retaliation. Of course they would consider bigger and bolder targets. The planning for 9/11 did not occur after the inauguration of President Bush, but rather under the administration of the sexual predator-in-chief.

The Madison Conservative does not intend to place specific blame upon the borderline treasonous President Clinton; the ability to attack this nation lies in the fact that we are a free and open society.

The point here is that if the imbecilic minds that traffic in an op-ed and accept its premises as fact, then the facts must be clearly presented. If there is specific blame to be placed for the potential of a 9/11 attack, then it must be placed solely at the feet of the Clinton administration.

President Bush made many mistakes in dealing with the war on terror, and 9/11 prevented history from knowing what a Bush administration might have accomplished, but in no way can he be held accountable for the attacks.

Such claims are an affront to the American people and must be challenged each and every time they are presented as an historical  fait accompli.

The Madison Conservative extends the offer to publicly debate this issue with the intellectually dishonest purveyor of the Bush accountability claim.

Lastly, while it is too soon to assess the root causes and governmental culpabilities of the September 11^th, 2012 attacks in Libya & Egypt, this point must be made.

The Obama administration is making the claim that a little viewed online movie trailer is responsible for the violence perpetrated upon this nation this past week, and that the assassination of our ambassador to Libya and the breaching of our embassy in Egypt is tied solely to the aforementioned video. The assertion is that the anniversary of 9/112 and none of the administration policies are tied to the violence.

The absolutely ridiculous nature of such a position is belied by the facts as we currently know them.

The American people deserve better than what they are being offered in the way of true leadership.

The Madison Conservative will address these issues in future blogs, before the November election.

Conventional Summation

The two major political parties, private corporate entities, have finally finished their taxpayer supported conventions.

For those who may have believed there might have been presented any solutions of substance for the American electorate in these examples of self indulgent pomp, it must be acknowledged that nothing of national consequence was accomplished in either convention.

The Republican Party  succeeded in presenting Mr. Romney as a nice person, a man with a lovely wife and as a man who has the basic qualifications to ascend to the presidency. That obviously necessitated four days of collective nonsense. There was nothing put forth as specific policies for the nations woes and no clear vision for the future. There were pointless ad hominum attacks leveled at President Obama and the Democrats in general. It may have made for enjoyable political theater but it also showcased just how vestigial the current political party structures have become. In a nation of over 350 million, there surely must be more than two electoral options for the American electorate.

The Democratic Party found ways to create an impression of  dysfunction amidst the self proclaimed 'most inclusive convention in history'. Rather than addressing the concerns of the nation, they opted to get mired in platform language that centered on the omission of 'God' and language pursuant to the nation of Israel and Jerusalem.

Again, it made for comical political theater, but had nothing to do with the problems facing America.

The sole truly disgraceful aspect of the Democratic convention was their choice of nominating speaker and how the media fawned over the presenter, heaping effusive praise on a man who is a convicted perjurer, a man who opted to molest a woman not much older than his daughter - in the Oval Office - and who as commander in chief exhibited the clearest case of cowardice and treason. William Jefferson Clinton allowed the murder of 17 active duty Navy personnel to go unanswered for whatever calculated reasons he may have had. To the Madison Conservative, he was, and is, a coward and to have him lionized on a national stage is an affront to freedom everywhere and a slap to our military past, present and future.

All that being said, presented here is an abbreviated version of what the Madison Conservative had hoped to hear from either political quarter - further exploration of these issues will be forthcoming:

BUDGET - Before any conversation can be had on the budget, a baseline accounting must be established - how much does the government spend on paper clips? Once that starting point is established, an intelligent debate can begin on how to address the financial future of the nation.

DEBT - We must prioritize our debt to be addressed immediately. Primarily, we must repay all our foreign debt so that we are not under the financial stresses of any other nation. The debt is more than a fiscal burden - it is a matter of national security. Once the baseline budget is established, 35% of all found budgetary overages and the accompanying savings  must  be utilized to pay down the foreign debt. Once that is accomplished, it will allow the Treasury to restructure the debt so that it can be safely managed and paid down over a reasonable amount of time.

NATIONAL SECURITY - We need to return to Teddy Roosevelt's' catchphrase - "Speak softly and carry a big stick". America must honor its commitments to our allies, but we must cease to being drawn into conflicts around the globe - that is the business of the United Nations. For those who believe that America must help those in need, the question becomes where to stop. There is pain and anguish the world over - we cannot solve and fix everything. America should adopt a retaliatory stance  - we will support any nation that has been attacked, regardless of the aggressor. 

THE MILITARY - We must prioritize the military within the framework of Veterans Affairs. The Madison Conservative has spoken of its admiration and respect for entities such as The Wounded Warrior Project, but these organizations should not have a need to exist. We must support those who take up arms in defense of this nation. That compact is not merely for the duration of service, but in an age where Senators have a private subway system, how does America allow its veterans to, in essence, plead for the help they need via television commercials. There is no greater organization for good in the world than the United States Military, and we must fully support them. It is that simple.

EDUCATION - We spend more per student than any other nation on the planet. It is not an issue of money that is impeding our students. It is a system that rewards failure. There are more than sufficient anecdotal stories demonstrating how the students in charter schools are far surpassing their public school contemporaries. The answer is not to dismantle the public school system, but rather to first reform it. The most immediate issue is to remove the concept of tenure. A job for life without metrics of performance is beyond bizarre. 

GAY MARRIAGE, ABORTION, & ALL THE OTHER SOCIAL ISSUES - The framers wisely left all responsibilities not assigned to the federal government as solely the realm of the states. The federal government has no business being involved in anything not within the framework of the Constitution. Therefore, all the blather associated with such issues, while important to large parts of the electorate, must be returned to the state houses. The overreach of previous administrations have led many to believe that the federal government is responsible for addressing issues that in reality it has no vested constitutional 

interest, and therefore must not be allowed to obscure the real business of the federal bureaucracy.

That is a thumbnail overview and summation of what the Madison Conservative was hoping for, from any participant of either of the conventions.

It would have been much more helpful than hearing for two weeks that the Mitt Romney is a nice guy but that the Democrats want to overthrow the Constitution in favor of a European socialist model, or that President Obama had unprecedented issues on everything that were President George Bush's fault and that Mitt Romney wants your grandmother to die in the street from a lack of proper health care.

Such nonsense - the American electorate must demand better and can do so this November at the ballot box.

Labor Day 2012

The Madison Conservative has analyzed the Republican Convention. The blog will return next week after the Democratic Convention to provide constitutional context, if any, between and amongst the political parties based upon their respective assemblages.

A Conventional Perspective

The Madison Conservative has long attempted to make the fundamental point that political parties, any and all of them, are not government and should have no input or connection with government. The mass media and their ignorant flacks continually attempt to convey that America as founded is a two party system.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Consider for a moment President Washington’s’ farewell address wherein he warned the fledgling nation of the baneful effects of party. To allow the polarizing effects of politicians to infect the body politic is anathema to freedom and American democracy.

That point being made, it is unavoidable to assess the two national conventions as they unfold over the next few weeks.

The Madison Conservative will gauge the conventions from the perspective of which major political party will keep to the principles set forth in our founding document, the greatest set of governmental limitations the world has ever known – the United States Constitution.

We willl return after the conventions to provide commentary and perspective on what should be the adopted policies from each political platform.

To further make the point, however, that those in elective office do not seem to understand that America is not a nation of political parties, but a nation of free people, the following article posted on a local CBSNEWS.com site, presented here in an edited form to keep to the more salient points, provides valuable insight into the underlying differences between the political parties and their respective presidential campaigns.

To wit:

The Democratic National Committee has informed a Connecticut town it will not be reimbursed for the thousands of dollars the city spent on costs for President Obama's fundraising visit earlier this month.

Gordon Joseloff, the first selectman of Westport, says he was informed this week the town's request to have the DNC and Obama for America cover the $14,812 the city paid in police and fire overtime was denied.

The president traveled to the area on Aug. 6 to attend a fundraiser in Stamford and a $35,800 per person dinner at the Westport home of movie producer Harvey Weinstein.

Local officials even shut down two popular public beaches to accommodate the president. They closed the 238-acre Sherwood Island State Park so the president's helicopter could land, and also closed the roughly two-acre Burying Hill Beach -- adjacent to Weinstein's mansion.

The New Haven Register reports that an executive of the Democratic National Committee wrote that as a private organization it did not participate in security, traffic control, fire or emergency planning. She referred questions to the Secret Service.

Joseloff tells CBS New York he knew not to expect reimbursement for security costs during a private presidential visit, but pointed out the president raised $2 million for his re-election campaign during the trip.

"I think if somebody really wanted to do a good deed for the president, they could make a donation to cover the cost, get a tax deduction," Joseloff said according to CBS New York. "We'll be happy and hopefully they'll be happy."

This isn't the first time local officials have gotten in a dispute over payments for security costs to accommodate presidential candidates. The city of Newport Beach, Calif., for months has been trying to get the Obama campaign to pay $35,000 in security costs for a fundraiser earlier this year. According to the Los Angeles Times, though, the Romney campaign did reimburse the city for security costs at a Republican fundraiser.

In Westport, Joseloff added the president also had the opportunity to soften any hard feelings in the town about the visit's costs by holding a public event, such as visiting a nearby 9/11 memorial. He noted that though the memorial was just yards from where the president's helicopter landed, Obama did not visit it.

Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security - part one

This past week has provided more than sufficient evidence that there is a fundamental disconnect between the two political parties and specifically their presumptive nominees on the issue of funding Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.

For reasons that escape the majority of the electorate, there is being presented two absolutely diametrically opposed realities of the financial health of these programs, both short term and for the future, despite the universally bipartisan accepted  truth that all of the programs are facing imminent financial distress.

President Obama claims that he has secured the future for the foreseeable future without changing the benefits provided for anyone.

Mr. Romney and Representative Ryan are presenting that their vision includes not changing it for today’s’ recipients, but if enacted, their policies will provide secure benefit options for all future recipients.

To clarify – both candidates claim that their respective solutions leave the present unaffected but the future secure and that their opponents are intent on throwing the elderly off of cliffs, under buses and generally leaving them destitute in the street.

This is not possible; both versions cannot be true.

One party is obfuscating the facts to a much greater degree than the other.

In short, someone is lying to the American electorate.

The principle charge against the President is that he has taken some seven hundred billion dollars from Medicare to fund the needs of the Affordable care Act, principally we are told by employing the granddaddy of all canards – “cutting waste fraud and abuse”.

The fact is that many a federal budget has been created by promising revenue from that particular source: this nation currently has a fourteen billion dollar debt with expectations of adding to that debt by one trillion dollars a year for the foreseeable future.

There cannot have been sufficient amounts of ‘waste, fraud and abuse’ in the history of man to provide sufficient revenue to address that level of fiduciary malfeasance.

Mr. Romney and congressman Ryan are presenting a scenario wherein those currently in the Social Security and Medicare programs will remain unencumbered by any changes, for they and those over the age of 55 are exempt from their plan. Those Americans aged 54 and under will have the option to remain in the programs as they exist or choose from a new slate of options, currently proposed to include the health care options afforded to all government employees. Their plan also calls for the repeal of the Affordable care Act and to return the seven hundred plus billions of dollars to Medicare that the President has accounted for in his plan.

As these two opposing concepts cannot coexist as a solution to the pressing issues, the Madison Conservative will attempt to provide factual context for both plans in upcoming blog posts.

As a matter of stated principle, the Madison Conservative is a proponent of smaller government, in the model envisioned for America by the framers and the founders, so it can be anticipated that there will be an objection based upon the supposition that ours will be a biased presentation of the two plans.

It is our intent to provide as much factual information as possible before providing an assessment of which plans adheres to the American sensibility of  freedom.